You Might Be In Serious $%#@ For Refusing To Be TSA Screened

Did you assume that once you got to the airport, if the TSA was doing something you didn’t like, you could just opt-out and decide not to fly? The answer is — nope. According to CNN and the TSA, a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals compels all passengers to be screened, whether they fly or not. Refusing screening will result in being denied access to secure airport areas and may result in civil penalties.

“Advanced imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers,” TSA said in a statement released Monday. “Passengers who opt out of [advanced imaging] screening will receive alternative screening, including a physical pat-down.”

But anyone who refuses to complete the screening process will be denied access to airport secure areas and could be subject to civil penalties, the administration said, citing a federal appeals court ruling in support of the rule.

The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says that “requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by ‘electing not to fly’ on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found.”

Meanwhile, backlash against the new scanners is growing. A “We Won’t Fly” day of protest has been established and the issue now has its own website.

Are you ready to stop flying over this?


Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. MamaBug says:

    What is up with the 3 articles on the TSA in one day thing going on here eh?

    • Marlin says:

      The TSA is getting a lot of heat as more of these machines come into useage. Rigth now there are only around 300 or so but supposed to be over 1000 by next year.

      Let alone all the stories and now video of what happens.

    • alstein says:

      Because this is beyond excessive, and if we don’t do something now and break this system- and let’s see the feds sue thousands of people, when are we going to do it.

      Hell, a mass opt-out would slow airline traffic to a crawl, which is what is needed. Hit everyone in the pocketbook until the feds and airlines cry uncle.

    • Red Cat Linux says:

      It’s build up to the Thanksgiving Security Side Show. Boy-Howdy, best git yer popcorn ready for that one, son.

  2. Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

    Oh wow. TSA, you’re just cruisin’ for a bruisin’ today, ain’cha?

    So not only are we not allowed to refuse the Backscatter, we’re not allowed to refuse to fly now?

    • Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

      ^ I meant to say “refuse screening” but I had a brainfart or something.

    • Pax says:

      It’s worse.

      If you refuse the backscatter and “enhanced” pat-down, you cannot fly.

      BUT THEY’LL SUE YOU, if you don’t consent to the enhanced-pat down while STILL being prevented from flying!!!

      • Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

        Oh, CIVIL penalties. I read that as ‘criminal’ the first time through.

        …Why is it civil penalties are anything but?

      • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

        Doesn’t make any sense – if you are prevented from flying WHY CAN THEY STILL SUE YOU?!

        • minjche says:
          • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

            I read the article but it still does not clarify *why* they can sue you.
            From what I understand of the signs I have seen posted in airports, the “leaving the secure area fine” is if you end up in restricted space when you aren’t supposed to, or somehow bypassing the security to get into the flight area (like that doofus earlier this year did and ended up causing the evacuation.)

            In this case, I believe the supervisor incorrectly applied that rule to this guy who had been escorted out the other direction.

            Are you to tell me that they will also sue you if you clear security, leave securely, possibly because you forgot something, and then pass through security again? That’s ludicrous! I’ve done this repeatedly – but admittedly before 9/11. My mom actually annoyed the hell out of some screeners at the old Ontario, California airport because she forgot that she was wearing a big metal button several times.

            • Gramin says:

              No, no, no. Per the 9th Circuit, if you attempt to to clear security, you must be screened, regardless of whether you enter a secure area or not. Their reasoning is that a terrorist might find a weak spot by attempting to enter and then refusing security screenings until he/she is successful at clearing security without being screened. An attempt to enter a secure area will result in a screen, regardless of whether or not you ever enter that secure area.

              • evnmorlo says:

                Terrible idea to rely on “security through obscurity,” but why only a civil penalty? Terrorists are pretty well funded and can afford thousands of $10k fines, even if they weren’t smart enough to do multiple dry runs with innocent hidden items before trying with the real stuff.

                • Firethorn says:

                  Actually, terrorists aren’t that well funded. Check out most attacks – you’re looking at less than $5k of cost in most cases. Vehicles used as bombs are rented, stolen, or the personal belonging of one of the terrorists who are looking to suicide.

                • Framling says:

                  Why would they even pay? “Oh, you’re suing me? I imagine the dead man whose identity I’ve stolen will be upset to hear that.”

                  It doesn’t act as a deterrent in any way. Is a terrorist going to hear that, and decide to just go through the screening, get caught, and be shipped off to Guantanamo because they can’t afford $10,000?

              • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

                Understandable, but in the case where you’re forcibly escorted out by an armed officer, but then not allowed to leave without being screened? Look up the definition of “recursion” – it applies here.

            • minjche says:

              You’re right that the linked article I provided doesn’t explain “why”. It’s just an example of it happening.

              The quoted text in this Consumerist article explains the “why”, or at least why the 9th circuit says so.

          • jeblis says:

            In this case they made him leave the secure area. So I’m not sure how far the civil suit will go.

  3. Darrone says:

    At some point TSA is going to become SkyNet right? They grow more powerful and less human by the day.

  4. jbandsma says:

    What’s next? Have to submit to screenings to pick someone up?

    • Tim says:

      Actually, most airports have signs telling you that if you drive onto the airport grounds, they (the airport or the TSA, I don’t remember) can search your car.

      • ludwigk says:

        Hey if this means I can actually park my car while waiting for my pick-up, I’d gladly consent to a search of my car instead of driving around SFO airport on/off ramps for 15 minutes..

        “Actually, you missed this part here! Oh, don’t forget to check in the wheel wells, and I keep a full-sized spare in here. Yep, real proud of that. Did I show you my first-aid kit?”

        **Looks around for friend I’m picking up**

        “Hey, wait up, I think there’s another glove compartment here… nope.. wait that doesn’t open… but I think I can get this panel off. Want to see my cup holders?”

        • runswithscissors says:

          Well sir, your car appears to be clean. Just one more thing (snaps on latex glove) and you’ll be on your way.

      • Difdi says:

        Just having a sign up doesn’t make it true. Which law permits it?

    • The cake is a lie! says:

      Don’t give them any ideas…

      The funny thing is, if I wanted to blow up a plane, going through security would be the last place I would go. Most airports have far more vulnerable ways to get things where they shouldn’t be than packing it in your carry on. They are putting on a show for the world to prove that we are safe because they are on top of it. No, we are LATE because they are on top of it. Keeping people paranoid is job security for them, so no way are they going to lighten up. It is going to get harder to get through security before it gets easier. Next steps: airport approved clothing. Just like checkpoint friendly bags, they will find a way to make clothing that will let you avoid the pat down. Probably an orange jumpsuit or something like that.

      • Tallanvor says:

        I think the lines themselves are a bigger risk. Think about what would happen if a group of terrorists coordinated suicide bombings in the security lines at, say, JFK, Laguardia, and Newark. It would effectively stop flights to and from New York for days, and could easily injure or kill hundreds.

        Obviously I do not advocate or condone such acts, nor would I ever plan or aid anyone in planning any such acts. Please don’t stick me on a no-fly list just for pointing out the stupidity of the TSA.

  5. YouDidWhatNow? says:

    If any of the charades that the TSA has you go through had any effect at all on your security, then they might have a foot to stand on.

    Unfortunately, nothing they have you do actually does anything to ensure your security…it’s all theater for the gullible.

    The TSA should be banned.

    • catskyfire says:

      And replace them with what?

      We know we have to have some security. Metal detectors (and security) went into place after hijackings proved effective. Someone has to run them…

      • zigziggityzoo says:

        Gut the program and start over.

        Let’s look to see how other countries manage to do things with the same level of effectiveness, shall we?

        There’s no reason we shouldn’t be able to get people from checkin to gate in under 30 minutes, no matter what the volume.

        • Pax says:

          Chemical sensor wands, or bomb-sniffing dogs.

          Metal detectors.

          The current X-ray machines for baggage (those actually ARE improved in efficacy,AFAIK).

          All of these would be more effective than they were intrusive. You show your I.D. to an officer, put your bag on the conveyor belt, empty your pockets into a plastic bin that goes next to your bag, step through the metal detector, and either (a) smile and pet the friendly dog who sniffs your hands and legs, or (b) pause with your arms out from your sides for a moment while a TSA agent quickly waves a wand-like device up and down your sides, arms, chest, and back.

          Whoosh, in and out in a fraction of the currently-required time, a tiny fraction if the intrusiveness – and with ALL the effectiveness you can reasonably hope to get from a checkpoint like that.

      • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

        It was fine when I was younger – before it was government mandated and controlled.

        Think back to all the SUCCESSFUL attacks – they’d still get through TSA right now.

      • BobOki says:

        Why do you think there needs to be a 3rd party involved in the first place?
        The metal detectors and bomb sniffers were plenty to meet a reasonable amount of security. I think a huge issue people are having is the expectation of 100% guaranteed safety. You want more safety, then tell your govt to stop pissing off radical countries. These guys don’t attack us “because of our freedom” they attack us because we have playing with their lives for decades, coming on their land, killing their children and wives.
        Back to the point of security, these stops, scanners, patdowns offer us no more security than what we had before. Normal scans and maybe a officer on board the plane should be more than plenty, and it has for many years now. If you want to slowly erode people of their freedoms, the only way you can do it is by keeping them in fear, or expectation of harm, what a better way to do that then to have a company like the TSA continually bringing up how volatile our airspace can be forcing you to consent to unreasonable and humiliating steps which provide no added security. He that gives up freedom for security deserves neither, and that is just what we are getting.

      • vastrightwing says:

        Replace them with no one. The threat is so minimal as to be almost non existent. I say, put out a campaign to have others simply watch for suspicious people and leave it at that. Yes, I’m willing to risk my life with the odds. Heck, airplanes crash from time to time and people still fly. People do all kinds of risky things. So, just tear down the scanners and let people go back to walking right up to the plane. Let the pilots carry some heat. I think that’s a much more reasonable approach. The theater we have now is ridiculous. There’s an industry now that depends on the insanity we’ve created, so I doubt it will get better in my lifetime.

      • tmac40 says:

        How many human lives worth of time has this process cost us? If 10 million people each waste an hour in pretend security, that is over a thousand years of wasted man hours. The terrorist have already won. We just didn’t realize what the goal was.

  6. Marlin says:

    Does not matter what the 9th said as a person can appeal it. I doubt TSA is going to fight it to hard as it would open to many doors if it came public they lost even one of these cases.

    • Tim says:

      You’d probably have to appeal it up to the Supreme Court, actually, since that’s the only court above circuit court.

      • hotdogsunrise says:

        If you live in the 9th circuit… other than that, it’s merely persuasive.

        • rambo76098 says:

          That’s what I was wondering: If you don’t live (and/or are flying thru an airport) in a state under the 9th’s jurisdiction, isn’t this bupkis since they are basing the civil fine off a ruling by the 9th?

    • Gramin says:

      Haha… wow. Agreed with TCama. This is a federal court with only the Supreme Court above it. And yes, the TSA, specifically Homeland Security and the United States, will fight it. This is the policy of the United States, not some random Joe from Alaska. By all means, big boy, you go ahead and sue the United States government and take that case to the Supreme Court. We’ll see how far you get. No small district court can issue a ruling in opposition to the 9th Circuit. Only SCOTUS can overturn this.

      • Marlin says:

        No the 9th was another case, and only covrs the 9th area.
        If TSA sues you that would start at the low level. If TSA even thinks it will lose then they would not even try it. I bet they will not sue anybody anytime soon. 1 lose is all it will take for more people to turn it down and fight with them, TSA.

        • Gramin says:

          You wouldn’t be suing the TSA… you’d be suing the United States. This isn’t a private organization that develops it’s own rules. It’s run the by the federal government, specifically Homeland Security, which is directly controlled by the United States. The US government isn’t going to run from a little lawsuit. There’s little to no chance that SCOTUS or any lower federal court is going to contradict the 9th.

          • Marlin says:

            FACEPALM.

            YOU, the searched person, would not sue. THEY, the Gov, would be suing. Did you read the article?
            IF they sue they have to prove their case let alone you put up a basic constitution search issue and rights violation.

            It’s a lose lose for TSA as the case along will bring a lot of heat and if they lose even one step of the way it will make them look bad. I highly doubt they will sue the person that did the recording and has made this a even hotter topic as it opens to many doors to make the TSA look bad.

      • Bill610 says:

        The 9th also has a reputation as the most overturned circuit court. While there are some mitigating factors (while they have the highest number of cases overturned, they also have a very high volume of cases), there seems to be some truth to that.

  7. MsFab says:

    Yeah…I love to travel but I quit. If I can’t get there in a car or a train then I’m not going.

    TSA serves absolutely no purpose except to bully citizens. I’m not going to be exposed to a ridiculous level of radiation, have my naked body seen by random strangers, or let some stranger fondle me just for the privilege of spending hours in a cramped seat with no food. No thank you.

  8. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    So by entering an airport you official give up your rights.

    Stellar.

    You stay classy, TSA.

  9. zigziggityzoo says:

    I will not be flying.

    I’ve got one question for the TSA: Where’s the warrant?

    • dolemite says:

      I still have a HUGE problem with the fact the government can seize and search your laptops/personal data items without a warrant or even a reason if you leave the country.

      • MrEvil says:

        The Nazis had similar tactics to catch fleeing Jews before WW2 broke out. After all, can’t exterminate an ethnic group if you aren’t checking to make sure they all aren’t just moving to a country where they are not being rounded up.

        Awwww shit, there I go proving Godwin right again.

  10. Robofish says:

    Scanners Scanners go away….

  11. Bladerunner says:

    Oh this ruling is just so AWESOME. Because 1, the screening is so effective anyway, 2, terrorists are going to hope for luck, and 3, the slim chance of a terrorist taking this route is worth more than people’s dignity.

    Because TSA is full of people, people not making a lot of money and given altogether too much power, it frequently abuses its power. And when TSA is abusing their power, according to this court, your only recourse is to…allow them to continue abusing their power?

    This will not stand in the Supreme Court. That, or I may reconsider my whole moving-elsewhere idea from when John Call-my-wife-a-cunt-in-public-and-also-accepted-bribes McCain had a chance of winning the presidency. I will not have my freedoms tossed away.

    • Scooby111 says:

      You do realize that McCain lost and Obama is President now right? It’s his appointees that are pushing for the body scanners and gropings. It’s his stimulus that payed for them in the first place. Are you so blinded by your political prejudice that you can’t see the facts?

      • Bladerunner says:

        You, sir, are an idiot. And I’m not one to stoop to ad hominem lightly, but you warranted the slur.

        1st, McCain would have done the same and more. He said as much.

        2nd, my point was: I may need to reconsider doing it again. Had McCain won, I would have moved, because hit country would have thrown away its freedoms and sanity. He did not win, and I abandoned the idea.

        However, since Obama won, you are correct in saying that our freedoms have continued to erode. If the Supreme Court upholds such a ridiculous thought, that once you step in you can’t step out until they let you, I may reconsider whether I need to leave a country with no freedoms. I am not blinded by my prejudice, you are blinded by your hatred of liberals (I’m guessing) to the point where you cannot read a post that insults your boy without misconstruing it. I am finding fault with Obama, though it’s worth noting that he’s merely continuing the policies and general direction of the previous administration (at least in regards to this).

        So please, don’t run around saying everyone is blind until you actually parse the sentences that you’re reading. Thanks, that’d be great.

  12. eturowski says:

    Needs a “No, but I’ll make a fuss until policies change” option in the poll.

  13. BigHeadEd says:

    “….makes little sense in a post-9/11 world”. So using that logic it would be OK in a “post Dec 7, 1941 world” to continue to incarcerate Japanese Americans?

  14. hypochondriac says:

    I don’t understand aren’t the secure areas the ones behind security? Non passengers aren’t allowed there anyway

  15. erratapage says:

    Refusing to fly is too limiting. I have chosen alternate transportation for at least half of my vacations since 9/11. We are going to Florida next week, and we added four days to our vacation to allow us to drive instead of fly. We did the same thing when we went to the east coast in June. The cost of driving vs. flying is often very close, especially if you can get a good deal on a rental car, with the disadvantage with driving being the stress and time associated with a long car trip. Right now, a car trip feels less stressful to me, so the decision to fly or drive is mostly about time.

    • grumpskeez says:

      We’ve been doing the same for a couple years now. Unless we have to leave the country we just factor in the extra days for train or car. Just not worth the hassle of dealing with TSA.

    • falnfenix says:

      agreed on all points, not to mention i won’t get a sinus infection from riding in the car, i can listen to whatever i want, and i’m spared from screaming children.

    • BobOki says:

      Good thing that flying car will be in production next year for 100-200k. it only requires 20 hours training, can easily be done on a weekend.
      Honestly, a vehicle that is road legal AND air legal that runs on unleaded fuel that can go 430 miles per tank, sounds like a great investment… and also sounds like it completely would be easier for a terrorist to just use their own craft to blow shit up.

    • AustinTXProgrammer says:

      For a family of 4 to travel by plane is very expensive. We stay within driving distance of home. Maybe that will change some day.

      I think all the security drives up costs. I don’t think it’s effective, but I don’t really care if someone sees my scan.

  16. Holybalheadedchrist! says:

    No one ever flew a train into a building. We need high speed trains if for no other reason than all the checked bag dumbness would go away and the screening would be less invasive. Oh, and it would be awesome for jobs–which is why Republicans oppose it, but I digress.

    • HogwartsProfessor says:

      Hear hear. I would LOVE to take a train trip.

    • IphtashuFitz says:

      No, nobody has ever flown a train into a building.

      But terrorists have blown up trains in London, Spain, Russia, and India, and have used poison gas in Japan.

      Just wait until that happens in the US then watch all the security theater the descends on every train & subway line in the country…

      • Consumeristing says:

        “But terrorists have blown up trains in London, Spain, Russia, and India, and have used poison gas in Japan.

        Just wait until that happens in the US then watch all the security theater the descends on every train & subway line in the country…”

        You sound smart, unlike the idiot hipster d-bag you responded to. Since the Spain train bombings, they also scan baggages as well if you board the AVE.

      • Bix says:

        Trains are the same risk as any large gathering of people. Planes are different for 9/11 projectile reasons.

    • dolemite says:

      I had a business professor in college that had an interesting tale about how at one time, trains were set to be our main form of transportation for people and goods over long distances, but lobbyists/kickbacks killed it, so now we have semis everywhere, and planes rule the roost.

    • AstroPig7 says:

      Well, if you set up an awesome ramp and painted flames on the side of the train…

    • CentralScrutinizer says:

      It took all of 10 minutes for the story to be used as an excuse for Republican bashing.

    • Darrone says:

      The movie Speed, ending, train, train station, RAMMING SPEED.

    • LastError says:

      Silly person, the TSA is at the train stations too. And smaller airports, charter air terminals, cruise ship terminals, and probably soon to the larger Greyhound bus stations.

      The only way to get around without the TSA being involved is to drive yourself, or drive your own plane or boat.

  17. Nikose says:

    Too many businesses and businesspeople rely on airports. 1 day of ‘nobody’ flying, or even a week of ‘nobody’ flying, won’t have any major impact, on profits or otherwise.

    There’s no solution I can think of, either.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Those two statements are 100% contradictory.

      • George4478 says:

        I think he’s saying businesses need to fly, so any no-fly boycott could not last long. The businessmen will always come back to the airports.

        When I traveled as part of my job, I could have boycotted for a day or two, but beyond that? Not without losing my job.

        • Framling says:

          Basically, any trips forgone as part of a boycott would be taken the day before or the day after. There’d be no net drop in the number of trips. It’s like those don’t-buy-any-gas-on-this-day things that used to go around every six months or so.

    • Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

      Then the businesses that rely on air travel to do business should petition the government to stop the TSA from unnecessarily harassing their employees while they go about their business.

      Or sue them for wasting company time ;P

    • graylits says:

      Yes businesses rely on air travel. However any business that now orders it’s employees to fly is ordering their employees to get groped or have nude pictures taken. That sounds like a case for sexual harassment. Some federal agency needs to get sued for subjecting their employees to TSA’s treatment.

      If businesses were required to offer alternate means of travel to their employees, things would get fixed.

    • mdr says:

      Go To Meeting, Microsoft Live Messenger, and + FedEx / UPS / etc We use it for demo’s that we used to have to travel for. We’ve had potential suppliers use that method for fairly expensive equipment.

      If you’re flying, you’re mostly wasting time and money.

      O’ course, the internet subjects you to the Federal Internet Monitoring Monster, unethical competitors, etc…

    • runswithscissors says:

      For a couple years now I’ve been weaseling out of flying whenever I can because it has become so lousy an experience all around. Time was that work would say “How about you fly down there and meet with them?” and I’d say “Sure, sounds good”. Now, if I can, I’ll instead offer alternatives like conference calls or virtual meetings and I’ll only go if it clearly is best for business and can’t be done any other way.

      I may not be in the majority, but I’d be sure there are more like me out there.

  18. Oranges w/ Cheese says:

    Luckily, the small regional airports I usually fly out of don’t deal with this sort of thing. But I fear the other end (Pensacola and / or Orlando International) might not be as friendly.

    • ubermex says:

      That seems likely. Orlando definitely has the newest stuff and Pensacola has a brand new airport, and those usually get the newest gear as well.

  19. BigHeadEd says:

    So the TSA is singlehandedly doing what terrorists and idiotic airline management has managed to do: namely making Americans not want to fly if they can at all avoid it. Brilliant.

  20. The cake is a lie! says:

    Here’s the thing though… Even if we had these machines and full strip searches, it wouldn’t have stopped the 9/11 attacks. TSA is being WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over paranoid about all this and it is a total waste of time and money. Nothing the terrorists used to destroy those buildings were things that have been removed from the planes or restricted through security. It is such a load of BS…

  21. GameHen says:

    How about another option on the poll that says, “I will not fly for personal travel, but unfortunately I have no choice when it comes to my job”?

    • cluberti says:

      +1 – I *have* to fly for work, as I generally get sent places on short notice with deadlines. It’s the nature of the job, and I can’t “just drive” or take a train from NY to, for example, California, and actually be there before the darned deadline. I won’t fly for personal travel at this point unless it’s overseas travel for these sorts of reasons, but there are those of us who have to fly for our employers or be replaced with someone who will.

  22. Grungo says:

    Bad poll options. I don’t like, AND I’m going to cause a fuss about it AND I’m going to continue to fly.

  23. sufreak says:

    We probably need to communicate to the airlines that we will not patronize them as long as the TSA keeps this crap up. Amtrak is starting to look better and better.

    • IphtashuFitz says:

      I live in the Boston area. My girlfriend semi-regularly flies to DC to visit a friend and used to also fly to NYC as well. Last summer she got me tickets to a Broadway show as a birthday present and I convinced her to try the Acela train from Boston to NYC instead of flying. She’d never really considered it in the past, but she thoroughly enjoyed the train ride. She didn’t realize how much space there was on the trains, how easy it is to get up and walk around, etc. Given all this TSA nonsense I think we’ll be much more likely to opt for trains in the future over flying.

      • dolemite says:

        We just need some 300+ mph high speed rail in our country now.

        • DarthCoven says:

          Not going to happen with our lovely new Republican majority in the House.

          • jason in boston says:

            Wouldn’t happen with the dems either. Unfortunately they both don’t have the balls to stand up to lobbyists.

            • huadpe says:

              If by lobbyists you mean homeowners, you’re correct. 300 mph trains require straight (or close to it) paths. The current US rail network has far too many tight corners to allow anywhere close to that kind of speed. Even the much slower Acela trains can only hit top speeds for short periods in between turns. Making a high speed rail network would require tearing down many houses to build new rail lines in and out of major cities, and that is why it won’t happen.

  24. rpm773 says:

    I don’t have a flight today, but I’m nevertheless heading down to the airport to be screened.

    You know, just to keep on the TSA’s good side and all.

    /s

  25. ubermex says:

    If this ruling stands, then they are definitely going to need a “you may not turn back once you pass this point” sign to keep from getting their pants sued off.

    • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

      the point of no return sign should probably be located right under the “abandon all hope, ye who enter here” archway

    • Tomas says:

      Buying a ticket is not consent to having one’s genitals fondled by some random government minion.

      Entering the security checkpoint is not consent to having one’s genitals fondled by some random government minion.

      At the point where he was specifically asked if he was going to allow it was the first point where he could legitimately consent or deny, and he denied.

      At that point, not earlier or later, the question had been asked and answered.

      By his refusal, and TSA’s subsequent refusal to allow him into the secure area, he made the decision not to fly that day.

      When he refuses consent he should simply be turned around and told to exit the checkpoint on the unsecure side.

      Why in Hell CAN’T he simply leave the area and not further attempt to enter the secure area. (What’s scary, though, is I don’t believe the $10K administrative fine can be challenged in a “real” court…)

      (I no longer fly. I will find other means or not go, thankyouverymuch.)

  26. crazedhare says:

    This is really an issue for me.

    Flying is part of my job, I have to fly for work. Sometimes frequently, sometimes less frequently. I expect to take 1 trip (comprised of four flights, but only 2 screenings) this week.

    Obvs., as the ante is upped, I need to consider a job that doesn’t require air travel. But I can’t instantaneously do that. So what DO I do?

    • ubermex says:

      This is the line of logic that’s gonna eventually kill this stuff. Unions can basically demand to be rented cars for business travel, since groping isn’t union approved work.

      • crazedhare says:

        Agreed. I wonder whether, in a job that requires air travel, OSHA or any other regulations might prevent my work from mandating I agree to the additional backscatter radiation exposure, for folks in general but especially for someone like me who has severe high melanoma risk. The opt-out pat downs/enhanced pat downs are more troubling. Certainly case law seems to suggest that in at will employment, an employer can essentially mandate an employee surrender rights as a condition of employment. But, does that extend to submitting to a groping? An employer would not be entitled to demand I submit to a groping from employer as a condition of employment – but what about the demand I submit to a groping from another person? Certainly, the TSA can’t be deemed to be any kind of agent of the employer, and I can’t cite but I would certainly think an employer can mandate an employee cooperate with law enforcement/abide by the law in the commission of his or her duties. What if the groping triggers a panic attack, or the x-rays trigger a reaction, is that a Workers Compensation claim if I am on company time while traveling? Certainly employers might get more interested in lobbying to ditch this stuff if they see dramatically increased WC claims as a result.

        All just intellectual meanderings.

        • ubermex says:

          Yeah, you’re definitely on the right track! At-will isn’t totally in the employers hands anyway, there are all sorts of things they can’t fire for, OSHA stuff among them. Employers can drug test, so it would get argued on those grounds, but someone might be able to establish that the scanner/groping somehow goes above that.

    • Shivv says:

      I would reserve judgment before you go through the process. You’ll probably find that the pat-down isn’t nearly as bad as you think it’s going to be, and you’ll keep your job (assuming you like your job and you don’t get offered anything higher paying).

  27. Oranges w/ Cheese says:

    Yeah, it sucks. I can have a stellar security experience at my local regionals but have to be subjected to this nonsense on the way back.

    Anyway, either they gotta make it consistent across the board or drop this charade – why is a metal detector safe from Grand Rapids, and not so from Orlando?

    Isn’t that why the terrorists chose Boston (Logan) anyway for 9/11? Because they knew security sucked?

    • KatieNeptune says:

      They chose Portland, ME because the security sucks. Which I love. Sure makes getting to your flight easier when the TSA folks are friendly and fast.

  28. Gravitational Eddy says:

    When Ms Neapolitano starts going through them on a daily basis. So far, I hear she’s refused and used the excuse that she’s been vetted at least once every day.
    NO, bad government employee. BAD. Where’s my switch?
    I’m sorry Ms Neapolitano, but when you screen even your congressmen and representatives at the entrance to their own offices, exactly how does that makes you “exempt”?
    Are you not aware of the failure of this totally bogus bit of theater in every aspect?
    Does it not seem the general public is readying the pitchforks and torches for the mayhem that is yet to come?
    I’m telling you, even if the TSA thought they could arrest you for refusing to be searched,( and according to the “9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals” you could be held on charges that the
    patriot act enforces), not actually “commiting” a crime could put you in jail for a very long time.

    The true fact here is the government now thinks itself above the same rules it makes all the rest of us observe. To have the audacity to arrest and punish someone because they refused to submit to your search, (despite the fact they didn’t do anything to deserve it) is beyond belief.
    It borders on insanity and shows no respect for anyone, other than it’s own supreme agents.
    (sounds a little like the very regime we fought for our independence from a few hundred years back, eh?)

    Are you listening GOVERNMENT?
    Start by telling your congresscritter that we aren’t criminals.
    and pray he doesn’t have the friends capable of cutting your funding to the bone.

    • banndndc says:

      Honestly, that’s the only solution. Demand they stop the corporate giveaway that those 1st class TSA lines are (only a fool would think that the airlines are paying all the costs associated such as employee benefits, machine depreciation, etc) and demand no exceptions. the only way to get the TSA to start to make sense is if every single person (no matter how much they paid for their ticket, how often they fly, what their job is or what their security clearance is) has to suffer the same. After being subjected to the same stuff as the common folk (especially long lines) then they’ll change the policies because they dont like it.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        Same argument goes for health care.

        Demand that Congress have to get the same level healthcare as the rest of us instead of their full funded healthcare, and you can bet they’d improve the system fast.

      • NeverLetMeDown says:

        The elite lines have zero incremental cost for the TSA. All they do is route the user to the front of the line before the ID checker. If there is a metal detector/xray assigned to that line, then should that machine be empty (very rare), they just call over the next person in the non-elite line.

        All those lines do is essentially allow the most valuable customers to jump the line prior to ID check.

        • banndndc says:

          thereby minimizing their pain and increasing the pain of those in the other line (much longer wait).

          there is absolutely no public purpose behind these “elite” lines. a govt requirement like the TSA should be the same for everybody. by minimizing the pain of the “elite” (at the expense of the non-”elite”) the impact of the TSA measures are not truly felt by our policy makers.

          the govt should not be playing favorites or make exceptions. when it comes to the TSA everyone should suffer equally. unless we suffer equally the true costs of a policy are not felt and don’t get changed/fixed.

          • NeverLetMeDown says:

            The TSA doesn’t control that, the airports (and the airlines) control the lines up to the TSA checkpoint. TSA only takes the feeds of people they get.

            • banndndc says:

              Then why are they wearing TSA uniforms? Why are they acting under the color of State authority?

              because that’s actually not true (anymore).
              http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/tdc/index.shtm

              • NeverLetMeDown says:

                Again, the lines are set up by the airlines and the airport, the TSA just checks whomever comes into them. Again, there’s no evidence that the taxpayer is incurring greater costs because of the elite lines; they’re not a “corporate giveaway,” they’re a way that the airlines can try to give somewhat better treatment to more valuable customers.

              • banndndc says:

                that’s absurd. there is a huge cost to other passengers in terms of increased time, hassle and missed flights. a line is a pretty simple construct. it is impossible to decrease one person’s time without increasing the time of another person in the line. there is no way (in this case) to give something to the “valuable” customers without taking something from someone else. unlike an airport lounge there is a negative cost involved for everyone else.

                it is a corporate giveaway because it’s providing special and preferential treatment by the government to the corporation’s preferred customers. this preferential treatment is faster access. by allowing separate but “equal” lines the govt is complicit. by seeing those in the “elite” line before those in the peasant line the govt is active in this discrimination. this preferred service is then used by the corporation as a selling point for its product. the circle is complete. the govt is giving something to the corporation which then benefits economically. the value of the public purpose is decreased and public costs (time cost hassle and unruly passengers) are increased.

  29. u1itn0w2day says:

    You are already in serious crap for voluntarily submitting to one of these searches and/or voluntarily giving/accepting these government practices.

    We’re supposed to be defending the right not be searched/hassled as an innocent person or even a guilty one for that matter. This is what we’re supposed to be defending. Anyone can exist but these freedoms are the life we enjoy here in the US. These freedoms are life in the US. More importantly is the right to question them.

    These searches are terror to the innocent person. But the grannies and desired voters gobble all this crap up. These searches and practices are nothing but planting the seed for the continuous decay of your rights, your lifestyle, YOUR LIFE.

    Give them an inch and they WILL take a mile.

  30. tinmanx says:

    I once saw a very happy TSA working at JFK in New York. Everyone was surprised and someone even mentioned to him he was the happiest TSA worker they have ever seen. He told jokes and made the experience suck less. I thought to myself: He must be new.

    Back to topic, even the TSA doesn’t like these scanners. Remember the TSA worker who assaulted another TSA workers after going through the machine and heard comments about this private area? They are human, and I can see the back room jokes flying around about the passengers.

    I like driving anyway. But if I have to fly, I will deal with it, since I don’t want to be touched.

  31. PlumeNoir - Thank you? No problem! says:

    Waitaminute…I get it now!!!

    You see, they’re making it so no one in their right mind would ever want to fly – that way, only business people and terrorists will be the ones flying. And, anyone without a briefcase will be a terrorist, making them eaiser to spot. (Until the TSA just blows up all briefcases, just to be safe.)

    It all makes such sense now! I’m sorry I was wrong; the TSA is actually on its way to becoming something actually useful and important! How could I have been so deluded?

  32. WhoLikesPie? says:

    I’d also like to say that Road Trips are much more fun… someone come up with a car I can take across the Atlantic!

  33. TooManyHobbies says:

    Any time someone uses the phrase “in a post-9/11 world”, watch out.

    The only thing that changed on 9/11 was the removal of a naive feeling of invulnerability. Since people weren’t used to not feeling invulnerable, they became very vulnerable to fear-based manipulation.

    People who use that phrase are either manipulating people or are tools being used to manipulate people.

  34. hypochondriac says:

    So what security theater will we get if a suicide bomber decides to blow himself/luggage up while on the long line for security?

    • outis says:

      You just made me realize that the airport with it’s long security lines and requirements to show up so far in advance makes the terminal a more desirable target than a single plane. And it would be naive to think no terrorist has come to the same conclusion. *shudder*
      Yeah, I won’t be flying.

      • menty666 says:

        I seriously does, or do it at the sky cap desk out front. It has the same effect really. Frankly if *I* were a terrorist I’d probably infiltrate the food service company.

        I get particularly annoyed about all the added security because in the old days, for cheap “entertainment” my wife and I could go out to the airport and just people watch with a cup of coffee, maybe watch the FedEx terminal from the window to see if they’d slip in the snow and have a wing bender or something.

        Now? You’d be arrested for casing the place and probably disappear to some secret HLS prison.

        The security puppet show just annoys me to a point where I don’t even want to bother flying anymore. Between that and the increasingly anti-consumer standpoint the airlines are taking, it’s just not worth the hassle.

  35. Moosehawk says:

    “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

  36. goodcow says:

    And this is why I take Amtrak.

  37. dew_crew says:

    I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I’m not doing anything wrong, so if they want to scan me, I could really care less. I doubt the “radiation” levels several people are complaining about is enough to be problematic, especially compared to all the other carcinogens we are exposed to daily.
    If i have to fly, whatever. Its faster and less stressful than busses and trains.

    • Gravitational Eddy says:

      doesn’t stop there, my friend. After they start determining if you are “safe” enough to fly, they’ll start telling you “when” you can fly. And then of course, they’ll start telling you if the destination is on the “approved list”.
      Pretty soon, they only places you’ll be able to fly to would be those locations that -they- would choose.
      Then they’ll begin by weeding out all the underachievers, and having all those with opposing political views arrested and placed into “involuntary detention” due to the dissident status they have assigned to you.
      Once they cripple your ability to make money, (and you -will- be unemployed because no employer will keep you, after you’ve been busted for being “ID’d”) you’ll have no real property, will no longer be a real taxpayer (hah) and the wages they’ll pay will barely allow you to eat, much less live comfortably. Think starvation wages. Think slave to the government.
      Think 1984.

      • Gramin says:

        Um, where have you been? They already tell you where you can and cannot fly. Ever heard of Cuba? I’m with dew_crew on this one. I’ve done nothing wrong and don’t really care if someone pats me down or I have to walk through the machine. It keeps us safe. Period. Take it away and you’re inviting someone to walk onto a plane with a bomb or a gun.

        If you don’t like it, don’t fly. That’s fine with me. These clowns putting on a show are just wasting time and causing a delay. I don’t want to deal with it.

        • tmac40 says:

          They only make you think you are safe. No terrorist has ever been caught by one of these screenings. The 9/11 guys would still have made it onto the plane. The only thing these searches do is provide the appearance of security. Ever notice how things are only banned after someone tries to use them to blow up a plane? If liquids were a real threat, why were they allowed for so long. Now we can’t have toner in our luggage. Pretty soon you will get your airline issued pajamas at the entrance to the airport, with a $35 convenience fee, and be allowed no belongings on the plane. You can ship your belongings with UPS, until someone tries to blow up one of their planes. Then you can just buy new stuff once you get to your destination.

        • Gravitational Eddy says:

          That’s the point Gramin. “I don’t want to deal with it”
          Says a lot there that you trust the government all that much.
          If the government says you are a terrorist, how do you, right here and now, fight that accusation?

          Because I’ve already seen how that works.

          Is like what happens when someone accuses you of being a pedofile?
          (the college student I knew was literally raped by the public over gossip and innuendo, and when coupled with an inept police investigation,
          still took five years for the court to determine that little eight year old boy wasn’t “violated or molested in any way”.
          That eight year old found out that he could have someone placed in jail just by telling a little lie.
          And the college kid I knew sat in jail waiting for someone to believe in him.
          Even with videotaped proof staring him in the face,
          the eight year old had described stuff that could never have happened.
          Things like blood and murder, dead babies and gore. disturbing stuff.

    • dolemite says:

      BOOM! “Plane blows up from bomb hidden in rectal cavity of terrorist! News at 11.

      Few months later, you at the aiport:

      “You know, I’m not really doing anything wrong, so I don’t really have a problem with naked photos of my body being stored in a government database, having my genitals groped by strangers, and having a tiny camera inserted into my anus. It’s all part of flying! Also, can you review my email once again that I sent to my mom from my laptop? I think I said “Transformers was a bomb at the theater”, but your Homeland Security program only picked up on on the ‘T’,’S’,’A’ in the title, and now I’m being shipped off to a detention camp on this flight..not that I’m complaining, but it’s sort of an inconvenience.”

    • u1itn0w2day says:

      ” oh I’m innocent , I have nothing to fear ” -LOL

      This is exactly why suspected and even convicted criminals are given rights.

      ” oh it can’t happen to me, they won’t mess with me ”

      I would take a look at the wrongfully convicted statistics or the prisoners cleared of murder and the death penalty with the rights your government wants/intimidate you to willfully or voluntarily give up.

      Again this is planting the seeds for even more, you think a crotch feel is bad now wait until they go beyond the feeling stage.

  38. Mike says:

    My question is what will the TSA do about swallowed bombs? Make us all get a scope shived down our throats and up our arse? http://www.nationalterroralert.com/2009/09/26/internal-bomb-suicide-bomber-hid-explosives-inside-his-body/

    Once the the terrorist has walked through the door of an airport he has already won, especially if he can detonate the bomb at will.

  39. TheGreySpectre says:

    I hate the phrase post-9/11 world. The world really isnt much different then pre-9/11 airports arn’t really any safer either.

  40. Black Bellamy says:

    Hey Meg, what’s up with pasting half an article from CNN and not attributing it?

    • AT203 says:

      Agreed. Hopefully it was just an oversight. I don’t even care about the attribution issue, I just want the source for my personal interest.

  41. Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

    The disparity between the TSA and the Cheka Police is shrinking with every passing moment…

  42. Burzmali says:

    Maybe I’m reading the ruling incorrectly, but it looks to me like you can’t change your mind about screening and then come back at a later time to be screened again. The ruling makes sense. If you could just say “no thanks,” and go to another security checkpoint and try again, eventually you might find a lax checkpoint. I’m not reading it as getting penalized if you refuse screening a leave the airport, but rather as being penalized if you refuse screening and then try again. What’s wrong with that?

  43. Slave For Turtles says:

    “a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals compels all passengers to be screened, whether they fly or not.”

    Wait – if I’m not flying, how can I be considered a passenger? Seriously, I don’t understand.

  44. dush says:

    The courts know that in this brave new world everyone is a potential criminal and must be treated as such.

  45. Alvis says:

    “According to CNN and the TSA, a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals compels all passengers to be screened, whether they fly or not.”

    Why no link to the original story?

  46. moore850 says:

    I have been through the new security. It is not a pat down. it is a RUB down. The one I got was professional but incredibly uncomfortable… and not a pat down at all. To call it that makes it sound less clinical and invasive than a full-on rub down, which is what it really is. Put it this way, when I was in high school, if an administrator did a rub down like that on a kid as a security screening at some school dance, they’d probably be arrested. Also, where is the TSA for subways? I exited the airport and boarded a subway with a giant bag, no screening whatsoever.

  47. Mark says:

    To all the people saying to take a train or bus or car…

    The TSA can and HAS done stops and checkpoints on rail and bus.

    They can also, if I understand it correctly, do this on ferries, bridges and roads.

    Most people do not understand how invasive their legal authority is.

  48. shepd says:

    “Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by ‘electing not to fly’ on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found.”

    Only if they’re not banned from all airports (which seems pretty easy to do nowadays!). Jeez, seriously, am I the only one who thought of that? You’d only get one chance to “test” and then the banhammer.

  49. JKxZ says:

    The TSA website says 98% of passengers opt for backscatter or mm x-rays… and what percent of them are x-ray experts?

    Do yourself a favor, search for “fluoroscopy shoe fitting”. It was common practice in the 1940s to use virtually the same technology for shoe fitting, until they decided it was unsafe and quietly removed the machines from the face of the planet.

  50. Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh says:

    Well this is new news to most everyone, I’m pretty sure. I, for one, had no idea that you couldn’t refuse screening and turn back all together without being sued.

    And I’m really friggin tired of the people that say “What’s the big deal, it’s not like they want to see you naked/grope you.” No, I’m sure that most of the time they really couldn’t care less, but I don’t want them to see me naked or grope me. It’s an extreme invasion of privacy and it’s wrong.

    And now to hear that you can’t back out once they tell you what you’ll be subjected to? No. Thank. You.

  51. tokyomonamour says:

    I heard today that Michael Chertoff is the asshole responsible for these machines. The Chertoff Group, a security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. “The relationship drew attention after Chertoff disclosed it on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.”

    “Chertoff’s advocacy for the technology dates back to his time in the Bush administration. In 2005, Homeland Security ordered the government’s first batch of the scanners — five from California-based Rapiscan Systems [chertoff's company].”

    Chertoff’s advocacy for the technology dates back to his time in the Bush administration. In 2005, Homeland Security ordered the government’s first batch of the scanners — five from California-based Rapiscan Systems.

    In the summer, TSA purchased 150 machines from Rapiscan with $25 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds.

  52. sopmodm14 says:

    if they’re going to so be this strict about rules and protocol, they damn well better be as strict about hiring and properly training personnel……so we don’t read articles about TSA security stealing (like the newark airport one)

    • Lisse24 says:

      Good luck with that. Look at a Job description for a TSA screening agent on USAjobs. All you need is a high school diploma and the ability to focus.

  53. WhiteWolfAniu says:

    I have a solution to all this stuff. Let’s just be naked, all the time. Well…unless it’s cold. But in airports there is heat. =D I don’t give a fark if the full body scanners ‘see’ my naked body. Whatever. Get over yourself.

  54. WhiteWolfAniu says:

    I have a solution to all this stuff. Let’s just be naked, all the time. Well…unless it’s cold. But in airports there is heat. =D I don’t give a fark if the full body scanners ‘see’ my naked body. Whatever. Get over yourself.

  55. Big Cheese Make Hair Go Boom says:

    So, I have got a very serious question…

    …if I am selected for the new “enhanced” patdown…and I get wood while being examined/groped…can I be charged for being lewd and lascivious?

  56. Triterion says:

    My biggest problem is that there is no minimum age for them to take a nude picture of you in the US (and possibly store it forever) Imagine telling you children later in life “Oh hey honey, by the way- the Government probably has a nude picture of you as a small child.”

    • outlulz says:

      Yes, I’m sure that the government is storing all the pictures they take using the backscatter indefinitely, especially children.

  57. axiomatic says:

    Good luck with your profits airlines. You have no one but yourselves (and terrorists) to blame. I’m all for good security, however what the TSA is doing is not good security.

  58. EllieM says:

    Maybe the terrorists will stop hating us now. After all, they hate us for our freedoms.

  59. brianary says:

    I usually go to a conference for work every year. It’s budget time, and I’m not even going to budget for it.

  60. nucwin83 says:

    Ok, here’s the case they reference: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html

    Here’s a relevant piece of information the TSA is conveniently forgetting:

    “Like the Third Circuit, we find these search procedures to be minimally intrusive.   See Hartwell, 436 F.3d at 180(holding similar search procedures to be “minimally intrusive,” explaining that the procedures are “well-tailored to protect personal privacy, escalating in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclosed a reason to conduct a more probing search”).”

    In that case, Aukai had “No ID” on his boarding pass, meaning he did not provide a government issued ID when he purchased his ticket, and TSA Regs initiate a secondary screening BECAUSE of this fact. In the recent case at SAN, there was no reason to escalate the screening, but they wanted to submit him to more stringent screening regardless. That no longer makes it “minimally intrusive” per the Third Circuit ruling that the Ninth Circuit ruling relied on, that the TSA now relies on.

    I have a serious problem with this. And I wonder if you’re subjected to these measures coming in from overseas now, which is where our bombs seem to have been flying in from.

    • AT203 says:

      Thank you for finding the case in question. I’m nonplussed that consumerist didn’t cite their source of quotation, I presume it was CNN. But I was most interested in finding the case cited, and you provided it.

  61. nucwin83 says:

    Another question… provided the feds try to slap you with a civil penalty, can you get a jury trial in district court? That could put an end to these shenanigans if juries won’t award the penalty.

  62. INsano says:

    What do you mean you refuse to cede your civil rights? You’re a guilty terrorist until proven innocent, foolish American…

    Reason number #178 to not support passenger air travel in its current incarnation.

  63. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    I’m glad I’m not a pilot. My bum would hurt if I had to assume a goatse pose before each flight.

  64. Not Again says:

    Do these TSA’s have to go through the scanners each day themselves and get the Grope Down? What makes them think none of them can be a potential terrorist? These guys have access to the whole airport. Sleeper Cells are just that, sleepers, terrorisst who have blended in and are waiting for activation.

  65. amgriffin says:

    Just wait till they decide they need to have body cavity searches.

    • Buckus says:

      Exactly. This is the logical next step (maybe logical next-next step, but you get my drift.) The next step after that is to immobilize all passengers until arriving at their destination. Carbonite anyone?

  66. FirePuff says:

    I think any civil case about being required to scan and then refusing to fly from there would be thrown out. If you’re there, and then you refuse all “enhanced” scanning methods, and then subsequently decide not to fly at all, you shouldn’t face a civil suit. Any consumer should have the right to back out on a service not yet given.

  67. spamtasticus says:

    Neither I nor anyone in my family will be flying until this changes drastically. For business me and my developers will be telecommuting from this point forth.

  68. AT203 says:

    This appears to be the CNN source for the quote. http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/15/california.airport.security/index.html

    • spamtasticus says:

      The beauty of that CNN article is that the TSA spokesperson that says that the scans are perfectly safe also says that the machines can’t save the images. Something already proven to be a bold faced lie that the TSA now admits to.

  69. AT203 says:

    So, if my understanding is correct, at present you go through a metal detector, and then through a separate porno-scanner. You have the option to opt-out of the porno-scanner. But what happens when, for the sake of efficiency, whatever, they collapse the two separate scanners into one? I don’t believe you can opt out of the metal detector, and at that point the TSA will say that you have no other option than to go through the scanner.

  70. jeblis says:

    How about yes, but I’m going to opt out of the scan, cause at least I’m making the agent uncomfortable too.

  71. anduin says:

    but my wang isn’t big enough to be seen by everybody….

  72. KrispyKrink says:

    If I see the TSA create another item of child pornography or molest a child by squeezing their breasts and crotch, I’m sending that “agent” molester to the morgue.

  73. phonebem says:

    This is why I’ll only fly if its more than a day’s worth of driving… I’ve found that anything less than about a 6-hour drive comes to a wash when compared to the “time savings” of flying when you consider the total time spent getting to the airport, dealing with check-in, dealing with security, the actual flight (unfortunately this is often the most pleasant part), de-planing (easily the second worst part), waiting for luggage (if it made it), and finally getting your rental car. I’d rather just pick-up a rental car and hit the road (I like making a road-trip in a new car and putting the mileage on someone else’s car) avoiding all the airport hassle.

  74. Super1984 says:

    Ugh, this goes too far. The TSA (under the DHS) is treating us like criminals with these new highly invasive policies. What about the Fourth Amendment?

  75. esp13 has a pony named Steve says:

    I understand everyone’s frustration with all of this, but 55% voted “final straw”. I highly doubt we’ll suddenly see a significant drop in passenger volume anytime soon.

    • tape says:

      I was already very down on flying due to the TSA’s already-existing fake security bullshit. This is the kind of thing that insures that I will not fly until the TSA is disbanded.

  76. chaelyc says:

    The TSA realizes that the WHOLE world is living in a post-9/11 society, right? Yet people fly out of all kinds of other countries without being stripped down & felt up as a requirement to board a flight.

    USA: ur doin it wrong

  77. Clogtowner says:

    I will not be a subject for TSA porno nor will I submit to sexual molestation. Unless we all protest, 1984 is here!

  78. soqank says:

    Lets all go to the airports for screening, but make sure to pack something weird in your pants.

    Refuse the scan so they have to give you a pat down. Cover your pants with something sticky or slimy and put a large squishy odd shaped item in your underwear.

    For those of you feeling adventurous or dastardly get one of the dentata devices from Africa for your cavity search. (it’s the thing women put in their uh special place that has barbed spikes used as a rape deterrent) .

    If they get harassed like this enough it’s bound to send a message that we won’t stand for their abuse, plus it could be a bunch of fun.

  79. AR says:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Enough said…

  80. trmentry says:

    One thing that always struck me about airports is that the terrorist doesn’t have to get past security and get on a plane to cause mayhem. Just being in a long line before security with lots and lots of people waiting there… just detonate themselves there will cause just as much problems as taking down a plane.

    I would think even more as then it’s proven that security is just a fallacy.

    —- Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

  81. rcarlton says:

    one thing i’ve always wondered – after you pass the first screener – who looks at your boarding pass – they say to go ahead and put away your ID.

    then you get to the conveyor belt, and they say to put your wallet through the scanner with your luggage.

    i always hold onto my ID and carry it.

    is that allowed under the latest iteration of “dystopianism for dummies?”

    i ask because i have this kafka-esque vision of being pulled away – with my “self” away from me – and then having some creepy event happen because i’ve let “my papers” off of my person.

  82. JackieEggs says:

    I wonder what they’d do if all of a sudden someone started sending out moans and groans of pleasure…? I can see it now, as they run their hands over someone’s body, the person being “frisked” starts running their hands over their own body and rolling their eyes, breathing heavier and asking the “frisker” to frisk here, and here, and over there and make it harder?

    Sort of that scene from “When Harry Met Sally.”

  83. Jason says:
  84. d67f8g9uno says:

    Want to fly from my home in the US 6500 miles to my home in South Korea is not “probably cause”. I am a citizen of the world and not a prisoner of the United States or anywhere else.

  85. d67f8g9uno says:

    Wanting to fly from my home in the US 6500 miles to my home in South Korea is not “probable cause”. I am a citizen of the world and not a prisoner of the United States or anywhere else.

  86. numbermuncher says:

    This type of stuff is really disheartening. I’m studying for an Aerospace Engineering degree, and now I wonder why I’m in the field; I certainly don’t want to fly anymore. Why bother making airplanes better if the TSA is just going to, well, TSA all over everything?

    For goodness sake, what’s next?

  87. richcreamerybutter says:

    Outrage is good! I’m not crazy about the radiation, but kind of apathetic about the process overall. Sounds crazy, right?

    Honestly, I get ogled on the street every damn day. Sometimes men even decide to express their opinions vociferously. If I’m sardined on public transportation I might get an extra surprise…and I don’t even get the reassurance of safety in exchange!

    But yeah, I look forward to the day that everyone gets just as angry about what women have been dealing with forever. TSA “harassment” is also only a small dose of the violation some women feel when strangers express certain opinions about that other pesky issue involving freedom and one’s body…

  88. JAQUEBAUER says:

    The terrorists are winning, as we lose our freedoms and rights to a Gestapo like TSA.
    I bet some wise crakers are going to place mouse traps, sharp objects, superglue, or some painful trap for the sexual predators employed by the TSA.
    To have a choice of high energy ionizing radiation cooking your testicles, or the hand of a pervert squeezing them leaves no choice. The incompetence and arrogance of the head of Homeland Security is insight into Obamas motives. Picture Obama in an SS uniform with a Hitler Mustache, posing in front of the new scanners—-and Napalitano dressed as Nurse Diesel. Get the picture now.
    We have to throw the perverted fascists out now-Starting with Obama and Nurse Diesel. The Constitutional rights we are entitled to are meaningless to the Obama fascists.

    • AstroPig7 says:

      Glenn Beck? Who let you in? By the way, please tell me that you’re aware of how bad the TSA was during Bush’s presidency. Obama did not start this.

  89. buddyedgewood says:

    Welcome to the 21st Century… The terrorist have won. The corporations have won. Everything we say and do is monitored. Submission = Freedom. Intrusion = Liberty. To have Peace, we must have War. Totalitarianism is now. With every new generation, new means of oppression are introduced. New generations know little of history and the true meaning of freedom, therefore they see this as normal.

    You thought China was bad? You just wait, this is but the tip of the iceberg.

    • u1itn0w2day says:

      The new generations will see this as normal.

      This is why the government institutes these policies one by one first by planting the seed with press releases, leaked stories and ‘tests’. Then with full implementation/deployment the public must endure the bureaucratic whims of cya keep me in power policy. Corporations do much the same with their employees and customers.

      The public has a short memory. People seem to forget being treated like a criminal for forgetting to remove things like their nail clippers or from getting to the airport 15 minutes before departure to arriving 2 hours before departure.

      Little by little, step by step we will become narcissistic bubble boys & girls or a police state. Yes it can happen to YOU.

  90. HopeAnteater says:

    That ninth circuit ruling was in 2007, and did not contemplate the new, universal backscatter technology scans, essentially a naked scan that is invasive and included ionizing radiation, if in a low dose, with the only alternative contact by a government agent groping breasts and genitals.

    In other words, I think the court erred then; but I do not believe that this ruling can apply to a universally applied search of passengers under no particular suspicion, just because they have purchased a ticket and appeared at the airport.

    Unless there is cause to suspect wrongdoing, passengers should be free to leave after changing their mind about being “pornoscanned” with ionizing radiation, or being subject to groping of private parts; especially if passenger is under care of someone – ie. minor or elderly .

    The ruling only contemplated less invasive searches, or searches where there was cause for suspicion.

  91. HopeAnteater says:

    That ninth circuit ruling was in 2007, and did not contemplate the new, universal backscatter technology scans, essentially a naked scan that is invasive and included ionizing radiation, if in a low dose, with the only alternative contact by a government agent groping breasts and genitals.

    In other words, I think the court erred then; but I do not believe that this ruling can apply to a universally applied search of passengers under no particular suspicion, just because they have purchased a ticket and appeared at the airport.

    Unless there is cause to suspect wrongdoing, passengers should be free to leave after changing their mind about being “pornoscanned” with ionizing radiation, or being subject to groping of private parts; especially if passenger is under care of someone – ie. minor or elderly .

    The ruling only contemplated less invasive searches, or searches where there was cause for suspicion.

  92. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot says:

    My take on this is simple – offer an alternate plane for everyone who doesn’t want to experience any screening/body pat down. Tell them “Here you go – now do you REALLY want to fly with 150 other people who haven’t had any security screening either?”

  93. franknbeans99 says:

    This Country is going to hell in a hand-basket with this! They already one. Look what it’s done to us!! Does anyone give a shit, or are you just sheep tolerating this plan? Today they safe it’s safe to be scanned, but what in 20 years after radiation studies? They are already lying to us about saving the images, too. We’re a paranoid, self-destructing from the inside-out society. Who really won this war, anyway? I sure don’t have more rights, I have less!

  94. notgoodenough says:

    I live in Australia and I would love to visit the US for a vacation, but quite frankly all TSA Security theatre has permanently turned me off the idea of ever visiting the US. Tomorrow I fly out to ina single week thoroughly enjoying myself. How many Hundreds of Millions of international tourist dollars are the TSA depriving American businesses of? I would suggest quite a lot, which is a bad thing considering how much the US economy could use Tourist dollars like mine.

  95. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    Okay, I can understand not being able to fly. Sounds like reasonable consequences for not being screened. But charged with a crime? Wait, isn’t that an unlawful search? If the person refuses to fly, there’s no just cause to search them. Fuck you, TSA.

  96. Levk says:

    Yes lets do the scans so that we can feel safe but not be any safer >> how fun!!!

  97. Cindymiles says:

    I flew in September and they told me that they were taking custody of my 2 year old away from me and I could not touch him or talk to him while they patted both me and him down. I have refused to fly since then so I hope changes are really made.

  98. JollyJumjuck says:

    T.S.A. – Thugs and Sex Addicts

  99. mydailydrunk says:

    And still, the majority of containers aren’t checked. Business trumps safety every time.

  100. maruawe says:

    IF a person decides not to fly because of airport screening and is not on the no fly list(BUT PROBABLY WILL BE ) and decides to take other transportation, then they are not a danger to other flying passengers. So where do the civil penalties come in. This is pure BS and should not be allowed. To many instances of non professional actions by TSA employees have been recorded by the public and brought to the consumers attention about abuse of power within TSA. NO civil penalties for TSA from non flying customers because of screening…. This is like saying that If I bought a ticket and decided to drive and cashed in my ticket that I would be paying civil penalties for deciding to drive…..

  101. Ceric Neesh says:

    I wear a kilt (properly) and refuse the scanners. They don’t actually want to check me beyond it at that point.

  102. BrazDane says:

    Not only has airline prices gone up while service has plummeted, but I also hate the security theater. My wife and I have now driven twice halfway across the country when we could have flown. Not only did it cost about the same, but we could enjoy the trip more and got to see a lot on the way.
    Back 20-30 years when business air travel was nice, it must have been cool to have to do it for work, assuming you didn’t mind being away from family and so on, but today it must be horrible to fly economy class and go through all the crap just to be able to work.

  103. MW says:

    This is why I’m happy my family is opting to drive all the way from Florida to Colorado instead of flying. (I do have to wonder what they would do if the scanner could pick up all of the metal in my mom’s head. She’s got a bunch of plates and screws in there from a surgery.)

    Oh, and because we can’t trust that the presents we’re bringing along for my brother (electronics) will still be in our baggage when we collect it.

  104. Big Dave says:

    Most of you are incensed at the tragic failure of the TSA’s logic, systems and procedures. Many of you have said that you are not or will not fly because of that, just as I have, and I applaud you for it. But, like me, you must go one step further if you really want to add some weight to your silent protest.

    The next time you drive, take a train, or board a boat for your alternate travel, you need to write to the airline you WOULD HAVE USED, and explain that you are not flying with them because of the insane, fascist policies of Homeland Security and the TSA to limit or negate your liberties.

    Right now they are guessing how much business they may be losing over this, but they have no real facts. Speak up! Let them know what they are losing.

    And, while you’re at it, send a copy to your congressional delegation so THEY know what damage the government is causing.