And then, when the programs are implemented, and people are complaining about the searches to the agents and saying other, sometimes inappropriate things, you'll see a bulletin board full of agents whining that they're just trying to do their jobs.

> Kurt Nimmo writes:

Google Kurt Nimmo. He is a 9/11 "truther" and nutcase who should not get any publicity.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I'm pretty sure sexual assault requires lack of consent and you'd be consenting to the TSA agent doing their search.

Yeah, infowars is rotten with truthers. But I think this falls under the "blind squirrel" exception.

Although there are plenty of other sources one could reference for that story.

So the incident in Savannah a few weeks ago was probably a test run for this kind of rights-removal. They will have to arrest me to search me that way. I'd better start saving bail money now.

And if I even suspect that someone who is not my dentist is bombarding me with x-rays, there is going to be a larger issue requiring more bail money.

"and you'd be consenting to the TSA agent doing their search."

No, she's not. Stop being dense on purpose.

If you are in an airport and refuse a TSA sexual assault and ASK TO LEAVE they will not let you. They will detain you and question you. Try it sometime.

I argue, fiercely, that entering an airport is not the equivalent of giving the TSA consent to touch your genitalia.

1. Their methods are shown to be far less effective than other methods (you don't get diddled in an Israeli airport and the don't have people getting on planes with box cutters).
2. People should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. People should not be searched without probable cause. It's enough that they can already look into our private property but I'd hope we all see the distinction between seeing an x-ray of your panties in your suitcase, and seeing your entire vagina outlined in life-size for a bunch of under trained ignoramuses to look at.

If I want to travel I should be able to do so without having my civil rights infringed upon. The argument that this is for our own safety is bunk b/c we are NOT safer, especially not from our own government.

"whether it's possible for me to report the TSA person who gropes me for sexual assault"

Its not. They won't touch you until you say "yes." Snoopy's got it right.

Actually, I forgot (been working like mad, lately). Lisa Simeone posted this in the comments here:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/02/26/governmentsanct.html#comments

If they warn you and you allow it, that's the necessary element of permission.

As a lawyer explained to me, you can COOPERATE, but that doesn't mean you CONSENT. Apparently the concept of Consent is legally important. You can say to the TSA that you will cooperate as a condition of getting on the plane, but you don't consent. You don't consent to the search. This will mean nothing to them, of course, but -- again, according to said lawyer -- everything to a judge, if you ever want to file suit that is. And good grief -- that's cold comfort. Taking anyone, let alone the TSA, to court is time-consuming and expensive. Why should we have to spend money to defend ourselves from government molestation??

I've stopped flying entirely -- an enormous sacrifice for me since I love travel more than I can say. But my rights and my dignity are more important. I KNOW THAT NOT EVERYONE HAS THIS OPTION. Some people must fly for work, and I sympathize with them. But millions of people can do what I've done if they choose. Alas, I know they won't. My own family and friends can't be bothered to stand up for their rights. I've taken no end of grief from for my decision. (And I just returned from a business trip on the train -- 11 hours each way -- rather than be groped; but TSA abuse is coming to trains, buses, subways, boats as well, so that option will soon be closed to me as well.)

For those who must fly, I urge them to opt out. If everyone opted out of the stripsearch scanner, the TSA simply couldn't search everyone. There would be too many people. This is what happened on Opt-Out Day before Thanksgiving, which the TSA tried to claim was a bust. They just waved people through the metal detector. It was so obvious.

Anyway, I don't have much hope. The people of this country have allowed this to happen. One abuse will follow another, and another, and another. We are the frog in the slowly boiling pot.

@snoopy: I just read snakeman's comment so maybe I misinterpreted your comment regarding consent. If so I apologize for calling you dense *sheepish grin*.

Privacy aside which is a concern... do not kid yourself they are storing the images and there is no such thing as a computer you can not copy data off of.

That said if I was a frequent commuter I would get a radiation badge and see how log it takes to trip it. We have strict guidelines, shielding and the badges are studied and monitored to make sure we are not getting over exposed to X-ray. AFIK the TSA has never released the specs of these machines (I doubt they even know)disclosed how much radiation they are exposing passengers and themselves to despite repeated requests to do so. Given the resolution of the pictures I have seen and the type of scan it has me worried

along with mobile x-ray vans capable of scanning pedestrians on city streets

Deer lord. And people got bent out of shape because Google's street view cars managed to capture some unencrypted wifi data? this is
far worse on so man levels.

At least one can encrypt your wifi signals. We still don't have any real evidence that these xray scanners are actually safe, other than Big Sis and the TSA saying trust us.

I know what that means. You're about to get bent and screwed, and I'm pretty sure we won't enjoy it. Would it be a bit much to get a tin foil suit?

you'd be consenting to the TSA agent doing their search

Really? were? and don't say "when you bought your tickets".

Texas is also fighting back against the TSA .. via the Tenth Amendment Center, who are helping the fight:

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/texas-legislation-proposes-felony-charges-for-tsa-agents/

"Texas Legislation Proposes Felony Charges for TSA Agents"

Let's try get bills passed in every state Dreaming? Maybe, but the more individual states fight back, the more other states will feel emboldened to also try, and the more the federal government will be forced to scale back its overbearings.

Do a google search for X-ray dosimeter. We have badges that we send back to the company at regular intervals, they read them and send the reports back. You might be able to order a single badge or if you have a lot of employees who fly buy a few of them. It looks like you can get a digital reader the size of a pager or a pen too. Might be a good study (and lawsuit) if a company with a lot of frequent fliers were proven to have high doses of radiation and ended up with cancer. I know the insurance companies would love that one. If I still did a lot of travel I would get the clinic to get me an extra badge to test it myself. If you work somewhere with a radiology department or know someone who does you might be able to get them to assign you a badge. I would suspect there would be good money in publishing the results.

They're making sexual assault a compulsory aspect of flying.

Since flying itself isn't mandatory, the sexual assault isn't mandatory.

This does not make the assault ethical, constitutional, necessary, and least of all - consensual.

Amy, I actually felt like standing up and applauding at Lisa's post!

I don't advocate violent revolution.

But every year, it gets a little harder to remember why.

"Any suggestion on how or where to get a radiation badge?"

Mirion is a California company that sells a wide range of personal dosimeters:

http://www.mirion.com/index.php?p=health_division

If you want to mess with the screeners' heads, and don't care what the people around you at the airport think, go to the restroom just before you get in the security line, and apply some water to the front of your pants in the crotch area. (If you really want to sell it, put a little yellow food dye in the water.) Might make them think twice about where they put their hands.

Actually for some reason I get searched at every stop when I fly though it has been years. I have fun with em. They want to search my bags fine. There is a duffel bag full of dirty laundry covering some adult novelties and leather items. If I have to travel again I was thinking about finding an outrageous sized item of the former and strap it to my leg as I go through the scanner. If they are going to waste my time and screw with me I figure I should give as good as I get.

For purposes of filing a sexual assault claim (civil or criminal), I really doubt there is a difference between "consent" and "cooperate." In those instances, the permission required to defeat the screener's intent to offend is likely measured by the reasonableness of the receiver of the message. In other words, if screener hears "yes, I will cooperate with your pat-down," that's probably enough for the screener to avoid any kind of assault charge.

I think the distinction Amy is trying to make may have more to do with preserving your right to exclude evidence discovered in a search for which actual consent was not given. Make sure you cooperate, so that the authorities can't add a resistance charge, but don't "consent" to the search. This way, if the search yields damning evidence, you can still move to have the evidence excluded because the search was otherwise unconstitutional.

I'm trying to figure out how to spell out "Fuck You" on my bra so that it shows up on the full body scan.

I will ask the techs what they use to mark the xrays. I think a metallic pen will work.

It's a good day! Just got through Delta security at LAX without having a government agent grope me. Boyfriend also unmolested.

UW Girl - I would do it in sequins. They should show up extra bright in the scan.

Preface:

If we were talking in a roadside café, in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1936, and I told you, "In ten years, this will be rubble. Fifty million will be dead in Europe alone. This new guy has WMDs, and he's going to gas the Jews" --- you'd have me forcibly medicated.

Now, look around. Count the conditions which match pre-war Europe ("Papers, please."). Check the conditions in other countries. You should know that if the USA locks up due to our money being out of control, those starving people overseas will go nuts. I think you have about 18 months to learn how to shoot, and I'm trying not to be an alarmist.

Spare me anything about "modern times" or anything resembling an appeal to consequences. If I'm wrong, well, good.

Now, Big Bang Theory is on tonight. Ha, ha!

I wonder what they would do if you had an undershirt that had the 4th Amendment in metallic marker and you had double layered underwear with aluminum foil in between so they couldn't see crap what would happen.

They would know they were being deliberately foiled from seeing anything but would it be enough to get to the level that was actionable?

In California, sexual battery (Pen. Code section 243.4) requires that the touching be (a) done "against the will of the person touched" and (b) done "for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse."

Whether you describe it as "cooperation" or "consent" or "I let them do it but I hated every second of it," once you acquiesce to a patdown, it hasn't been done against your will, period. You don't have to *like* it. Gritting your teeth through it and bitching about it on your blog will not magically create some sort of legal override on your acquiescence.

If the contact takes place in the course of the other person's employment (cf. gynecologist touching "an intimate part" of a patient during a medical exam), it is highly unlikely that you will be able to prove it was done for sexual arousal or gratification unless the TSA agent happens to have an orgasm while patting you down.

Next case.

"In other words, if screener hears "yes, I will cooperate with your pat-down," that's probably enough for the screener to avoid any kind of assault charge"

Yeah right. Just like if a rape victim cooperates and goes along with her attacker without resisting because he has a gun, that's the same as "consent" right? I don't think so. Let's face it, the only reason we cooperate with the TSA is because they have the monopoly on violent force behind them, and will use it if you resist. That's the only reason you say 'yes', and it's the exact same reason a rape victim says 'yes' when she has a gun held against her head. There is no difference between this and a rapist with a gun other than that one is the "government". Consent under duress is not consent no matter how many times you say "yes".

And 'avoid flying' is not really an argument, given TSA powers are being expanded to other forms of transport even as we argue these points.

Stop making silly arguments and DO something to fight back to restore your lost liberties before they are gone for good. When you wake up one day and find formerly communist China has more liberties than the US of A, and your grandchildren tell you they long to live in that 'beacon of freedom, China', don't pretend you don't remember why or how it happened. It'll be because we let it happen.

Right now it seems the most effective means of fighting back is going to be through state legislatures.

Here's an example of the sort of thing the TSA has been trying to do, all while people like us sit debating minutia with people who make absurd claims that every single person subjected to TSA assaults actually did so with true free and willing consent:

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/03/02/docs-reveal-tsa-plan-to-body-scan-pedestrians-train-passengers/

"Documents Reveal TSA Research Proposal To Body-Scan Pedestrians, Train Passengers

Giving Transportation Security Administration agents a peek under your clothes may soon be a practice that goes well beyond airport checkpoints. Newly uncovered documents show that as early as 2006, the Department of Homeland Security has been planning pilot programs to deploy mobile scanning units that can be set up at public events and in train stations, along with mobile x-ray vans capable of scanning pedestrians on city streets.

The non-profit Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) on Wednesday published documents it obtained from the Department of Homeland Security showing that from 2006 to 2008 the agency planned a study of of new anti-terrorism technologies that EPIC believes raise serious privacy concerns. The projects range from what the DHS describes as “a walk through x-ray screening system that could be deployed at entrances to special events or other points of interest” to “covert inspection of moving subjects” employing the same backscatter imaging technology currently used in American airports."

Not to be hyperbolic, but enjoy your new Communist America folks. When your grandchildren ask you what you did to try preserve liberty, hope you have some good excuses ready. Crack open a history book and educate yourself on how it happens that countries descend into tyranny.

Wow, Raddy. Thanks for adding to my 2012 zombiepocalypse/natural disaster paranoia!!!

I can't shoot for shit, which is why my plan is to book it to a remote area of Vermont and live in a cave by a river. I figure we won't be able to take main roads so we'll have to bike/hike. Hopefully it's not the winter.

No idea how we will eat.

"Gritting your teeth through it and bitching about it on your blog will not magically create some sort of legal override on your acquiescence."

Silas, you're wrong on the law here, at least as it's written. As it's actually enforced is another matter, of course.

When the government is trying to justify a search on the basis of consent, it carries the burden of demonstrating that the consent occurred, and that it was voluntary. Consent can be involuntary if it is given while the subject is being illegally detained, or if the person is in custody without being Mirandized, or - most important for us here - if it simply reflects acquiescence to legal authority. The Supreme Court case enumerating this rule is Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968), and different states have different versions of the rule. So in theory, at least, the government cannot justify a search on the basis of consent if its only evidence of consent is acquiescence to lawful authority.

Amy, you should absolutely take out a private prosecution warrant against any TSA official who touches you inappropriately. The local magistrate's office should be able to give you the appropriate warrant application forms. Going after them civilly for injunctive and/or monetary relief would require getting an attorney who specialized in Section 1983 violations.

There have been some people who have called the cops and pressed assault charges. Penn Gilette (of Penn and Teller) being one of the famous ones. The story is quite hilarious because the cop that showed up was a fan.

As I understand it the law looks at it as "do whatever the TSA wants or... don't fly." I just don't fly any more but if I had to I would at least screw with them to make it worth my while.

@CB - sorry. You're wrong. Again, you're confusing two different scenarios for consent. See my above post.

To summarize: "cooperate" vs. "consent" = relevant if you're talking about protecting yourself from evidence seized during an illegal search and seizure.

"cooperate" vs. "consent" = irrelevant if you're talking about prosecuting the searcher for an alleged assault.

@Lobster - "Just like if a rape victim cooperates and goes along with her attacker without resisting because he has a gun, that's the same as "consent" right?" Uh, yeah. Hyperbole much? I don't really think the threat of fatal harm is really equivalent to the threat of having to find another mode of transportation, but that's just me.

"I don't really think the threat of fatal harm is really equivalent to the threat of having to find another mode of transportation, but that's just me."

It's called an "analogy", snakeman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy). I simply cannot believe that you really, REALLY cannot see that, come on, that is simply not plausible ... I think you're purposely being disingenuous.

And watch some of the videos of what happens to people who don't comply with the TSA, then please, please tell me there is no threat of force backed by monopoly on violence feeding into the psychology of acquiescence here. Please, and keep a straight face while you're telling me.

I wonder, if you regard the ENTIRE country as unanimously consenting to these searches, why is half the country so upset about them and decrying them every chance they get? Strange contradiction that. The very fact that a huge percentage of the population is protesting these searches, is direct factual evidence of a stark LACK of consent. Duh.

Has TSA ever released the safety studies on their radiation machines? And if not, why not?

Firehand, no, they still haven't released the supposed research on their supposed safety studies a full two months after Congress requested them. They're stonewalling, probably because they don't have shit.

To the person who asked about the metallic-print underwear, maybe you already know about this and were riffing on it, but for those who haven't seen it, yes, Virginia, it exists! Very clever, though it'll probably get you groped for insubordination:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20024067-1.html

And no, we don't consent (yes, yes, I know some people do -- I get it -- but those of us who value our civil liberties don't consent). And yes, we are fighting on several fronts, legislative, legal, federal, state, local, personal, and bloggy. There are many forms of protest, and we need to use all of them to fight this.