Slashdot Mirror


Mother Found Guilty After Protesting TSA Pat-down of Daughter

Penurious Penguin writes "In 2011, en route to Baltimore, Tennessee mother Andrea Abbott was arrested after squabbling with the TSA over their pat-down and "naked" body-scan process. Initially Abbott had protested a pat-down of her 14 year-old daughter, though eventually backed off. When her own turn came, she refused both a pat-down and body-scan. This week, despite having no criminal record, Abbott was found guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced to one year of probation. A surveillance video of the affair shows what appears an agitated Abbott surrounded by various TSA agents, but seemingly contradicts the premise by which she was convicted. In the case against Abbott it was claimed that her behavior impeded the flow security-lines and lawful activity. Beyond Abbott's confession of issuing some verbal abuse, the video does not appear to display a significant blockage of traffic nor anything noticeably criminal."

43 of 652 comments (clear)

  1. Guilty of not doing as she was told. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Scum like that should be executed!

    1. Re:Guilty of not doing as she was told. by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Remember, next time it's room 101 for you Ma'am.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:Guilty of not doing as she was told. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just vote Repubmocrat for more of the same treatment. The longer the TSA operates, the longer they have to refine authoritarian tyranny.

    3. Re:Guilty of not doing as she was told. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And seriously, trying to prevent there goons- I mean upstanding respectable employees, from copping a feel- I mean patting down an underaged girl- I mean a potential terrorist...

      What is this world coming to?

      Actually, what I found sad, is she spent more effort on preventing it herself than for her daughter.

    4. Re:Guilty of not doing as she was told. by ai4px · · Score: 5, Funny

      They sat me on a bench labeled "Group W". I told them I was in for littering and they all moved away. So I said "...and creating a nusance" and they all moved back.

    5. Re:Guilty of not doing as she was told. by Technician · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This nonsense is why I have not flown since they started this. If enough did the same, the airlines would have to make changes to get customers again. Simply traveling and not putting up with this should not be a reason to have a criminal record.

      I can deal with this as a "Requirement" to fly. I don't fly. Take a car, bus, or train. Don't go through any checkpoints. If you don't go to your destination because of TSA blocks, ask the venu to be changed.

      This made a visit to a courthouse much easier recently when I had to drop off some records for the court. I did not go through security, but simply announced I was there just to drop off paperwork. I announced I had keys and a pocketknife and could not proceed past security, and had securiity call the person from their office to receive the paperwork. The paperwork cleared screening, I didn't need to.

      More people should do this.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  2. No crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    She didn't want to be fondled by total strangers in public. There's your crime right there!

    1. Re:No crime? by stoofa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." (from Orwell's 1984)

    2. Re:No crime? by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rosa Parks: She went to the front of the bus. What did she think would happen if she refused to go to the back of the bus?

      Lesson: Just because it's law, doesn't mean it's right; just because it's law, doesn't mean that complying with it is the best choice; just because it's law, doesn't mean that an intelligent citizen writes someone off for a strict violation.

      Some laws are simply wrong and arise only by malfeasance of legislators and those that encourage them down wrongful paths. This is unquestionably one of those cases.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:No crime? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sigh. She went to the airport. What did she think would happen if she refused to use the scanners she knew were there?

      Allow me to introduce you to the highest law of the United States, the law that governs the government itself:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

      I know, it is not something we really care about in this day and age, but at one time the restrictions on the government that the constitution imposes were considered to be important. People had this notion that we could protect ourselves from tyranny, that the US was somehow going to be a better country than its predecessors, and so forth.

      Oh well, enough of that, we need to decide which right-wing candidate to put into office (because voting for the left wing is a waste).

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  3. Not criminal? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the video does not appear to display a significant blockage of traffic nor anything noticeably criminal.

    She was defying the TSA.

    If they let her get away with it then pretty soon other people would be defying them, too. All protesters must be stamped on, hard.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Not criminal? by NettiWelho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One would think that in the land of the free those kind of shenanigans would only provoke a stronger response from the populace..

    2. Re:Not criminal? by ciderbrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The terrorists won years ago. They even elect them.

    3. Re:Not criminal? by BorgDrone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You forget it is also the home of the brave. Where 'brave' means so scared of the extremely remote chance you might be the victim of terrorism that they gladly give up their freedoms.

      Land of the oppressed, home of the cowards.

    4. Re:Not criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're the ones who made all that shit up.

      Seriously. Man in cavern in middle east. Has rusty Rifle.

      Response: billions of dollars in (crony built) weapons. Crazy laws outlawing all manner of protest and enforced by (crony built) equipment and forces.

      You lost before you knew you were playing.

    5. Re:Not criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      One would think that in the land of the free those kind of shenanigans would only provoke a stronger response from the populace..

      It's OK, as long as everyone has a gun they will prevent the government from overstepping its bounds.

    6. Re:Not criminal? by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The TSA is no longer about security, or even security theater. It is now a jobs program. Can't kill the TSA because that means 60000 more unemployment people, all of whom will be pissed off at whatever administration does it.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    7. Re:Not criminal? by contrarywise · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm a European and I will not be vacationing in the US. Not much of a sanction, just a few thousand dollars less in the US economy, but what do you expect me to do - declare war on the buggers?

    8. Re:Not criminal? by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      instead of sitting fat and happy in front of their sports programs.

      ...Or reading/posting to Slashdot about it. ;)

    9. Re:Not criminal? by ciderbrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      America, you had it right before everyone else did. Take it back.
      “Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin

    10. Re:Not criminal? by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As an american, I strongly suggest that anyone from outside to not visit us. This is a Police State, we like tromping on freedoms here. and they treat non citizens WORSE than citizens.

      Your money is better spent in a Free country like Canada.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Not criminal? by epSos-de · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Vacationing in US is kind of stressful. You have to register yourself before going to US and then you are required to perform face and fingerprint scans at the airport. You can not have normal food in there and their public transport is not nice at all. They might also put you in detention for no reason, if your name is similar to the name on the screen. Seriously, people. Go visit Europe, we have lesser rules for paying tourists as long as they do not intend immigration, which also sucks in Europe.

    12. Re:Not criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No fuckhead, this is not a police state. Having worked wtih US LE, the US is not a police state, even int he worst of cases. The reason not to go to the US is the buggered up customs process, which takes 4 hours.

      Yes it is a police state. And you want to know why ? Because organizations like the TSA have no, zero, zip, nada accountability. They can damn well do whatever they want, and the courts have approved them.
      Take away your freedom to fly, to travel by train, by car etc... and sooner or later you'll find yourself in a prison. You're free to walk to your 60 mile distant workplace. You're free to walk to your mother's anniversary 1000 miles away on the other side of the country etc... The Soviets would have been proud of such a poiicy to restrict freedom without giving the illusion of taking freedom away.
      Police can do whatever the fuck they want and they have zero accoutability. The goverment through its "national security letters" can do whatever it wants and it has zero accountability. The government can incarcerate you for indefinite times (and fuck the whole due process thing) and torture you and you have no recourse.
      The government can accuse of anything preseting "secret" evidence (my my how the Soviets would have been proud) without disclosing it during the court proceedings.
      Do you see a pattern emerging here dear citizen ? Arbitrariness, you are at the mercy of a machine that acts arbitrarily and has no accountability. All that talk about checks and balances in the government is shit. And the proof is right before your eyes.
      So yes, the reason to never go to the US is because it has become in all but name a police state.

    13. Re:Not criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then you haven't had your teenage daughter break down in tears because a TSA creep crossed the line.

      Or maybe you have't seen a victim of past sexual abuse panic when she gets touched?

      Or maybe you just lack empathy?

  4. Romney & Obama - Do they support pat down? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let this be a test case for the tweedledee and tweedledum, who wants the job at the White House so badly --- do they support a public fondl... [ahem] a pat down of a 14 year old American girl, in an American air port?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Romney & Obama - Do they support pat down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Isn't sake made from rice and not from children?

    2. Re:Romney & Obama - Do they support pat down? by Thaelon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The choice between Democrat and Republican is not freedom, but a box to contain you.

      Both support these measures.

      Both support more spending on the War Department (I refuse to call it by its doublethink name.)

      Both oppose ending marijuana prohibition.

      Both endorsed and passed the NDAA.

      Both support the TSA's existence.

      So which one will you choose? It is no different than our ridiculous telecom oligopoly. Sure you can choose, between three equivalently shitty, abusive options.

      Choosing between provided options is not freedom, it's multiple choice where no answer is freedom.

      --

      Question everything

    3. Re:Romney & Obama - Do they support pat down? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The chance to vote for the lesser of two evils is something many people around the world would kill for.

      If you're in a swing state, a vote for a third party candidate is a vote in favor of Romney-appointed Supreme Court justices.

  5. Of course it's a crime! by temcat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    She wanted to deny the TSA staff their legal right to watch naked 14 yo girls!

  6. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.... by novium · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Questioning the system will get you in trouble every time. It helps make sure that the cost of complaining or asserting your rights or asking for consideration or doing anything but keeping your head down and doing whatever you're told is too high compared to the (relatively) momentary discomfort and inconvenience. And it's pretty effective too. I know my rights- in encounters with the police, or when going through security at the airport - but when if a cop stopped me for no reason walking to the store (as frequently happens to my sister) and demanded to see my ID or search my bag....I can't say I wouldn't do exactly as she does and just go with it. I certainly do with the TSA's nonsense. The possibility of getting dragged off for some bullshit reason is a good threat. Even if it doesn't stick, it still sucked. You still endangered your job/vacation/whatever.

  7. Re:What is sad here by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, I do suppose this logic is "interesting."

    I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.

    So you're saying you'd rather have everyone who wants to get on a plane have their privacy violated because you're afraid of the minuscule chance that a terrorist might attack? I guess privacy isn't important at all as long as you can have your security theater.

    But how about we install surveillance cameras in everyone's homes? It's for your own safety and could stop a few crimes, so it's all worth it. Rights mean nothing at all.

    When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack after we pumped up security?

    When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack since I received my anti-terrorist rock?

    And more than likely, it's not because of the TSA's security theater, but because of secured cockpit doors and the willingness of citizens to fight back.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  8. Re:What is sad here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
    - Samuel Adams

    (Captcha - unneeded)

  9. Re:If billionaires were decent people... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If billionaires are needed to get justice in the US, the problem isn't with the billionaires, its with the justice system.

  10. Re:What is sad here by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.

    What about the kid who died in the wheel well of the jet airplane? If he could get in there then anyone could. Hell, just this week I saw a story about a guy who was stranded and hopped the fence into an airport, hoping to be confronted immediately by security (and thus saved). He walked around all the airplanes out on the tarmac, and right up to where the passenger terminals are. So, what good is getting groped or scanned other than to acclimate you to personal intrusions? None. It's the illusion of security. The scanners don't even work. Remember that story about the guy with a pocket on his sleeve? He put a metal cigarette pack in the pocket and since it was off his body, and appeared black as the background, they didn't see it at all on the scanner and he hopped on the plane with it.

    Whatever happened to, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death?" Or that bit Ben Franklin said about trading your freedom for security and having neither? You've lost your way somewhere. You've become an irrational fear slut. You're thousands of times MORE likely to be killed in a car wreck and you don't run around spouting BS about how a TSA agent needs to ride with every car load to ensure safety. FUCK YOU. It's fools like you that are letting them turn the US into an oppressive regime, just like the ones we so hated in the 80's.

  11. Re:What is sad here by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who says they have to "slip by"?

    This is the thing I really don't get. Who created the belief that terrorists have to get past airport security to do anything and why do people believe it?

    If I was a terrorist leader I'd blow up a few bags of ball bearings in the lines of people waiting to nudie-scanned. The country would implode overnight...

    The only reason this isn't happening is that there are no terrorists.

    (nb. If they want to "slip by" they can just put the C4 up their asses or whatever... Drug smugglers do it all the time, why not terrorists?)

    --
    No sig today...
  12. I wish by Weezul · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did Obama order DHS to comply with the court order requiring the TSA to publish various statistics that'd make the nuddy scanners look bad? No

    Anyways, you should always refuse the nuddy scanner and accept the pat down instead, if only for the radiation hazard.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    1. Re:I wish by lorenlal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's certainly what RapiScan and the TSA officials stated, but they never published what the numbers really were. They just assured us.

      I'm not big on going all tin-foil on this. Many of us have been wondering why they insist on not publishing what the measured/actual radiation exposure is. The concerns have been raised as reports came out (some dubious) that TSA agents were already showing higher than normal incident rates for cancers. There was an incident where an inspection turned up unusually high readings. Granted, that also turned out to be a clerical issue where the inspector didn't understand part of the inspection... Which was a concern in itself. Through all this, we still don't know what the exposure is supposed to be, nor what it really is.

      The problem here has been a lack of transparency... and other abuses involving the millimeter wave scanner horror stories (storing images, having ladies go through multiple times). Worse is that these "measures" are invasive, possibly a health risk, and they don't actually increase our security. There are plenty of videos out there on how to beat the scanners, the measures irritate us and end up (in my opinion) more complacent.

      As for the passive scanners, that would be great. I need to see where they are in development because I haven't heard anything on that yet. If you have a link, I'd appreciate it. I'll get going on Google in the meantime.

    2. Re:I wish by danbert8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is the risk of being killed in a terrorist act?

      Taking these figures into account, a rough calculation suggests that in the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about one in 20 million. This compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.

      http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should

      Vs. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer

      1 in 20 million vs even a .1% increase in the risk of cancer which at best is 1 in 5000

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    3. Re:I wish by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not big on going all tin-foil on this

      I agree, not tinfoil, it's full lead foil territory.
      If a doctor or dentist was operating such gear without a third party testing for emission levels they would go directly to jail.

    4. Re:I wish by navyjeff · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Here is Bruce Schneier's take on the subject.

      "... assuming that the radiation in a backscatter X-ray is about a hundredth the dose of a dental X-ray, we find that a backscatter X-ray increases the odds of dying from cancer by about 16 ten millionths of one percent. That suggests that for every billion passengers screened with backscatter radiation, about 16 will die from cancer as a result.

      Given that there will be 600 million airplane passengers per year, that makes the machines deadlier than the terrorists."

    5. Re:I wish by dyingtolive · · Score: 5, Funny

      I didn't say water, purified with bleach. I said bleach.

      That's fine, if you want to sidestep the analogy with pedanticism, substitute bleach with potassium cyanide, or lye, or motor oil. Hell, substitute it with ionizing radia... oh, wait. :(

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
  13. Re:Summary is rediculoous by Legion303 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TSA screeners aren't law enforcement.

    Any other fallacious bullshit you'd like to spout while you're here?

  14. Re:If only Obama got into office he'd fix this all by alexo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And is the warm feeling of standing up for your principles when you know, at the current moment, it's a doomed effort worth increasing the chance the 'greater evil' will win?

    Consider a purely hypothetical situation.

    Imagine that there are no "greater" evil nor "lesser" evils. Instead, there are two factions which are *equally* evil, differing only in details. Say, for example, one boils kittens while the other fries puppies. What if those factions discovered a sweet setup, wherein they can get the people to consider any of them to be a "lesser" evil based on personal preferences and ensure their support by playing on fears of a "greater" evil winning? If a Knight in Shiny Armour would arise, promising to deliver the poor pets from their fate, he will get no traction. The dog-loving people would be afraid to support him, lest it leads to a victory of the puppy fryers; and, similarly, the cat-loving people's concern would be that the kitten boilers may prevail. All it would take is talking loudly about "splitting your vote", "throwing your vote away", etc. in the media, to doom all present and future KiShAs to irrelevancy.

    Now let us add some "special interest" groups to the equation. E.g., the Kill All Baby Pets corporation, that can secure some benefits (legal or otherwise) when either "evil" faction is in power, Such groups will also strive to perpetuate the notion that your only options is to support the "lesser evil" -- for their own benefit, of course.

    After concluding our little thought experiment, let me ask you this:
    Should, entropy forbid, the people in power get wind of this idea and put it into practice, what will you do?
    Come to think of it, what if the game is already on? Politics is a tough game and most top-level players are pretty smart and devious.

    Still want to vote for the "lesser evil"?