X

TSA's "Don't Touch My Junk" Controversy

Posted: November 16, 2010
TSA's "Don't Touch My Junk" Controversy
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/49861/tsas-dont-touch-my-junk-controversy/
http://images.g4tv.com/ImageDb3/254739_LGST/as20101116_theloop.jpg
Video_49861

TSA is making headlines again over their full body pat downs, and frequent flyers are not happy. Kevin Pereira talks to John Tyner who recently filmed his encounter with TSA at the San Diego Airport after refusing the full body scan and physical pat downs.

Comments are Closed

  • ertdfg

    There's no right to fly in the Constitution. - Duggeek

    YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FLY - Griever2112

    Ok, so since I don't have a "right to fly" I give up all 4th Amendment rights when choosing to fly? Interesting.

    I don't have the "right to drive" but there still needs to be probable cause for a search of me and my vehicle when driving. I'm not sure I get why these are different, both are legal activities, not rights, and I choose to do them... and they affect the public (I'm not just driving on my own property after all).

    Can I get a list of legal activities that remove my Constitutional rights? I checked my Constitution, but it doesn't list them.

    Oh, and hensonsh... the TSA has, to date, stopped 0 terrorists. But we'd all die next time we fly if they weren't there? I guess they're really super effective then... even though they miss a lot of test-bombs. I'm not sure how that works either.

    Posted: November 28, 2010 11:51 PM
    ertdfg
  • SteelRat

    My idea is that the TSA should hire only ugly, overweight men and castrate all of them. Then, no matter how you look, you know for a fact that you look better naked than any of the TSA Eunuchs who are looking at you.

    Posted: November 22, 2010 10:23 AM
    SteelRat
  • hensonsh

    Ok lets get rid of the tsa...then we can all die the next time we fly!

    Posted: November 18, 2010 11:38 AM
  • That_Dan_Guy

    Rep. Ron Paul is introducing some new legislation to protect us against the TSA, but what about protecting vigilantes who would attempt to intervene in a hijacking? I tweeted to Ron Paul earlier, but he has his tweets protected. I just wonder if it be possible to get some 'Heroic Immunity' for those that would commit battery against would-be terrorists in action? If we are going by the book then I might also go to jail for punching the terrorist if he presses charges.

    Posted: November 18, 2010 10:54 AM
  • druidsflame

    Sorry to say but john wasn't the first person to go up against the TSA personally I believe that Penn Jillette, of Penn and Teller, did a great job of handling the TSA and had a much more hilarious story and catch phrase: It ain't right to grab a mans crank without askin! Read all about it here: http://www.pennandteller.com/0 3/coolstuff/penniphile/roadpen nfederalvip.html

    AOTS Guys I hope you read this and do a follow up interview with Penn because he is one of the coolest guys EVER!

    Posted: November 18, 2010 12:03 AM
    druidsflame
  • That_Dan_Guy

    Man I just wrote a great post, but it hit character limit and is now lost forever!

    Posted: November 17, 2010 4:13 PM
  • davidinsa

    Privacy rights are not covered in those amendments. The 4th is about unreasonable search and seizures. The 14th is about due process. Various courts have said it is not unreasonable to assume that you will have to go through security to board an airplane, just as it's not unreasonable to go through a metal detector to enter a courthouse. The purpose in a courthouse is to make sure you don't have a weapon to commit an act of violence. The same applies in an airport. The reason security is there is to prevent a person from taking a dangerous object, from an altered bottle of water to a knife or gun or an IED. It cannot be deemed unreasonable to assume that somebody might try and turn a 100 ton plane into some form of weapon via such devices or to inflict a psychological attack by the destruction of an airplane with those means. Besides which, you would have to go through the body scanners 1000 times to equal a single chest x-ray's radiation.

    Posted: November 17, 2010 3:14 PM
  • RalphyK

    I think the point here, is it necessary to body scan passengers? As i said before the 9/11 attacks were NOT carried out with a bomb. It was box cutters. I don't think anyone would have a problem doing the body scan if; 1) It was run by a truly qualified and trustworthy individual, not an 18 y/o with a HS diploma or equivelent and 2) If everyone were subjected to it. I think the random selection is crap, and if you refuse they have to groin search you. It just doesn't make since. And our privacy rights ARE protected by the 4th and 14th amendment. Its all in interpretation of these amendments. I think people don't want to and have the right to not be humiliated in the airport. I worked for TSA, sometimes things happen that put the spot light on a single passenger in front of a crowd of people and it's embarrassing to them. I think we are all for safe and secure ways to travel, it just needs to be thought out a little more thoroughly.

    Posted: November 17, 2010 2:52 PM
  • RalphyK

    I think the point here, is it necessary to body scan passengers? As i said before the 9/11 attacks were NOT carried out with a bomb. It was box cutters. I don't think anyone would have a problem doing the body scan if; 1) It was run by a truly qualified and trustworthy individual, not an 18 y/o with a HS diploma or equivelent and 2) If everyone were subjected to it. I think the random selection is crap, and if you refuse they have to groin search you. It just doesn't make since. And our privacy rights ARE protected by the 4th and 14th amendment. Its all in interpretation of these amendments. I think people don't want to and have the right to not be humiliated in the airport. I worked for TSA, sometimes things happen that put the spotlight on a single passenger in front of a crowd of people and it's embarrassing to them. I think we are all for safe and secure ways to travel, it just needs to be thought out a little more thoroughly.

    Posted: November 17, 2010 2:51 PM
  • That_Dan_Guy

    Ultimately I don't think that any of these solutions are going stop the public at large from complaining. We complain when there is no security, we complain when there's too much, as long as we have time to sit and think about things or have lines to stand in, we are going to complain. The question we need to ask ourselves is, what are we most afraid of, our naked bodies on the internet, or terrorists with bombs molded to their bodies? Personally I care about NEITHER, use those 3d body scanners that look at your organs to make sure no one stuck C4 in their bum!

    Posted: November 17, 2010 2:38 PM
  • davidinsa

    You have the right to interstate travel. Not the right to fly, which is just one of many forms of interstate travel. Tyner, in the interview, said he'd rather go back to security that worked when the airlines were paying paying the bill. Two quick notes: 9-11 occurred while the airlines were in control of security; after that the country as a whole demanded tighter security. Its plainly obvious that Tyner went to the airport looking for an incident. He is known to dislike the TSA and their security procedures and the fact he turned on his cellphone at the entrance of the checkpoint further shows he was just looking for an encounter. He has issues with this, take Amtrak. I reiterate: you do not have the right to fly. You do have the right to interstate travel under the interstate commerce acts, but not the right to specifically fly. You can drive, take a bus, take a train, take a boat or learn to fly your own plane and fly yourself.

    Posted: November 17, 2010 12:29 PM
  • tuckerpb2

    Man I hope he or someone he loves is on a plane the is blown up just cause someone else did not want to be searched. God just do it and it takes what 5 min.

    Posted: November 17, 2010 12:19 PM
    tuckerpb2
  • Griever2112

    OK, here is a great perspective for everyone claiming that their Rights are being violated... YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FLY... Taking a plane is a completely independent choice you chose to make as a form of travel. Just like Driving a car, flying is a privilege. Therefore by you CHOOSING to partake in the privilege you must adhere to the rules put in place. You don't like the rules DON'T FLY.

    Posted: November 17, 2010 12:04 PM
    Griever2112
  • greenlantern1959

    Tyner should just man-up.

    Posted: November 17, 2010 11:55 AM
  • RalphyK

    Sorry, had to continue in a second post because of the length.In our first month we didn't even get paid or get a day off. We finally received a $500 stipend and told we had to pay it back. Which I received a notice last year (7 years after I worked for TSA) saying they overpaid me by $2500. I made like $12 an hour, trust me I would have noticed an extra $2500. We were also told that we were there to put the public mind at ease as a dog and pony show. I mean, not all the luggage at that time even was checked! It may be now, but I doubt it.I'm all for safety, just don't infringe on my rights. I have much more to say if anyone really wants to know.

    Posted: November 17, 2010 10:54 AM
  • RalphyK

    I'm a former TSA employee and former Marine. I was hired after 9/11 to work at Dulles airport in VA. The TSA is a huge joke. You get trained to run the x-ray machines in a day or so and really aren't qualified. We had a girl get promoted to supervisor whose only previous employment was serving test tube shots at a local club! And why the sudden need for body scans and junk touching? I mean, the 9/11 terrorist used box cutters to hijack the planes, not a bomb. I could make a prison shiv out of my toothbrush and accomplish the same thing.

    Posted: November 17, 2010 10:53 AM
  • Man_Hands

    That_Dan_Guy,

    I'm with you on this one. Get me a Asian girl with a nice ass and I'm game.

    Posted: November 17, 2010 9:06 AM
    Man_Hands
  • That_Dan_Guy

    Am I the only one who would prefer a little molestation rather than running the risk of flying with a bomb on board? I say throw out the random selection and let everyone enjoy the molestation equally. At the same time in order for any of this to blow over, TSA simply needs to hire hotter people to inspect you so it's more like a treat and not something to throw a tantrum over.

    Posted: November 17, 2010 8:49 AM
  • CompguyRG

    Duggeek,

    While I'm sure you didn't mean to offend mall cops by labeling their profession beneath that of a TSA officer, lets keep in mind that there are over 1,100 shopping malls in america each employing a full staff of mall cops that you sir have "surely earned a tremendous discredit" through your highbrowed post.

    I completely understand what you mean, though. TSA Officers should be given the full authority that comes with such a prestigious and hard earned title. With such rigorous standards as being 18 years old, a high school diploma, GED, OR 1 year of experience I can't imagine why anyone would discredit a profession with such an honored history. I mean, its not like other professions with titles like senator or catholic priest have unabashedly defamed themselves or others.

    Also, the entire voyeurism industry tends to disagree with your assumptions regarding public and uncontrolled viewing of a persons naked form. Just ask Erin Andrews if there is an audience for that.

    Assuming all TSA officers are good upstanding people is as foolhardy as believing that all of them are evil.

    I agree that there is no right to fly in the Constitution. It is private enterprise governed by overarching government laws which forcefully invade a persons privacy should they wish to travel in sometimes the only way they can for their job.(See corporate travel) The government has no right to enforce that standard on the general public and particularly not private industry. If the airlines enforce and pay for it, thats fine. Then we can let the free market determine whether or not we want to fly with them and what degrees of risk we are willing to assume.

    Until then,stop making assumptions and telling others what to do.

    Posted: November 17, 2010 8:30 AM
    CompguyRG
  • Duggeek

    In the segue-way before this piece, Kevin tries to appease those that work at TSA by saying "I got nothing against you... it's your bosses."

    That's fine, except that he goes on in the piece with slander such as the ignorant and inflammatory label, "mall cop" and insinuating that TSA personnel take pleasure in the pat-downs as well as shamelessly supporting/amplifying/escalati ng the blind rhetoric of the outspoken few based on Tyner's experience.

    Funny how Kevin does more to color John's experience than John does himself.

    I'd *love* to see any passenger try to have a TSA screener (a U.S. Federal Officer) arrested. Better yet, try to find a single law enforcement officer that would even perform the arrest.

    We are not impressed by your edgy hipster antics, Kevin. (oh yes, I said "antics") There are over 50,000 officers in TSA, and you have surely earned a tremendous discredit through your performance.

    By the by... what alleged "rights" are being taken away, exactly? That's something you conveniently glossed over. Another glossy vapor-icon was the remark about body-scan technology; "the pictures are never saved and they don't leave the facility; but those were thoroughly debunked, right?"

    You're thinking of the Atlantic City training facility, where the scanners are only used for training purposes; never on the flying public. The statement from the manufacturer of the scanners says the scanners are, "sent to the airports without the ability to save, transmit or print the images." Way to dis-inform, guys.

    Even so, the terms most feared by people--public and uncontrolled viewing of a person's naked form--is not just unlikely, it's so criminal as to be practically impossible. There are no "audiences" for these images, just trained (whenever possible, same-gender) officers looking for potential threats to the flying public.

    There's no right to fly in the Constitution. Stop sputtering this college-age tripe and do your damn homework.

    Posted: November 17, 2010 12:30 AM
    Duggeek
AdChoices