Slashdot Mirror


Female Passengers Say They Were Targeted For TSA Body Scanners

wiedzmin writes "TSA agents in Dallas singled out female passengers to undergo screening in a body scanner, according to complaints filed by several women who said they felt the screeners intentionally targeted them to view their bodies. Allegedly, women with 'cute bodies' were directed through the body scanners up to three times over by female agents, who appeared to be acting on a request from male agents viewing the scans in a separate room. Apparently this was done because the scans were 'blurry,' possibly due to autofocus problems with agents' smartphone cameras." After hearing the claims, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) announced plans to introduce legislation that would require the presence of "passenger advocates" at airports to deal with complaints like these.

37 of 572 comments (clear)

  1. Beyond popular belief... by 3seas · · Score: 5, Funny

    it is humans who can be dishonest which hold positions in Politics, Military, Religion and of course the Tits Sex & Ass authority.

    1. Re:Beyond popular belief... by SteveFoerster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait, I thought it was the FBI that were the Female Body Inspectors?

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    2. Re:Beyond popular belief... by SteveFoerster · · Score: 5, Funny

      And for the Spanish speakers, a friend in Miami tells me that down there people say that TSA stands for "Teatro de Seguridad en Aeropuertos" (Airport Security Theater).

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    3. Re:Beyond popular belief... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 5, Funny

      What about their buddies the Clitoral Investigation Agency?

      It's full of guys... so they still haven't found it...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  2. And yet by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People are surprised that when you take marginally skilled, semi-officious private sector workers and give them civil service protection behavior that was an instant firable offense becomes something you have to endure with a smile...

    1. Re:And yet by twotailakitsune · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Ben and Teller bullshit had a show that talked about this. They had random people on the street sit in a van and keep a eye on a car. They had to video recorded when the car left.

      Next door some people was having fake sex. What to guess where the random people pointed the cam?

    2. Re:And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, he mean't Ben and Teller. Ben filled in for Penn while he was away filming for The Celebrity Apprentice.

    3. Re:And yet by sorak · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Ben and Teller

      Penn and Teller maybe?

      I've seen it many times. I like to sit down with a big bowl of Penn & Jerry's ice cream and watch their inciteful documentaries.

    4. Re:And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Remove the people in the "back room", and have the back of the person doing the scanning visible to the people waiting in line to be scanned...AND have the display from the scan visible to those waiting. (We say the scan doesn't show anything indecent, so this will demonstrate that fact to the general public.) With this solution, the person won't get to see the person entering the scanner. And don't have the output display visible to anyone who is selecting who goes through the scanner. (although when I've flown, everyone was automatically directed to the scans, unless they opted out of the scan and for the full body feel up.)

      I'd also recommend that all baggage handling/inspecting areas have windows that the general flying public can watch...that should eliminate theft by baggage scanners and handlers. And with minimal cost.

  3. Absolutely by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because what we need is not less invasive and less humiliating scanners, but additional people on the payroll so that all this useless technology can continue to have nearly zero impact on actual flight safety.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  4. "Passenger advocates" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After hearing the claims, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) announced plans to introduce legislation that would require the presence of "passenger advocates" at airports to deal with complaints like these.

    Passenger advocates, eh? How about plain removing the scanners. That'd be some Passenger advocacy right there.

    1. Re:"Passenger advocates" by Riventree · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The problem: A hugely expensive and virtually value-free arm of the government is causing trouble.

      The solution: Grow the government by forming a new department to look after the old one.

      Somehow "Fire the bastards and shut down the TSA" doesn't seem to occur to people in congress. (D- or R- types)

  5. OPT OUT by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Folks, you can ask not to go through the scanners. Just say "OPT OUT". You get the pat down, of course, but from my experience, it seems to bother them more than it bothers me. And it sends a message.

    I've never trusted TSA to verify the safety of those machines. I'll take the grope rather than trust an unregulated scanner that bombards my body with who knows what power and type of radio or ionizing radiation.

    1. Re:OPT OUT by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You realize the patdown (which is considered more invasive than a police pat-down) isn't really an acceptable answer for a lot of people either. You don't get to say a punch in the nose isn't an assault just because you offered to substitute a kick in the crotch.

    2. Re:OPT OUT by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Always remember to give the officer doing the pat-down your best sex-offender-smirk and remark that you "always stand at attention for a man in uniform"...

      The situation is not actually winnable in any useful way; but if the rentacop goes home feeling as though their soul is soiled, you've done your part.

    3. Re:OPT OUT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ultimate opt-out: Learn to fly, buy a plane, and use airfields that don't have the TSA. There are at least 4000 airports in the US. Chances are, you'll find one closer to where you wanted to go. Added bonus - go where you want to whenever you feel like it. Day trip to the beach? Done!

      If you say flying is too expensive, consider that you can get an airworthy 2-seater for about $15,000. Some airports even have free parking for both your car and the plane. Hangar space can be found for $200/mo similar to urban car garages.

    4. Re:OPT OUT by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You realize the patdown (which is considered more invasive than a police pat-down) isn't really an acceptable answer for a lot of people either.

      This is a non-violence approach as best as Ghandi himself would have come up with. If the everyone opted for a pat down, then there would be massive queues as the TSA sods could not keep up with the folks in line, that gives them bad press - which is the last thing they want coming up to an election. Therefore, they put more and more and more staff on to keep up with the growing queues refusing the body scanner. Their budget blows out significantly and their methods are seen by the pollies as more and more asinine. Going into an election, the more noise and bad press that can be generated, the less politicians will want to touch it.

      I live in outsde the US, but I can only implore you folks in the US to fight tooth and nail for all you can. Beat them at their own game - you have the numbers and you have the media there more than ready to take any hot load that will make the masses agitated. Use it to your (and by that defnition, everybody's) best advatage.

      Take the invasive pat-down and blog about how violated you felt. If you are interviewed by someone else, be sure to portray the raw emotion, this will find a bond with all the voters out there who haven't personally experienced it. Contact your senator and write a lengthy letter outlining your outrage. Contact the airport directly and voice your objections - if they have enough complaints, they will (if they are not already) turn to be on the side of reason and common sense - make it bad business to support his TSA guideline and bring them to your side. Make yourself the martyr, and be proud, for you will be serving the betterment of your peers.

      The only thing in a capitalist world that will serve your freedoms and personal liberty is bad business through bad press for those that seek to make money by taking it away from you.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    5. Re:OPT OUT by lorenlal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not acceptable because my wife was directed to a scanner, and opted for the pat down. She said it ended up being horrible, and she felt quite violated. Like other posters said, this is a case where *neither* option actually increases security. I honestly believe that the pat down is designed to be so intrusive that the scanner ends up being no so bad in comparison.

    6. Re:OPT OUT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I always ask the groper, "how do you feel about your mother being treated this way"

    7. Re:OPT OUT by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A possibly more effective solution: Refuse to fly. Take a bus, take a train, drive, or forgo travel, but don't pay into the system by buying a plane ticket.

      I totally agree, but this isn't always an option - and it doesn't send a direct message. Lower numbers of passengers can be spun as a downturn due to the economy, it can be spun as more people who are scared to fly due to the terrorist attacks. A long queue of people unwilling to accept an invasive body scanner is much harder to sell as a positive if you are trying to sell body scanners.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    8. Re:OPT OUT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      My wife already thinks my motorcycle hobby is too expensive; if I want to get into private aviation I'd need to factor in the cost of a divorce lawyer.

    9. Re:OPT OUT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're making the assumption that the machines are configured / calibrated correctly. I've seen no evidence to indicate that's a valid assumption.

    10. Re:OPT OUT by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is a non-violence approach as best as Ghandi himself would have come up with. If the everyone opted for a pat down, then there would be massive queues as the TSA sods could not keep up with the folks in line, that gives them bad press - which is the last thing they want coming up to an election.

      A possibly more effective solution: Refuse to fly. Take a bus, take a train, drive, or forgo travel, but don't pay into the system by buying a plane ticket.

      Good luck with that. https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=TSA+Vipr&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 They're coming to your bus and train stations as well as check points on the road with the highway patrol.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    11. Re:OPT OUT by Salgak1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Always remember to give the officer doing the pat-down your best sex-offender-smirk and remark that you "always stand at attention for a man in uniform"... The situation is not actually winnable in any useful way; but if the rentacop goes home feeling as though their soul is soiled, you've done your part.

      Anyone remember the Movie "When Harry Met Sally" ??? Specifically, the cafeteria scene where Meg Ryan fakes an orgasm ?? Several of us did that to the TSA Goons on our most recent flight. One guy even offered a tip for getting felt up "so well". . . . Needless to say, the TSA goons were more than a little discomfitted, and the people in line behind each of us were basically LMFAO. . . . Laughter IS the best weapon against officious busybodies. . .

    12. Re:OPT OUT by Wild_dog! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or you might not know what you are talking about.
      Body scanners may provide a person with a skin direct concentrated dose of radiation that is 20 times greater than previously thought.
      This is particularly dangerous to kids.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-scanners-deliver-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html

    13. Re:OPT OUT by mr1911 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is quite likely you do not get the same patdown as an attractive woman does. It is also quite likely that an invasive patdown will not trigger memories of other invasive, unwelcome groping you may have had in the past, which is not as uncommon of an issue as you might think.

      Either way, the scanners and groping do nothing to preserve or enhance the safety of the flying public. It all needs to be done away with immediately.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    14. Re:OPT OUT by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You get more radiation from being in a high altitude, unshielded aircraft (a LOT more, IIRC).

      I don't see radiation as being a point of controversy.

      You're a moron, and the TSA and the government love you for being one.

      The scanners are operated by untrained monkeys.
      The scanners are not calibrated.
      The scanners are not tested.
      The scanners are not maintained.

      And of course, the radiation you receive on the flight mostly passes through you. The radiation you receive from the scanner is all absorbed in a few milimeters of your skin. You get orders of magnitude more radiation expsure from a scanner than you do from a flight, even if you believe the scanners are outputting the "safe" amounts of radiation that they claim.

  6. Re:OPT OUT- If you're in a country that allows it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nice try, unless you are flying out of Australia to the United States. More to follow, I'm sure.

  7. It does make sense to scan the hotties by netwarerip · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since you'd have a better chance of seeing some foreign object on a chick with a slim body. Fat chicks might have layers that hide the contraband, so they may as well scan the hot ones and increase their chances of catching something.
    Plus you have to figure it's more likely that a slim, hot chick is a drug mule than a fat chick, because if the fat chick was a cokehead she wouldn't be fat.
    Damn, I have been underestimating the TSA guys all along, they got it all figured out!

  8. Enough is enough by Zebedeu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After hearing the claims, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) announced plans to introduce legislation that would require the presence of "passenger advocates" at airports to deal with complaints like these.

    No, no, no!
    Just stop with the scans!

    The correct solution to this problem isn't to add more and more layers of complexity on top. It's to simply accept that this whole thing was a bad idea and drop it.
    It's like some bizarro world where the obvious answer is starting everybody in the face but nobody wants to reach for it, so they try to find ways around it.

  9. USA, the land I used to want to go on holiday to. by awjr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love going to the USA, but your government really isn't making this a pleasant experience.

  10. Re:This is what happens.. by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Insightful

    when you hire...pretty much anybody...and give them a badge.

  11. Re:USA, the land I used to want to go on holiday t by Stele · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They've already done it, by locking the cabin door. The cheapest and most effective fix to the problem possible.

    At my home city airport, we still have the normal meta detectors and non-mandatory pat-downs. Why? Couldn't a terrorist just drive to my city and fly from there? This whole premise makes the entire current system worthless.

  12. It's hardly a "pat down". by xaxa · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a guy, I've never had a problem with a pat down, but I've only had your garden variety.

    I've only taken one flight from the US since the TSA appeared on the scene.

    I went through the metal detector (the body scanner had a sign: "out of order"), collected my stuff, and had almost left the security area when someone called me back. He said he was worried I was hiding things in my baggy trousers (they were essentially flares), so his colleague gave me a pat-down search as well.

    I get a "pat down" search about once a month. They're a relatively common requirement for entry to some concerts and nightclubs in London. They're checking for weapons, so the bouncer typically pats my pockets, checks around my waist, then checks my boots. If I'm wearing flares they sometimes think to check the legs -- just brushing down with their hands. The impression I've always had is that they're checking my clothes rather than my body.

    The TSA person's search was in no way a "pat down". It was a thorough body search -- I'd never had anything like it before. He rubbed his hands down my legs with significant pressure, kept me standing in an uncomfortable position (arms raised throughout -- even though it was supposedly only my baggy trousers that were a concern). He made a very thorough check around my groin, including sweeping his fingers in the spaces around (including underneath) my genitals. Every time anyone's touched my like that before, it was for sex. Does that make it sexual assault? It was awful.

    If I was given a search like that in the EU I'd walk away and make a fuss -- but in the EU I'm confident of my rights, and my citizenship. But what could I have done on my way home after a business trip to the USA?

    Something I can do is not return in a hurry.

  13. Re:Duh...... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's almost pointless to argue against this kind of disinformation. The x-ray scans are about as good as a digital black-and-white photograph. I would definitely enjoy looking at those images of hot girls all day long and so would my right hand. The millimeter wave scans are not quite so good, but I'd still consider them in the titillating category. As far as the x-ray images the TSA themselves have finally admitted that they are pretty explicit, after having denied it for so long.

    Think about it for a second. If the images were not explicit they could publicly release a whole bunch of them to prove it. Of course they haven't done that and the few images that have been released based on the original machine testing have been altered to reduce their resolution or even blur the genital area. The x-ray images are in fact really, really good. Good enough to detect small plastic blades or whatever underneath clothing. If the images were as low quality as some people claim the machines wouldn't be of much use.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  14. Re:Duh...... by gtall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is also sad is Schumer's fix is to hire more people. How about call TSA's chief in and tell them it either stops or their funding stops. Schumer always was a tool.