Why Did I Have To Go To Pravda To Get My Op-Ed About TSA Rape Published?
I don't understand it. I went to countless mainstream news outlets in America and every one of them refused to publish this -- my op-ed on our eroding civil liberties and what we need to do to stand up for them.
Media outlets that refused to publish this piece include the LA Times, The New York Times, Reuters, CNN.com, The Huffington Post, AOL, The Wall Street Journal, Yahoo.com, MSNBC.com, and The Washington Post.
Apparently, only the Russian media cares about discussing civil liberties in America. The Russian newspaper Pravda published the piece about an hour after I sent it to them. (My next try was going to be North Korea, but the furor there following Kim Jun Il's death made that seem like kind of a bad idea.)
The entire piece is published here, on Pravda's website. An excerpt:
STANDING UP FOR OUR ERODING CIVIL LIBERTIES
by syndicated columnist Amy AlkonThis country's Founding Fathers were a bunch of obnoxious jerks -- and I mean that in the most reverent way. These were men who were fiercely opposed to blind obedience to authority, and who laid their lives on the line to flip it the bird. Oh, how disappointingly -- and dangerously -- far we've fallen. Our Constitutional rights are increasingly being eroded -- at TSA checkpoints, at police stops where citizens are arrested for videotaping, and elsewhere -- and so many Americans are just sitting there blinking like livestock.
At the airport this past March, I wasn't one of those people, and that sometimes comes with a price. In my case, $500,000. That's what a TSA agent's lawyer is demanding from me for "defaming" her client by saying she sexually violated me during the pat-down, and then for "libeling" her when I blogged about it. Marc J. Randazza, the First Amendment lawyer defending me, called her case "meritless," but this woman's notion that I should fund her existence for the rest of her life because I stood up for my Constitutional rights is beyond disgusting.
On March 31, 2011, I was flying out of LAX to attend a psychology conference in New York. When I reached the TSA checkpoint in the United terminal, I found that I had no choice but to get the pat-down. Tears welled up in my eyes -- for how we've allowed the Constitution to be ripped up at the airport door and because I was powerless to stop a total stranger from running her hands over the most private parts of my body as a condition of normal, ordinary business travel.
I can hold back the tears...hang tough...but as I was made to "assume the position" on a rubber mat like a common criminal, I thought fast. I decided that these TSA "officers" earning a living violating our Fourth Amendment rights, and searching us without probable cause, do not deserve my quiet compliance. I let the tears come. In fact, I sobbed my guts out as the agent groped me. And then it happened: She stuck the side of her latex-gloved hand into my vulva. Four times. Twice from the front and twice from the back, with the only barrier being the fabric of my pants. I was shocked -- utterly unprepared for how she got the side of her hand up there.. It was government-administered sexual assault -- an action that, in the workplace, would be considered sexual harassment, and elsewhere would be considered a serious crime.
Powerless to stop her, but not to vigorously protest what she did to me, as I left the checkpoint, I yelled, "YOU RAPED ME." I later blogged about it, naming her name, and urging others to post the names of TSA agents who search them (even when done according to TSA procedure), explaining, "It's got to become very uncomfortable to be one of those who earns a living by 'just following orders.'"
Some believe I'm wrong to suggest such things -- particularly those who believe the TSA is keeping us safer. Unfortunately, it is not. Security expert Bruce Schneier calls the TSA's efforts "security theater," noting all the dangerous items they miss, and observing that during the agency's multi-billion-dollar history, they have yet to thwart a single attempted terrorist attack.
If the TSA's actual mission were its stated one -- protecting the Nation's transportation's systems... -- checkpoints wouldn't be staffed by low-wage, unskilled workers, they wouldn't be searching everyone, and they certainly wouldn't be waiting until terrorists get to the airport to try to root them out. Meaningful measures to thwart terrorist acts require highly trained law enforcement officers using targeted intelligence to identify suspects long before they launch their plot.
The TSA's main accomplishment seems to be obedience training for the American public -- priming us to be docile (and even polite) when ordered to give up our civil liberties. Not only does the TSA violate our Fourth Amendment rights, they've posted signs that effectively eradicate our First Amendment right to speak out about it. One such sign, in Denver International Airport, offers the vague warning that "verbal abuse" of agents will "not be tolerated." Travelers are left to wonder whether it's "verbal abuse" to inform the TSA agent with his latex-gloved hands on their testicles that this isn't making us safer, or are they only in trouble if they pepper their statement with obscenities? Not surprisingly, few seem willing to speak out and risk arrest... (CONT'D)
Please click on "CONT'D" to read the rest of the piece -- including my call to American women to do as I did at TSA checkpoints, and not be quietly compliant in the face of our Fourth Amendment rights being violated.
The initial story, with the TSA agent's lawyer's demand for $500,000 and a muzzling of me, is here, from Mike Masnick at TechDirt: "TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'"
Masnick at TechDirt also posted the response from my wonderful First Amendment lawyer, Marc J. Randazza, who took my case pro bono. I have not heard since from Vicky Roberts, the lawyer for the TSA agent, Thedala Magee. Ken White at Popehat writes more about Roberts and the whole story here. Martin Berg's LA Weekly story about this is here:
Just because she offers advice on manners in the modern world, don't expect blogger/columnist Amy Alkon to stand by quietly if she thinks a government employee is violating her rights at the airport."I'm just a normal girl from the Midwest who doesn't believe that she gets to have these rights and then doesn't have to stand up for them when they're violated," Alkon says.
My original blog item on this, "Don't Give The TSA An Easy Time Of Violating Your Rights," is here.
Please link and share this piece widely so Americans will see it and consider standing up for their civil liberties instead of docilely giving them up. And when your civil liberties are yanked from you, please, at the very least, don't go quietly.
UPDATE: For any who question my use of the term "rape," the narrow definition of rape needed to change -- and it did. From the Times-Picayune editorial about "the extremely narrow definition of rape, one that left out many victims and provided a woefully incomplete statistical picture of the crime":
The old definition of rape -- as the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will -- overlooked other forms of rape and the fact that men, too, can be victims. It also failed to take into account victims who are raped while drugged or intoxicated.The definition is also narrower than what is used by most police departments across the country. The discrepancy means that thousands of sexual assaults committed each year have not been reflected in the federal government's Uniform Crime Report.
The resulting under reporting can lead to fewer resources being committed to catching rapists and helping victims.
The FBI will begin defining rape next spring as "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.'' That's a much more inclusive -- and accurate -- definition.
It sure has come to a pretty pass with American media, when you have to go to PRAVDA to get your story of TSA abuse out to the world.
Did you try FOX News, by any chance? The Washington Times? The New York Post or Boston Herald?
mpetrie98 at December 21, 2011 9:16 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/21/why_did_i_have.html#comment-2866754">comment from mpetrie98I went only to "centrist" news outlets (as opposed to any news outlets that would be seen to be right-leaning) because I wanted this piece to have the widest possible readership -- it needs to be widely read to have any effect; in order to have any number of American women take me up on my idea of being civilly disobedient at TSA checkpoints.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2011 9:21 AM
Brava, Amy!!
Will share far and wide.
The United Sheeple of America still won't get it, still won't be swayed, but hell, I've given up on them anyway.
Lisa Simeone at December 21, 2011 9:27 AM
Well now you see how "centrist" the news organizations you chose are. The L.A. Times, MSNBC, NY Times, and Reuters are centrist? Its been clear to me for years they have a leftist agenda. Patterico rails on the L.A. Times bias quite often. Its too bad they wouldn't publish it but it doesn't surprise me on bit.
Brett at December 21, 2011 9:30 AM
A glance at the sidebar shows that your piece is the second most popular op-ed on the Pravda site. Well-done.
Martin at December 21, 2011 9:30 AM
I went only to "centrist" news outlets (as opposed to any news outlets that would be seen to be right-leaning) because I wanted this piece to have the widest possible readership...
Great plan, that. I'm glad that you at least put "centrist" in quotes, but c'mon. You might as well have gone to Pravda circa 1975 with a column about the dangers of central planning.
JDThompson at December 21, 2011 9:37 AM
The she-devil writes for Pravda!
Congratulations on getting this published, Amy. You may want to rethink sending it only to centrist media though. If it gains ground on the fringe, it will be discussed in the center.
Eric at December 21, 2011 9:40 AM
In Soviet Russia, rights violate you!
Tyler at December 21, 2011 9:54 AM
Ouch. My employer is on the list of refusers. Apologies, but of course, I have zero influence over their decisions. (Gratified to see at least that someone sees them as "centrist.")
I agree with Eric,though: sometimes you have to take it to the fringe, and that might get it noticed by the center.
gharkness at December 21, 2011 10:22 AM
Congratulations on the article, Amy. I'm glad it made it out there somehow. Many people share your feelings and need to know they aren't alone.
It's extremely strange that America's mainstream media is so unwilling to challenge the government on TSA. Are they so obsessed with partisan politics that they refuse to print anything that might reflect badly on the President? Are they blind to the real human suffering that TSA is causing? Are they intimidated by the government? Do they just suck at journalism?
ProPublica has some good coverage of the scanner issues. If anyone else has any suggestions of where to find consistent skepticism of TSA I'm happy to hear it. I'll also be watching Pravda a little more now, strangely enough.
Paul F at December 21, 2011 10:44 AM
So have you gotten rid of that delusion that those news outlets are "Centrist"?
TTTCOTTH at December 21, 2011 10:45 AM
Because Obama is President. And because the number one job of the MSM (yes, even ahead of making a profit or telling the truth) is ensuring Obama's reelection, things like this have to be rejected because they "don't fit the narrative."
Moreover, it is "progressives" who have constantly opposed attempts to limit the TSA's power in this regard:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/25/169518/texas-tsa/
Lawrence Person at December 21, 2011 10:50 AM
"ProPublica has some good coverage of the scanner issues. If anyone else has any suggestions of where to find consistent skepticism of TSA I'm happy to hear it. I'll also be watching Pravda a little more now, strangely enough."
Paul, I've been writing and speaking out publicly about the TSA's abuses for years now. Can't append the hundreds of links. Here's just one (and click my name for another):
http://tsanewsblog.com/214/news/history-repeats-itself-with-tsas-strip-search-tactics/
Lisa Simeone at December 21, 2011 10:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/21/why_did_i_have.html#comment-2866963">comment from TTTCOTTHSo have you gotten rid of that delusion that those news outlets are "Centrist"?
In saying this, I'm not doing a media analysis. I wanted to get this out to the broadest possible group of people, and I sent this to sites that would be read by people on both right and left -- as well as those of us who are...well, as I call myself, I'm a "Neither" -- Neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2011 10:52 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/21/why_did_i_have.html#comment-2866972">comment from Paul FThanks, Paul F. And please, everyone, share this op-ed and don't go quietly when your rights are violated.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2011 10:53 AM
"Rape" is a pretty strong word. I personally believe that you're cheapening its meaning by using in this fashion. That said, I agree that the TSA patdowns are getting out of hand. Body scanners are a better solution, but they too need some fixing. The images don't actually have to be displayed as an 8x10 high-res glossy nude centerfold to the operator. A low-res image is enough, with software determining if there's anything unwarranted on your person. But not every airport can afford them yet. And I don't think we've even touched the effect of so many X-Rays on frequent travelers. So the patdowns will continue. What is the alternative? Can we just go back to security as it was before 9/11? Have these new intrusive patdowns and scanners actually caught a terrorist?
Guest at December 21, 2011 10:57 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/21/why_did_i_have.html#comment-2867001">comment from GuestActually, the definition of rape had to change -- and it did. From the Times-Picayune:
http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2011/12/a_clearer_rape_definition_was.html
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2011 11:00 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/21/why_did_i_have.html#comment-2867013">comment from GuestI agree that the TSA patdowns are getting out of hand.
Gotten out of hand?!
They aren't catching terrorists.
And let's again note that our last line of defense against a terrorist blowing up a plane is some low-wage, unskilled worker who probably got his or her job after seeing it advertised on a pizza box. You catch terrorists, as I say in the piece, through having highly skilled agents doing targeted intelligence work.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2011 11:02 AM
Amy, have you checked Pravda to make sure they accurately translated this piece? Many of the upper echelon in Russia probably take great joy in anything that starts out "The Founding Fathers were obnoxious jerks", and if the spirit of the entire op-ed got "mistranslated" it could be a great propaganda piece. I can't imagine die-hards like Putin appreciating anything that lauds anything other than a blind reverence for entrenched authority.
Probably you thought of this. I like your stuff, know you're smart. Just sayin' in case you didn't.
Amy at December 21, 2011 11:04 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/21/why_did_i_have.html#comment-2867044">comment from AmyIt wasn't translated. It's published exactly as I wrote it.
I was forced to go to Pravda after I spent months making connections to op-ed editors in the US and sending this out and getting rejection after rejection.
This piece was vetted by four friends of mine -- two are respected reporters, one is my "media rabbi," and another is a very bright and very talented op-ed writer. I told them to hand me my ass and they all gave me suggestions about what to take out/put in, and how to make the piece more palatable to editors. I was just interested in getting the piece out. I didn't care whether I made money for it (I didn't -- from Pravda, and wouldn't have from CNN.com or some of these other outlets, or not much money in the case of the NYT - you get $75 for an op-ed there these days...typically something that's taken you days or more to write.)
My lawyer, when he took my case pro bono (after I apologized for being a journalist in the non-golden age of newspapers), told me that "some cases are too important to need to make money on," (that's from memory but I think it's right). Well, some pieces of writing are likewise too important to need to make money on, and this is one of them.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2011 11:12 AM
Well, if you shun the "most popular cable news channel" and the other "right-wing" outlets, hopefully you've put the link to it on twitter? I'll be happy to retweet it to my followers.
mpetrie98 at December 21, 2011 11:14 AM
Maybe the people that rejected you think you're a bad writer? Why did I have to submit my novel to 20 publishers before I found someone to publish? Because my novel stunk! Maybe the problem is that you need to learn to be more self-critical.
Ben at December 21, 2011 11:15 AM
"Why Did I Have To Go To Pravda To Get My Op-Ed About TSA Rape Published?"
Because George W. Bush left office in January 2009.
vinny vidivici at December 21, 2011 11:44 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/21/why_did_i_have.html#comment-2867139">comment from BenMaybe the people that rejected you think you're a bad writer? Why did I have to submit my novel to 20 publishers before I found someone to publish? Because my novel stunk! Maybe the problem is that you need to learn to be more self-critical.
A few of the editors actually wrote back to say it was a wonderful/wonderfully written piece -- it just "wasn't for us."
I sent it to four friends -- four journalism hard-asses -- to cut out my self-indulgences. And then another -- an alt weekly editor who's written for mainstream outlets as well, also took a look at it...after I wrote them begging them to ream me for anything I needed reaming on. I'm a person who sees criticism as a gift. I'm signing with my new literary agent mainly because her tweaks of my work are so brilliant.
I am an enormously self-critical person and I have an editor who works for me and whose job it is to tell me I suck, I'm not funny, I'm not making sense, I'm going short on some point of science, etc. She went through this numerous times before the others did.
The bottom line: Read it. Is it "bad writing"?
And finally, it is amusing that you assume that it could be bad writing but don't actually read and assess it.
Many people who can't sell their novel can't because they think writing is typing. I am going out to write ONE PARAGRAPH today for my column. Maybe. It might take me two days. There's a good bit of research to go into it, but I'll often take a day to write a paragraph because I need to rewrite and rewrite it to make it good. Good enough for my standards, that is. "Writing," as I believe Michael Crichton said, "is rewriting." I'll add to that "and rewriting and rewriting."
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2011 11:46 AM
"The FBI will begin defining rape next spring as "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.'' That's a much more inclusive -- and accurate -- definition."
I guess I disagree with not only you but the FBI as well. I don't believe that the TSA running a hand over your privates - with your clothing between you and them, is rape. It's exceeding intrusive, but it's not rape. Is there a difference between "rape" and "sexual assault"?
Guest at December 21, 2011 11:54 AM
The TSA don't want to rape passengers. But they have their orders. They have to do it.
They are just following orders.
Sorry.
sol at December 21, 2011 11:55 AM
"I can't imagine die-hards like Putin appreciating anything that lauds anything other than a blind reverence for entrenched authority."
As opposed to, say, the millions of TSA apologists in this country?
Guest writes: "A low-res image is enough, with software determining if there's anything unwarranted on your person. But not every airport can afford them yet. And I don't think we've even touched the effect of so many X-Rays on frequent travelers. So the patdowns will continue. What is the alternative? Can we just go back to security as it was before 9/11? Have these new intrusive patdowns and scanners actually caught a terrorist?"
I've addressed all these issues so many times, sorry I can't append all the links here (can only do one, else the comment gets sent to spam -- please click my name to see more info). So I will state what are the facts, and you'll have to look up the appropriate links yourself.
Airports "affording" the scanners has nothing to do with anything. The scanners -- at $150,000 to $180,000 a pop -- are paid for by TSA through DHS, meaning we pay for them. In addition, they are being paid for by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Rapiscan, L-3, Smiths, American Science & Engineering, etc. are the corporations getting rich off this security boondoggle.
Their safety has not been proven. Despite TSA's repeated lies -- and lies are what they are -- the scanners have not undergone outside testing. The backscatter (or x-ray) machines especially, which use ionizing radiation, are worrisome. The MMW (millimeter wave) machines don't use radiation, but they're still untested. And how can we trust that any of them are properly calibrated and maintain that proper calibration?
The EU recently banned backscatter scanners.
Bigger picture is still invasion of privacy, even if it were proven that all scanners were safe. And please, nobody lecture me about showing my bits. I go to nude beaches. It's not about showing my bits. And don't give me that bullshit about the "cartoon" images. I'm not a fucking criminal. I refuse to be treated like one.
What is the alternative? Same procedures that were in place before 9/11, on 9/11, and after 9/11, but before the Reign of Molestation began. No bombs were brought onto planes on 9/11. If there are so many terrorists everywhere, how come planes haven't been dropping out of the sky left and right, even before the groping began?
And if the scoping and groping is so necessary, why stop there? Why not cavity searches?
And no, no terrorists have been caught or thwarted by the TSA, though the smurfs have confiscated a lot of Big Scary Things, like pot, pills, snow globes, tweezers, and shampoo.
This whole thing is part of the "War on Terror" scam. Fear is very profitable. A few corporations get to stuff their pockets, to the tune of billions, while the sheeple are kept in line. So far, it's working out great.
http://tsanewsblog.com/240/news/the-tsas-no-charm-offensive-takes-flight/
Lisa Simeone at December 21, 2011 11:58 AM
Who knew you'd get help from the Russkies? Things are in a bad way, indeed.
Xуй тебе, неграмотные американские средства массовой коммуникации--fuck yourself, illiterate American means of mass communication!
An Alkon fan at December 21, 2011 12:07 PM
Love it, sol!!
And I addressed Guest's comments, but my comment is being held up in spam. Probably because it was too long. Amy will retrieve it soon.
Lisa Simeone at December 21, 2011 12:12 PM
Don't forget:
"I fart in your general direction! You mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries! Now go away, or I'll taunt yooooou a second time!"
mpetrie98 at December 21, 2011 12:13 PM
Amy, I just cross-posted it at TSA News:
http://tsanewsblog.com/542/news/american-media-wont-publish-amy-alkons-story-but-pravda-will/
Lisa Simeone at December 21, 2011 12:15 PM
@Guest: We could have highly-trained people at the airports taking people aside and asking questions to try and smoke out terrorists (like Israel), but that makes too much sense.
mpetrie98 at December 21, 2011 12:16 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/21/why_did_i_have.html#comment-2867184">comment from GuestI guess I disagree with not only you but the FBI as well. I don't believe that the TSA running a hand over your privates - with your clothing between you and them, is rape. It's exceeding intrusive, but it's not rape. Is there a difference between "rape" and "sexual assault"?
I guess you feel no need to read before you comment. The woman stuck her hand INTO my vulva, between my labia.
Also, any physical search by a government worker of your body, sans probable cause, is a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. It is astonishing that people pop up to go all compliant like you do in your argument above rather than being indignant about the rights violation.
It is exceptionally upsetting to me to have a government worker grope my breasts alone as a condition of normal business travel, let alone the rest of the touching. In New Orleans, a worker touched my HAIR. Disgusting. A violation of my rights. But, apparently, we are too comfortable in America...we're so physically comfortable that we just "go with the flow" -- not wanting to be inconvenienced or much-bothered by standing up for our rights.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2011 12:16 PM
Your timing was off. You chose to write your Op-Ed during a Democratic presidency. Try again in 2-6 years. The media outlets you went to are not allowed to levy serious criticism against the federal government during Democratic presidencies, especially pertaining to abuses of civil liberties.
Roga at December 21, 2011 12:18 PM
I haven't flown in years, and I do not intend to. Others should refrain as well. If we could make a big enough dent in the number of people flying, the airlines would get the system changed.
Pettifogger at December 21, 2011 12:19 PM
I e-mailed the L.A. Times to ask them pointedly why Pravda ran your piece and they didn't.
It's unlikely to do any good, but the thing had to be asked. If I have time today I'll e-mail-whack a few more of the newspapers which wouldn't run your piece.
I'm old enough to remember when it was the L.A. Times which cared about human rights abuses and Pravda which ignored them. Now I understand better why, when I was younger, middle-aged men sounded as cranky as they did.
Erich Schwarz at December 21, 2011 12:19 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/21/why_did_i_have.html#comment-2867225">comment from Erich SchwarzThanks so much, Erich - that's great. They need to be asked this and to be called on the carpet for it.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2011 12:24 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/21/why_did_i_have.html#comment-2867228">comment from PettifoggerI haven't flown in years, and I do not intend to. Others should refrain as well.
Actually, I don't believe that will change the underlying problem -- the erosion of civil liberties. I think we need to continue flying and to protest in whatever ways we can. I think I've come up with a way to protest that leaves people some cover from being arrested (vis a vis TSA chills on free speech with the sort of sign I noted in the piece.) Think about the cost of the TSA and the signage and all to all of us -- we're actually paying to have our rights violated. It's disgusting -- and dangerous that people aren't speaking up.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2011 12:26 PM
Nevertheless, thank you for writing it, and thank you for trying to publish it. The Los Angeles Times, in particular, is useless -- it's their loss.
Chris Bray at December 21, 2011 12:39 PM
Hmm -- if the TSA lawyer thinks claiming sexual assault is worth $500K, what should actual sexual assault be worth? 10x as much? $5M? Not thinking ahead much, are they...
Alan at December 21, 2011 12:54 PM
I think we need to be careful when using words like "rape". For one, it trivializes the plight of people who have been truly victimized. It reminds me of the comparisons between holocaust victims and Arizona drivers asked to show proof of citizenship. The two things are on different planes (pardon the pun).
While I have no desire to be groped at the airport, in a prison I would support body cavity searches performed on dangerous inmates if it prevents them from killing someone. The search they are subjected to is more invasive than anything Amy experienced, and I am certain the prisoner would not consent. So let's not call it "rape".
We lose credibility when we use hyperbole. We should only cry "wolf" when wolves are present.
Willy at December 21, 2011 12:58 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/21/why_did_i_have.html#comment-2867271">comment from WillyI think we need to be careful when using words like "rape". For one, it trivializes the plight of people who have been truly victimized.
Does it really? Are you less raped at gunpoint if the word is used to describe other coercive sexual touching? See the bottom of the post. The FBI rightfully broadened their definition of rape to include coercive sexual touching of all kinds. And no, she didn't force me to have intercourse with her at gunpoint in an alley. We all know what I'm talking about -- and it's a great danger to all of our civil liberties to not speak out about it...and in bold terms.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2011 1:01 PM
Congrats on getting it published. I blogged it.
Ken at December 21, 2011 1:05 PM
While George W Bush was in the White House, I was labeled a liberal by in Instapundit reading freinds. The claimed that air travel was a privileged not a right. They claimed that all the crap TSA was doing was making the airways safer. Like yo, I pointed out it was simply theater. We had the underwear bomber. We had the shoe bomber.
Now that Uncle Barry is living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Glenn is linking to your story and claiming TSA is out of control. The problem with modern conservatives, seems to be their inability to handle dissension and their certainty that the liberals will not return to power and "misuse" the rules they feel are mandatory.
I am a 40-something year old Goldwater Conservative who lives in the South. I do not understand what our government was thinking giving tyrannical powers to $12 per hour employees.
George Burdell at December 21, 2011 1:23 PM
I've also had issues with the LAX TSA people. No where as bad as what Alkon have been through but they clearly are enjoying their "authority." I've been manhandled to the nudoscopes (not touched sexually) where I'm pretty sure they are counting on disorienting passengers who are not expecting to have to lay down wallets and such, they have been verbally abusive when I've pointed out clearly that they are keeping me away from a line of sight form my belongings* which for me is as big an issue as being groped by people I don't trust. I've also seen them be especially impatient and hostile with international biz and family travelers who don;t have to go through this theatre. I have no sympathy for the abuse LAX-TSAers get from passengers despite the high traffic from both seasoned and clueless travelers they get. I've been through TSA checkpoints in plenty of other airports including "major" ones and I think the LAX ones are the worst that I've dealt with.
*(I have a old friend who was a TSA consultant in the early post 9/11 days, and she made it explicitly clear that that was NEVER acceptable due to the risk of theft, including insider theft and how that "little thing" agitates passengers and erodes trust)
Bill at December 21, 2011 1:36 PM
And I suspect that they'd tazer me for my typos above just for grins even though they'd probably not do much better :-P (I'll blame Lion's autocorrection feature it it has one)
Bill at December 21, 2011 1:38 PM
Amy, it doesn't really matter how the FBI defines rape this week. We are trying to formulate a better definition than the one provided by the law enforcement system that you are railing against.
I agree with you that searches are a slippery slope. That is my real issue with government searches. As a young man I once consented to a search of my car, knowing that I would get a ticket if I did not. That wasn't rape. Had they frisked me intimately, it would have been a violation of my rights, but still not rape. The prisoners of whom I spoke are not being raped despite the fact that they are subjected to a far more invasive search than you were.
There are degrees of invasiveness, and I would reserve the word "rape" for actions that are truly invasive and deliberate. Otherwise you lose credibility with people like me--and I know there are other people out there that do not see this issue in black-and-white terms.
Willy at December 21, 2011 1:40 PM
(And lastly. I should point out that my homebase airport TSA agents are a far cry from LAX TSA - they are courteous, professional, calm and will explain exactly what they are doing and "why". It's still a violation of fundamental rights but they are clearly not enjoying it the way the ones we are talking about are. And while they've never patted me down, I've always heard them say to passengers that "get it" to always keep your eyes on your stuff and let them know if they are making it difficult.)
Bill at December 21, 2011 1:44 PM
Let me add my voice to those who despise the TSA. I could not hold them in greater contempt. The lot of them should be fired immediately, barred from any sort of unemployment compensation, and never allowed to even apply for government work again. I have to fly because I live and work overseas, but I have to grit my teeth every time I do. I almost coldcocked a TSA bastard in LAX once and swore after that I would never go through there again. It's been six years and if I never see LAX again, it will be too soon.
Abolish the TSA!
mac at December 21, 2011 1:56 PM
I make it a habit to give any public servant I encounter an experience as unpleasant for them as the one they give me. They need to be endlessly told how worthless they are and how much trouble they cause. They need to know that they are held in contempt by their fellow citizens and they need to be told that they should find more honorable employment... such as a whore or drug dealer... who provide services people actually want and need.
There needs to be a stigma attached to these jobs.
I am not going to agree on the rape part though. I think what happened was more appropriately called molestation. We don't want to cheapen the word rape any more than it has already been cheapened. Whatever you call it, the offense was still a grave one that no one should have to endure.
The most effective way to deal with muslim terrorists is to overthrow the countries where they take refuge and kill a bunch of them. If we had played defense after 9/11 we would have had an endless number of planes fall from the sky. In fairness the TSA has never stopped a plot but they may have deterred some. That is just something that is hard to prove one way or the other. But there is no doubt that hunting down the terrorists and those who support them is tremendously effective.
Voluble at December 21, 2011 2:04 PM
You've been linked on Instapundit, so that should get some more eyeballs your way:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/133887/
Martin at December 21, 2011 2:45 PM
The TSA in Columbus Ohio now use fake nametags so that you can not report them. I was gropped by a 45 year old fat guy with a badge that said "Rose".
When I complained that his name was not on his uniform he told me they trade all the time.
Tenzo at December 21, 2011 3:07 PM
Perhaps the American media were too scared of getting sued by the same crazy bitch who groped you. Most good things that don't happen anymore in the USA are because someone's running scared of a hypothetical lawsuit.
As for all you people complaining about Amy's use of the word "rape" being hyperbolic, let's say it is, even though it isn't very.
We are talking here about government mission creep. You have to sound the alarm early and loudly or it will be too late.
We're talking about government goons not only feeling up people in airports but using mobile backscatter machines to scan parked vehicles on public streets. They're doing it in bus terminals too. They're getting you used to being frisked and effed-with without probable cause.
As for you people who are going all grammar-police complaining about Amy's use of the word "rape" or you idiots siding outright with the government, you're deeply stupid. Whether it's because you make a habit of missing the point or you make a habit of obedience or you make a habit of being easily stampeded, it's a habit. Habits are deep. You are thus deeply stupid. I could have left off that last sentence and this one, except I wanted to insult you all and have you all know I'm insulting you, and you're too stupid to reliably connect the dots.
Comment Monster at December 21, 2011 3:16 PM
"Guest" and "Willy":
What are you doing that you are intent on narrowing the definition of rape?
By the way - the definition, "penetration, however slight" has been effective in the Uniform Code of Military Justice for more than 30 years.
Radwaste at December 21, 2011 3:47 PM
With all due respect to the lady whose sensibilities were offended, pressing the side of your hand against someone's vulva through their pants (if a scanner indicates a risk that something is being carried there) is not rape. Screaming and crying and carrying on at something like that makes it harder for legitimate complaints to be taken seriously.
I recommend that the next time she travels she allots some extra time to take the option of a touchless strip-search.
I also suspect that poor training of minimum-wage TSA contractors is behind a LOT of the complaints about invasive searches. There is no reason to touch the sensitive body areas more than once.
... and I say this as someone who has gotten so fed up with patdowns that I have tried to take my shirt off at airport checkpoints.
Alexis at December 21, 2011 3:47 PM
"Despite TSA's repeated lies -- and lies are what they are -- the scanners have not undergone outside testing."
Lisa, I'm sorry, but that's not true. Further, there is an engineering reason that the machines cannot impart a dose above the microrem range.
Please see my last few posts here on the matter.
Arguing about the strength of the beam is like arguing about the caliber of the gun the thug is holding on you. Being robbed of your rights is not tied to the nature of the scanner, but to its mere presence.
Radwaste at December 21, 2011 3:55 PM
Gee, Alexis, bend over much?
There wasn't probable cause, other than wanting to travel on an airplane.
And hey, if you think that's not sexual assault, I suppose you'll let ME do that?
Of course not. You're just arguing for a sense of order that IS NOT THERE.
-----
I expect a parade of apologists shortly. Maybe "Knowing" will reappear with his repetoire of lies.
Radwaste at December 21, 2011 3:59 PM
"We're talking about government goons not only feeling up people in airports but using mobile backscatter machines to scan parked vehicles on public streets. They're doing it in bus terminals too.
Monster, don't confuse scanning people with scanning vehicles. A moment's thought should show you that a serious adversary would not launch nuclear warheads from their own soil, because serious American satellite surveillance will see the source. They can use the nation's inability to control its own borders to have UPS ship what they want. Man-portable nukes have been available since the late 1950s.
So, NEST has been searching the country since the 1970s.
We lack the will to do things, not the ability.
Radwaste at December 21, 2011 4:15 PM
Amy, the TSA is middle class welfare for blacks. The TSA won't go away until/unless the pols can come up with a different scheme for "employing" all the former TSA agents.
Politically Incorrect Commenter at December 21, 2011 4:31 PM
Radwaste, I love the silly ad hominem implication that I've committed some crime just because I disagree with you. I suppose disagreement is now a form of rape as well.
Don't know how else I can put this: When you do a body cavity search of a dangerous prisoner, even penetrating him/her, you are not committing rape. So the definition you quote is meaningless to me. The definition is more complex.
Willy at December 21, 2011 4:45 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/21/why_did_i_have.html#comment-2867631">comment from AlexisScreaming and crying and carrying on at something like that makes it harder for legitimate complaints to be taken seriously. I recommend that the next time she travels she allots some extra time to take the option of a touchless strip-search
The violation of millions of travelers constitutional rights is not a "legitimate" complaint?
Why should I be strip-searched without probable cause?
I had publicly announced my excitement about traveling to Binghamton to interview anthropologists -- not to have coffee with Al Qaeda members. On what basis does this make me a suspect for terrorist acts? And if I am not a suspect, on what basis am I being searched?
People who think like Alexis have already let themselves be so co-opted that they cannot see the insanity of how they're arguing that I should be...strip-searched!
And for the record, I spoke with Jason Pantages, the Assistant Federal Head for Security (believe that's his title) at LAX and offered to take off my clothes so I wouldn't be groped, and I was told I had to be groped to get on my plane. I could ill-afford to miss this science conference I was going to (I couldn't really afford to go anyway, but I need to hear the latest research presented, so I was going anyway. I sure wasn't going to pay for a conference I couldn't afford and then not go -- and because the government was violating my rights as business as usual.)
Let us be very clear that the TSA has not caught terrorists. You do that through targeted intelligence by highly intelligent, highly trained officers -- not unskilled employees hired as airport gropers. It is utter idiocy that some consider this "security." I believe it is simply what I called it in the piece -- obedience training for the American public to prep us to have our rights yanked from us more and more.
To those who tell me I should be more compliant in having my rights violated, I suggest you read the Constitution. I have a free copy on my phone. It's an incredible document that guarantees all of us rights unlike those in any other country in the world. I don't understand how people can benefit from the rights and not stand up for them when they are violated.
Not every person can be as "out there" as I was in a public situation. I understand that some people are just not wired this way. But, those people can be activist in other ways. One of those people used the respect she's earned to connect me to Mike Masnick, who connected me to my wonderful lawyer, Marc J. Randazza.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2011 5:09 PM
Dear Ms Alkon,
Thank you for making sure that proper claims of rape, from proper rape victims, continue to be marginalized. We were starting to get concerned about the anti-rape movement; it's a relief to know there are still people out there like you, who will continue to ensure that the word "rape" gets watered down, so that it's impossible to get well-defined anti-rape laws.
We salute you!
Sincerely,
Rapists everywhere.
anonymous at December 21, 2011 5:58 PM
That "Anonymous" is telling.
There's are reason no one with any reputation, even a pseudonymous one on a blog like this, would want to held to account for a sentiment like that.
The witless bitterness of the sarcasm tells us something about the thinking which compels it, as well.
People who say things like that can't pretend to be concerned about sexual assault, whether by a drunken stranger who climb through windows to attack widows or by high-school dropout "Homeland Security" fuckups who, for the first time in their lives, have the authority to molest white women.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 21, 2011 6:05 PM
> Rapists everywhere.
Christ, that's pathetic.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 21, 2011 6:06 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/21/why_did_i_have.html#comment-2867740">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Crid is exactly right.
Meanwhile, I've spent the past three weeks digging through research on violence to do a column that includes meaningful ways a person might be able to know if they're likely to be victim. It's a lot easier to go on a website and pick at somebody for using the word "rape" wrong. The way I see it, that's about wanting to lord over people for not adhering to politically correct terminology. The notion that a victim of rape who was forced to have someone's penis instead of just their hand penetrating her has what was done to her diminished by someone else's use of the word to describe another kind of coercive sexual violation is just ridiculous. It is only the religion of political correctness that allows crapthink like this.
And let me tell you, I am still upset and disgusted from the first time I had my breasts (but not my vagina) violated by a TSA worker, when they were trying out the groping and the machines in Vegas, before it was publicized. And this was several years ago. I think of it and I feel humiliated, disgusted, violated, and victimized. And for what? I was not guilty of a crime or even suspected of one. I was flying from a psychology conference in Vegas to a newspaper conference in Oakland, CA. For this, my government gets to violate my Fourth Amendment rights?
Well, they do as long as only a handful of us stand up.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2011 6:22 PM
This is beyond disgusting, when viewed with other cases of TSA child molestation, TSA interference with colostomy patients. The rent-a-cop jobs of TSA appeals to certain people of a closet fascist variety, who are enabled to lord it over others with seeming impunity.
I've actually wanted to visit the US, but not until I have some assurance that I won't be groped without probable cause.
Israel seems to be able to provide better security to their airline without any of this "security theatre", and it must be one of the most targeted airlines in the world..
Keith at December 21, 2011 6:24 PM
"Willy," he said in his carefully-controlled, condescending voice, the one used for children and the slow, "Suck it. I've already shown that the UCMJ considers 'penetration, however slight' to be sexual assault, for an example of case law, and Ms. Alkon has provided no probable cause for TSA's unsworn 'officers' to get to that point."
Now. Just what do you substitute for reasoning when you propose that unwanted penetration isn't rape?
Hey, I have a broom handle. You're saying I can do a lot of things to you with it that won't be rape. Yay!
Bend over, Willy. It's not rape because I'm wearing a uniform and you want to ride on an airplane!
Radwaste at December 21, 2011 6:31 PM
If I remember correctly, the word "Pravda" means "truth".
Tom Pasadena at December 21, 2011 6:44 PM
I'm starting to understand, Radwaste. A cavity search of a violent prisoner is "rape", because it is unwanted penetration. The definition just cannot be more complex than that, right?
And most importantly, it is rape because the government--whose criminal justice policies you otherwise disagree with--said so.
Willy at December 21, 2011 7:57 PM
Seekers, there's a PATTERN here. The first sign of this lunacy:
> "Rape" is a pretty strong word. …
> Guest at December 21, 2011 10:57 AM
Nobody who wants to derail the discussion into this culvert can stand to be identified. There's a reason for that. M'kay?
If I remember correctly –and for purposes of this discussion, I bothers me not at all if I don't– Amy's comment was something like I feel like I've been raped. She was describing an emotional state. That's it.
Now, I've been scratching at this woman over small things for years. But who could honestly think this is the thing that needs to be discussed?
A man could. These anonymous commenters are men, I'm certain. If a woman were to object to this word, I'd bet a thousand dollars she was a woman who'd been raped, and wanted to exploit Amy's use of the word to describe her own torment in a foolish way, as if she knew more of the world from having had a worse experience of it. Women are not bashful about that. So what we got here is a bunch of anonymous men.
And the reason anonymous men would want to quibble about the definition of "rape" is that they like to imagine that there's SOME kind of sexual intrusion, or SOME kind of public authority, that can be excused from the sanctions that decent people demand when women are raped. These men want to be small-minded about language in this case because they don't want to limit their options for copping a feel off a beauty in their workaday lives.
That they would savage the comfort of lawful American travelers to do so tells us something more about their lives: The women in their families can't afford to fly very often. Or, if they can, the anonymous commenters don't care enough about their dignity to object to the assault.
If any anonymous commenters want to step up with their actual names –or even their usual comment handles– to discuss these thoughts, that would be ducky.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 21, 2011 8:38 PM
"I recommend that the next time she travels she allots some extra time to take the option of a touchless strip-search."
Touchless strip search? So its a strip show you perform for TSA? Do we get paid?
Alexis, I wish you a long life as a sheeple slave. May your masters use your body wisely but if they don't who cares. You sure can't complain, government knows best and is keeping you safe from terror.
Sio at December 21, 2011 8:52 PM
"...sitting there blinking like livestock."
Bovine indifference seems to be the American default; what was the voter turnout last election?
Loved the piece Amy. Congrats on getting it published. I'm spreading the word myself...
Savant-Idiot at December 21, 2011 9:03 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/21/why_did_i_have.html#comment-2868186">comment from Savant-IdiotThanks, Savant...and for spreading the piece. I hope the mood of "bovine indifference" starts to change.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2011 11:33 PM
For those attempting to legitimize the behaviour of the TSA, tell us this:
Why should an activity that would result in the arrest and likely conviction of some guy at a frat party be tolerated just because the perpetrator is employed by the government?
If it's illegal for anyone, it's illegal for *everyone*. Anything else is a direct violation of the principles this country was founded upon.
there are some who call me 'Tim?' at December 21, 2011 11:36 PM
Stick to your guns, Ms Alkon! There's no excuse for the TSA's actions, no matter how many rape-apologists shoot their mouths off! I only fly when I absolutely have to. If I ever have to go overseas again I'll look into flying out of Canada or Mexico...
Sigfried at December 22, 2011 12:28 AM
And one for Willy:
You seem awfully fixated on cavity searches. Is there something you want to tell us?
On the off chance that you're not looking to get one yourself, here's an answer to your question.
While a case can be made that a cavity search is (or isn't) legitimate at all, there is one defining characteristic concerning your example.
A prisoner getting that search has already been given due process and the judgement of their peers.
Now, if the TSA agents are willing to prove, in front of a court and jury, that the passenger they're about to molest is guilty of being a terrorist, then I'd have less of an issue with it (I'd still have an issue, but due process would, at least, have been considered).
The thing the apologists don't get is that it isn't necessary to molest air travelers in the search for miscreants. You might as well say it's okay to stab random shoppers in the mall, because they might be a shoplifter.
And, here's the kicker:
There is not a single confirmable case where the TSA has actually caught or intercepted someone with actual designs on an aircraft.
Every publicly reported case where an event was prevented was due to either actual law enforcement intelligence, or the actions of the passengers (and perhaps crew) on the flight.
On the contrary, just about every single report about the effectiveness of the TSA has to do with how epically they failed to prevent contraband from getting through on their watch.
So, what's your argument?
Is it that you want to be cavity searched (or is it that you just want to be cavity searched by an incompetent)? Maybe that's more fun.
there are some who call me 'Tim?' at December 22, 2011 12:39 AM
Enough already with this shibboleth about Israeli security. Though Israel has eliminated terrorism on planes, they've learned to accept it in other venues -- buses, cafes, marketplaces. Bombs still go off there.
The Israelis also rely heavily on racial and ethnic profiling. If you're with an American tour group, for example, you'll be ushered quickly through. If you're the "wrong" racial or ethnic type, you'll get a thorough going-over. And if you're a peace activist -- forget it; you'll be strip-searched in a back room. Just ask Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein.
There is no such thing as 100% security, anywhere. The belief of so many Americans that there is, is why they're willing to bend over and spread 'em every time an authority figure tells them to. They cherish the fantasy of security more than the reality of life. Life entails risk.
Forget Willy and Alexis and all the other sheeple -- you can't convince them. They have a slave mentality. Anything For Safety! Because The Terrorists Are Everywhere!
Radwaste, sorry, the scanners have not been independently tested, Pistole just backpedaled -- again -- on getting that testing done as required by Congress, but then he defies Congress all the time, so who gives a shit. Johns Hopkins has not certified that the BXSX scanners are safe, despite the lies repeated by the TSA. Rush Holt, who's a physicist and a rare TSA critic in Congress also has serious questions about the scanners. And EPIC also has tons of info on this.
http://epic.org/events/tsa/background.php
As for Voluble's comment: "The most effective way to deal with muslim terrorists is to overthrow the countries where they take refuge and kill a bunch of them."
This is just so fucking stupid it hurts the eyeballs to look at it.
Lisa Simeone at December 22, 2011 4:41 AM
If you become a slave in the name of safety, you will never be safe from your master.
A hundred years ago, a government employee that tried to stick their hand between a woman's legs would have been shot in the face by her husband or brother or father, and people would have stepped over the thug's corpse to continue about their day.
A nation of cowards gets what it deserves until its citizens find their courage.
Is the use of the word "rape" here appropriate?
The sudden and unwelcome violation and penetration of a woman's sex regardless of her wishes or consent certainly sounds like rape to me.
If some government flunky tried to touch my daughter like that, I'd break their fucking limbs.
Fuck crying, leave the "worker" in tears on the floor, and they can explain while in handcuffs why it was ok for them to touch an 8 year old girl like that.
Robert at December 22, 2011 6:08 AM
Lisa.
Don't miss this: for a Rapiscan 1000 to get into the millirem range exposing you, somebody has to power it up by a factor of a thousand.
Exercise for the reader: how many watts does the emitter produce?
It was said that FDA hasn't looked. Wrong.
Now it was said "it hasn't been independently tested". Also wrong.
To assert that these guys have cooked the books is just nuts. An emitter like this is bound by physical laws, not by wishes one way or the other.
Again: the presence of the machine, not its caliber, is the rights violation.
Because anyone who can point to the NIST test will throw your argument in the trash. Outrage, however warm, cannot defend you from the chilly physics behind this!
Radwaste at December 22, 2011 7:00 AM
"I'm starting to understand, Radwaste. A cavity search of a violent prisoner is "rape", because it is unwanted penetration. The definition just cannot be more complex than that, right?"
No, Willy. In the dishonest manner of someone intent on derailing opposition to TSA violations, you've erected a straw man here.
Because wanting to fly on an airplane to get somewhere doesn't make you a "violent prisoner".
Well, maybe it does where you're coming from. Or where you want to be.
Radwaste at December 22, 2011 7:06 AM
"The most effective way to deal with muslim terrorists is to overthrow the countries where they take refuge and kill a bunch of them." Right because that worked so fucking well in Afghanistan. The radicals love when we do this shit.
"The Israelis also rely heavily on racial and ethnic profiling." We do it here to.
The TSA is mainly a smoke screen they couldn't find their asshole with 2 hands and a compass. It's visible security to keep sheep happy. The real security is more subtle. Next time you go through a check point notice there is always one passenger that doesn't fit in. He's not hurried like the rest of us his posture is just too alert. He's seems to be waiting for someone right at the end of the TSA point. I caught this being a smoker. Went through TSA 5-6 times as I got stranded in a no smoking airport and having a real shitty day. Same dude waiting for someone every time.
"Fuck crying, leave the "worker" in tears on the floor, and they can explain while in handcuffs why it was ok for them to touch an 8 year old girl like that." Let me know which air port. Watching some bad ass get his ass kicked, tazed and cuffed or shot is always fun. TSA isn't scared of a bad ass they are scared of a lawyer. Your action will result in everyone missing their connecting flight, your ass getting killed or shipped to Guantanamo, and your daughter getting turned over to child services. If they are willing to damn near kill a vet at a peaceful protest they wont' hesitate to kill you there.
vlad at December 22, 2011 7:24 AM
"Exercise for the reader: how many watts does the emitter produce?" Well that depends do you mean rated or tested.
www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/images/RPD-Manuscript.pdf
They have the absorbed rad levels at 0.4 - 9.0 uSv not the rated 0.25 uSv per scan. While the vast majority of us will still be below the 0.25 mSv for the general public it still raises question.
vlad at December 22, 2011 7:44 AM
Radwaste, NIST has denied that it gave the okay to the scanners. It has repeatedly said that the TSA is misrepresenting what it said. Will have to go dig up articles, which will take a while since I have thousands in my stash.
As for the TSA and related "terror!" in general:
In fact, this “death by a thousand cuts” was explicitly stated by al-Qaeda as its goal. Not to kill thousands or millions of people, but to force the United States to spend more and more and more money in a futile attempt to achieve 100% security.
http://tsanewsblog.com/554/news/bruce-will-now-explain-why-the-tsa-is-a-1-trillion-failure/
Lisa Simeone at December 22, 2011 9:18 AM
Radwaste, here's one (remember, we can post only one link at a time in a comment):
Exposed: The Feds and the Shady Uses of Government Technology
By Erik Sherman | July 7, 2011
bnet -- CBS Interactive Business Network
. . . Just a couple of problems: neither NIST nor Johns Hopkins affirmed anything of the sort. NIST had contacted DHS because it was concerned about “mischaracterization of their work.” The agency stressed three things:
NIST does not do product testing.
NIST did not test AIT machines for safety.
NIST tested the dose of a single machine and compared it against the radiation exposure standard.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505124_162-43451644/exposed-the-feds-and-the-shady-uses-of-government-technology/?tag=bnetdomain
Lisa Simeone at December 22, 2011 9:24 AM
Through a FOIA request, EPIC received documentation indicating that both the NIST and The Johns Hopkins University informed the DHS that the backscatter machines could emit xray "overshoot" outside of the machines due to the lack of "wings" (shields). Johns Hopkins stated that in that area (about 14 ft above and 4.6 ft behind) the "general public dose limit could potentially be exceeded." NIST stated that "it is recommended that employees do not routinely occupy the immediate open area next to the inspection zone."
http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/epic_v_dhs_radiation.html
Lisa Simeone at December 22, 2011 9:29 AM
Don't know how else I can put this: When you do a body cavity search of a dangerous prisoner, even penetrating him/her, you are not committing rape. So the definition you quote is meaningless to me. The definition is more complex.
Posted by: Willy
So just so we are all clear - dangerous criminals confined in prison, and law abiding american citizens who want to travel faster than 75 mph are exactly the same?
What the fuck is worng with you?
lujlp at December 22, 2011 10:42 AM
Lisa, I'm apparently talking past you. I sure wish you had some sort of background in instrumentation, electrical power or something related.
You CANNOT turn the Rapiscan's power up by a factor of A THOUSAND.
AND, when you are citing this and that quote, you need to cite what dose limit you mean.
The limit for passenger screening is a factor of millions below those limits for occupational exposure, which is very different, but is easy to find in Google searches. In fact, each time you highlight the Rapiscan actual output, you further point out that the trip on the airplane exposes you more.
Please note that I have cited the principle of ALARA many times here, and have stated that NO exposure without measurable benefit is justified.
So it does not matter if the scanner used magic and produced NO exposure. It is still against your rights to be scanned without probable cause, which is WHY I made the point that you are arguing about the caliber of gun the thief is holding on you, when you should be concerned about why you are being robbed.
Radwaste at December 22, 2011 10:45 AM
I have not flown and will not fly since body seaches became part of the "inconvenience" of flying.
It is my belief that if just 10% of regular fliers refused to fly, the airline industry would be crippled within one quarter. And the TSA would have to cease body searches in order to restore the airlines (and probably take them over too).
Anyways. TSA is never going away. It is a giant BLACK employment agency. Nothing more. Government dole. It was the bailout of the economy that is unwritten.
rjp at December 22, 2011 12:12 PM
Brilliant! I love the irony!
dervish at December 22, 2011 12:25 PM
For the deep thinker above who can't seem to get any point but his own - what happens if the scanners are found unsafe or simply removed from service because of health concerns? What are the TSA options then? Do they enhance pat down everyone? Do you think the general flying public is more concerned with 4th amendment rights or slow radiation poisoning by govenment decree? Which subject is more likely to get public attention? What's the best way to tear down an abusive government agency like the TSA?
Do you see the point?
Assholio at December 22, 2011 4:37 PM
Did you know that most states require x-ray machines to be tested daily? Even those with very low dose radiation below those the TSA use.
Guess when someone certified checked the TSA backscatter machines?
Nope, not that often
Nope
Longer than that
(Let me know when you get to never)
Tenzo at December 22, 2011 6:15 PM
Amy, did you try the Washington Times?
I would expect them to readily publish your piece.
bw1 at December 22, 2011 6:19 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/21/why_did_i_have.html#comment-2869963">comment from bw1See comment explaining above, bw1. Near top.
Amy Alkon at December 22, 2011 6:23 PM
I went only to "centrist" news outlets (as opposed to any news outlets that would be seen to be right-leaning) because I wanted this piece to have the widest possible readership -- it needs to be widely read to have any effect; in order to have any number of American women take me up on my idea of being civilly disobedient at TSA checkpoints.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 21, 2011 9:21 AM
I'm trying to understand exactly how getting published in Pravda, as opposed to a large establishment like the Washington Post, is going to expose your op-ed to "American women?" Pardon me for saying so, but it seems a very roundabout way of trying to accomplish your goal of widespread coverage. Enlighten me please, because I just can't grasp the logic.
Passerby at December 22, 2011 6:40 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/21/why_did_i_have.html#comment-2870009">comment from Passerby'm trying to understand exactly how getting published in Pravda, as opposed to a large establishment like the Washington Post, is going to expose your op-ed to "American women?"
Did you not read the blog item? The WaPo turned me down. As did every other large mainstream US venue. Pravda I went to after no large mainstream venues in America would publish me.
I thought it might at least become a news story and increase the reach of this piece -- beyond what it would get in a place where I could probably have gotten it published, like reason magazine or maybe the Wash Ex.
FYI, I spent MONTHS trying to get this published. I would have just given up, but for the subject matter. I didn't even feel I needed to be paid. Which is why I pitched it to CNN, which doesn't pay. I wanted to get it in the biggest venue possible.
And as for why it took so long to pitch, it wasn't as simple as emailing it to an editor. I had to write friends and beg favors to get to people. (Even getting the guy at Pravda to open my email took writing to a few strangers to try to get "introduced.") Look up my tweets with "Pravda" in them. I even wrote to a guy by accident with the last name Pravda! He was very kind, but the wrong Pravda.
It's hard to even figure out who the op-ed editor is at Yahoo. After much research, I dug up some names and began doing detective work on them online. I noticed that one of them was following my friend David Bottrell on Twitter. David Bottrell played Lincoln Meyer on Boston Legal and has a hilarious one-man show. I wrote to David, who sort of knew who the guy was, and he wrote to him and asked him if I could write to him and look at my piece. This was just one of these contacts, and many took a week or so to arrange.
The LA Times, which has been very successful with the two op-eds I've written for them, rudely sat on my pitch for almost a week, and then sat on the finished piece for another week...when I begged them to please look, as it was time-sensitive. Awful. An editor can give you the courtesy of at least glancing at your piece -- especially when you have a relationship with them, and you're not exactly writing from prison in crayon. (My first op-ed for them I let them put on the wire for free and it was picked up in papers around the globe and topped the most-read list in many of them. This, I guess, gets you shit on, not treated with the courtesy I was treated with by op-ed editors I have no relationship with.)
WSJ and WaPo and NYT editors were at least polite in getting back to me in a reasonable amount of time (that day or a day and a little longer) and saying, "Thanks but we'll pass." I appreciate that. They don't owe me running it, but a lot of op-eds are tied to news stories, and when you're a professional writer, and not just a lady in the suburbs trying her hand at an opinion piece, it's courteous to get back to you in as timely a manner as they did.
Amy Alkon at December 22, 2011 6:59 PM
"Guess when someone certified checked the TSA backscatter machines?"
Okay, I will QUOTE NIST, from this link, again:
"The entrance skin exposure is the most important parameter for effective dose calculations. The entrance exposure for one scan was found to be about 9.6 uR at 30 cm from the surface of the front panel. The effective dose to a subject being screened varies depending on the age and size of the human subject. An adult would receive an effective dose of about 2.4 urem per frontal scan. A small child would receive an effective dose of about 4 urem per frontal scan. An infant would receive a dose of about 5 urem per frontal scan. In order to be compliant with the ANSI N43.17 standard the effective dose should not exceed 10 urem per scan at a distance of 30 cm from the "beam exit surface". The Secure 1000 was found to meet the ANSI standard requirements and recommendations relating to radiation dose to bystanders and operators. All exposure measurements outside of the primary beam, due to scatter or leakage from the cabinet, were on the order of natural background levels and far below the ANSI requirements."
Now. This is a SYSTEM. And exactly like your home stereo, your car or a rifle, you cannot bring it up in power by the factor of a THOUSAND and still recognize it as the same device. Further - and do not be confused by inspection criteria - it is NOT POSSIBLE for one machine to vary that much from the next. The factor again? ONE THOUSAND.
Analogize: Winchester makes a rifle, a bolt-action which shoots a .30-06 cartridge. The ammunition varies, but it is always obviously a .30-caliber bullet found when it is fired. At no time does that rifle fire a round a thousand times stronger. No one finds a two million foot-pound energy output from the two thousand foot-pound design. No person can pick up a rifle built in that caliber and get a uber-rifle, a giant-killer, no matter where in the world it is built - because of the design of the rifle.
And no amount of alarmism can make that happen.
I get that some of you have a mortal fear of radiation. That's why I say, and repeatedly, that this issue is NOT SUBJECT to emotion of any kind. It's a physics thing.
If you use an argument that the Rapiscan puts out more microrem per scan than the NIST piece I have just linked to, you STILL haven't said one meaningful thing next to the exposure you get from the flight itself - which IS that factor of a thousand times worse.
It's not finding anything. It's a waste of money. It ignores American civil rights. It was procured without proper financial oversight. You ARE being exposed without measurable benefit.
But when you argue exposure, you show that the passenger does not care about exposure so long as it's from flying. In that way, the argument immediately reaches the ridiculous altitude of those claiming that "natural" always means "good".
Radwaste at December 22, 2011 10:18 PM
Amy has more new/anon commenters than ever before.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 22, 2011 11:46 PM
Gotta agree with Rad here (he usually makes sense, anyway).
This fixation on the dosage from the scanner is a red herring.
What's the point of asking, 'how much exposure are we getting?', when the correct question is, 'why are we being scanned at all?'
Neither the scanning, nor the TSA 'examinations' have anything to do with actual security. They're not about stopping the bad guy, they're all about establishing control. Control over people made to be afraid of the boogeyman. People who would voluntarily surrender their autonomy to some 'parental' figure who promises (in vain) to protect them from all the things they're afraid of.
As sad as it is, far too many people are entirely too willing to give themselves over to someone who claims that they'll make them safe (though they cannot).
They're afraid of their own independence, they'd rather have a babysitter if the alternative is to accept responsibility for their own actions.
And, there are far too many of them. They'll vote in the babysitters over the competent, because it's easier for them. And that attitude also pertains to things like the TSA. They want the illusion, not the reality. Reality makes their balls shrink up, and they curl up in the corner, cowering from their (perceived) enemies.
there are some who call me 'Tim?' at December 23, 2011 12:03 AM
Leave a comment