How can we punish the TSA Gate Rapers?

[mhaze]

I see...

Remember, you were the one that was claiming they could just write a simple iPhone app (or something similar) that could take a body scan image and convert it to something that was somehow erotic. Have you now discarded that argument, to simply say "oh, you can't make these images look like real humans, but I still will classify it as pr0n because I want to move those goalposts"?

No, I'm simply not willing to converse with you in your required fashion - where you move the definition of porn ad hoc to prove a point. Your opinion does not matter, and neither does mine. A lot of people feel these images are erotic, pornographic, and improper. My opinion is that their feelings matter. Your opinion is that your opinions rule. And you are ducking and dodging my citations of the historical problems with definitions of porn.

Got it?

That's not what you did. You made a post complaining that the convicted rapists who were looking at the body scans could then find out all the personal information for the people they were scanning.

So? I'm not going to dispute that a person assigned to work at one station would only see what passes by that station. Yet these people switch around, some are standing in the back, and then there are the supervisors. You've presupposed one particular work scenario that does prove your point. But in reality there are many, so you have no point.

I am disputing what you claimed were facts. ....even the people checking ID need not have anyone's address information.

So in your view everyone should have a passport to travel in the US without TSA screeners getting their personal information? Any idea what those passports cost? And what are you doing here, exactly.

You are not denying that convicted rapists and designated sexual offenders can work as TSA screeners and gropers. You are just trying to say that if a passenger is concerned, he or she could get passports because those don't reveal address data.

That's a pretty lame way to reach a conclusion that it's okay for the government to hire sexual predators and for you to be groped and porno-scanned by said sexual predators. That's all okay because the passenger could present a passport and the perp would not know his or her addres?

 

[mhaze]

the criminal TSA background check procedures are laid out here:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...fr1542.209.htm

.... That docket links to a 2003 document and the link says 2004 report looked at it and does not state that they know if it the TSA has updated since. Do you? I suggest you ask the TSA and try and come back here with the answer instead of making speculatory claims.

No need.

I'm okay with the docket linked representing current procedures.

I've presented evidence, you are welcome to correct it with facts if you have any. Burden of proof to the contrary is on you.

 

[Meed]

I read recently that this is a myth. Flying is as dangerous as driving. Or, conversely, driving is as safe as flying. It's just that we spend SO much more time in cars than planes that we are far far likelier to die in a car crash than a plane crash. But if you were to fly and drive the same amount of time, your risk of death would be much roughly the same.

Either way, most aircraft fatalities are not caused by poor security screening. They're caused by poor piloting, bad weather, landing gear problems, etc.

 

[funk de fino]

the criminal TSA background check procedures are laid out here:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...fr1542.209.htm


No need.

I'm okay with the docket linked representing current procedures.

I've presented evidence, you are welcome to correct it with facts if you have any. Burden of proof to the contrary is on you.

Thats says it all really. Too lazy and then tells a lie to boot. You do not know what the current procedures are, you just know what they are permitted to do by law. Thats the point of the link you posted. Jeez.

And you are wholly ignorant about the actual measures at the airport so I suspect for all your bleating this does not affect you in anyway as you do not fly.

 

[bokonon]

I'm not going to dispute that a person assigned to work at one station would only see what passes by that station. Yet these people switch around, some are standing in the back, and then there are the supervisors. You've presupposed one particular work scenario that does prove your point. But in reality there are many, so you have no point.

I still have the same point I always had: the screeners who see the scans cannot see the IDs of the people they're scanning. The screeners who conduct the pat downs cannot see the IDs of the people they're patting.

Therefore, the scarebrained scenario you were foaming about, in which a TSA rapist would select targets by peeking at or rubbing their naughty bits, then get "all their personal information" with which to follow through with some kind of sexual attack, is shown to be completely bogus.

So in your view everyone should have a passport to travel in the US without TSA screeners getting their personal information?

No. I'm no more concerned about the TSA screener who sees my driver's license than I am about the checkout clerk at the local grocery store who sees my driver's license. I assume most of the non-paranoid flying public feels the same way.

The nutjobs who worry about being targeted for rape and molestation whenever they are asked to show some ID can get a passport and show that. I assume people who are this paranoid already do a GPS tracker sweep before they get in their car, and watch their rear-view mirror when they drive home.

You are not denying that convicted rapists and designated sexual offenders can work as TSA screeners and gropers. You are just trying to say that if a passenger is concerned, he or she could get passports because those don't reveal address data.

Right. I am also not denying that convicted rapists and designated sexual offenders can be working at the corner store. I'm just saying I don't worry about them, my kids don't worry about them, and as far as I know my female acquaintances don't worry about them.

Why do you worry about them? Are you a rape survivor?

 

[mhaze]

I still have the same point I always had: the screeners who see the scans cannot see the IDs of the people they're scanning. The screeners who conduct the pat downs cannot see the IDs of the people they're patting.

Therefore, the scarebrained scenario you were foaming about, in which a TSA rapist would select targets by peeking at or rubbing their naughty bits, then get "all their personal information" with which to follow through with some kind of sexual attack, is shown to be completely bogus.

No. I'm no more concerned about the TSA screener who sees my driver's license than I am about the checkout clerk at the local grocery store who sees my driver's license. I assume most of the non-paranoid flying public feels the same way.

The nutjobs who worry about being targeted for rape and molestation whenever they are asked to show some ID can get a passport and show that. I assume people who are this paranoid already do a GPS tracker sweep before they get in their car, and watch their rear-view mirror when they drive home.

Right. I am also not denying that convicted rapists and designated sexual offenders can be working at the corner store. I'm just saying I don't worry about them, my kids don't worry about them, and as far as I know my female acquaintances don't worry about them.

Why do you worry about them? Are you a rape survivor?

Okay, I have seen it all now.

Someone who doesn't like the idea of his kids being groped by a convicted child molestor is a nutjob. Someone who cites the law showing that could occur at TSA screening is met with an argument from ridicule. Someone who mentions the application of well understood and documented tactics of serial rapists who may be employed at TSA to the TSA screening scenario is a fanatical paranoid.

Yet it is exactly this kind of speculation about possible methods and outcomes applied to large groups, and the possible behavior of the few bad guys, that the TSA use to justify porno-scans and grope rapes of the entire groups.

I am also not denying that convicted rapists and designated sexual offenders can be working at the corner store. I'm just saying I don't worry about them, my kids don't worry about them, and as far as I know my female acquaintances don't worry about them.

I'm certain that your egalitarian and superior attitude would remain intact when all your kids and female friends were required to be taken to the back room of that store and groped irregardless of cause. Just checking for shoplifting, you see.. Just checking everybody...

Hire everybody that applies regardless of criminal history - and scan or grope everyone regardless of probable suspicion.

Little problem there?

 

[bokonon]

Someone who doesn't like the idea of his kids being groped by a convicted child molestor is a nutjob.

Why not stop the hysterical appeal to emotion and be honest? You have no evidence that any convicted child molesters are groping anyone's kids, and it's entirely within the parents' control whether ANYONE gets to touch their kids at these checkpoints. Let them walk through the scanner, and there's no groping by anyone, much less your imaginary "convicted child molesters".

If you're going to choose to let your kids be groped, what difference does it really make whether it's done by child molesters or the family doctor? You're standing right there to make sure nothing unprofessional happens.

Someone who mentions the application of well understood and documented tactics of serial rapists who may be employed at TSA to the TSA screening scenario is a fanatical paranoid.

I don't know how fanatical you are, but the notion is definitely paranoid. The checkout clerk at the local store has the advantage that he's local, and is likely to see you frequently, but you don't seem to be worried about him. The TSA screener at a busy hub hundreds of miles from where you live, who you're likely to see only once, has you frothing.

Hire everybody that applies regardless of criminal history - and scan or grope everyone regardless of probable suspicion.

Little problem there?

Just the usual problem that you're mis-stating the facts. The TSA is not hiring everybody that applies regardless of criminal history -- any of the categories you mention will disqualify the candidate if the conviction is within the past 10 years. That's not "regardless of criminal history," is it?

And even if they're not automatically disqualified by a criminal record, in this economy it's a safe bet that they have plenty of candidates to choose from who are not rapists and child molesters. They certainly aren't hiring "everybody that applies."

Show me a rapist or child molester who's actually working as a screener, and I'll concede that your concerns aren't completely baseless. Show me any screener who doesn't do his job in a professional manner, whether he has a record or not, and I'll support you in asking that he be removed from the job.

If anyone is molested or raped, I'll support criminal prosecution. I consider the scenario you propose to be about as likely as a plane crash due to a collision with birds -- it's a remote possibility, but it seems too unlikely to be a source of legitimate concern.

 

[qayak]

I like this.

http://cargocollective.com/4thamendment

If they made one that just said, "Go **** Yourself! in extremely large letters, I'd buy it and wear it the next time I went on a flight.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Someone who doesn't like the idea of his kids being groped by a convicted child molestor is a nutjob.

Why not stop the hysterical appeal to emotion and be honest? You have no evidence that any convicted child molesters are groping .....
If anyone is molested or raped, I'll support criminal prosecution. I consider the scenario you propose to be about as likely as a plane crash due to a collision with birds -- it's a remote possibility, but it seems too unlikely to be a source of legitimate concern.

Because you've met legitimate concerns with arguments of ridicule and ridiculous requirements of proof, and your arguments illustrate well the problems with the TSA mentality.

On a subject that you show similar ignorance of, collisions with birds are significant concern. That is illustrated by the fact that Air Traffic Control routinely reports to aircraft when birds are flocking in the vicinity, and by a long history of rather bad issues with birds.

So why should it be of any importance to me or anyone else what you extemporaneously consider a matter of legitimate concern?

Your arguments seem to reduce to something like "it doesn't matter unless it matters" and "we'll deal with it after it occurs and if it occurs".

SO.....you'd be okay with the perps in the candy store....

'Nuff said.

 

[mhaze]

I like this.

http://cargocollective.com/4thamendment

If they made one that just said, "Go **** Yourself! in extremely large letters, I'd buy it and wear it the next time I went on a flight.

I would wager that grounds could be found to assess you an $11,000 fine for doing that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Okay, I have seen it all now.

Someone who doesn't like the idea of his kids being groped by a convicted child molestor is a nutjob. Someone who cites the law showing that could occur at TSA screening is met with an argument from ridicule. Someone who mentions the application of well understood and documented tactics of serial rapists who may be employed at TSA to the TSA screening scenario is a fanatical paranoid.

Did you catch the last line of this article?

If the TSA is going to search kids, maybe they need a little training on how to do it--or at least employees should have a few lollipops or stickers in their pockets.​

It's unclear whether the person who wrote this article was serious, and completely oblivious to the connection that many (perhaps most) people might make, or whether the author intended to invoke the stereotypical image of a predatory child molester using candy and toys to lure a potential victim.

 

[mhaze]

Thats says it all really. Too lazy and then tells a lie to boot. You do not know what the current procedures are, you just know what they are permitted to do by law. Thats the point of the link you posted. Jeez.

And you are wholly ignorant about the actual measures at the airport so I suspect for all your bleating this does not affect you in anyway as you do not fly.

Nope. I said I was okay with the procedures I posted link to representing current procedure. That's it. And you've done nothing except produce groundless innuendo.

As before, I suggest that if you can refute the link with facts, by all means do so, otherwise, STFU.

 

[funk de fino]

the criminal TSA background check procedures are laid out here:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...fr1542.209.htm


No need.

I'm okay with the docket linked representing current procedures.

I've presented evidence, you are welcome to correct it with facts if you have any. Burden of proof to the contrary is on you.

No, you have provided zero evidence of what the TSA prodecures are now. You have presented something that shows they could legally hire those undesirables and then got your bum tickled when you proved you were clueless about the teams involved and how they worked. You do not even want to know what the TSA procedure is not because it will burst your sexual fantasy bubble.

You do not even fly do you?

 

[saizai]

Try just distributing information to help people in opting out: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193915

 

[mhaze]

No, you have provided zero evidence of what the TSA prodecures are now.....

False. And I've twice asked you to correct the link I provided and show additional TSA procedures, but each time you've ignored that request and produced innuendo.

Color me unimpressed.

 

[funk de fino]

False. And I've twice asked you to correct the link I provided and show additional TSA procedures, but each time you've ignored that request and produced innuendo.

Color me unimpressed.

This is a lie. This is what they are permitted to do. You do not want to know what the procedures are and if they have changed since 2003.

You do not fly do you?

 

[Tippit]

Why not stop the hysterical appeal to emotion and be honest? You have no evidence that any convicted child molesters are groping anyone's kids, and it's entirely within the parents' control whether ANYONE gets to touch their kids at these checkpoints. Let them walk through the scanner, and there's no groping by anyone, much less your imaginary "convicted child molesters".

So parents have the equally abhorrent choice of whether they and their kids get porn scanned, or fondled. How generous of you. Turning this form of abuse or the alternative into a condition of what used to be our right to travel freely by air isn't exactly a "choice".

If you're going to choose to let your kids be groped, what difference does it really make whether it's done by child molesters or the family doctor? You're standing right there to make sure nothing unprofessional happens.

Really? You'd have no issues regarding someone with salacious intent groping your kid, as long as you're there to observe? You may have some issues.

I don't know how fanatical you are, but the notion is definitely paranoid. The checkout clerk at the local store has the advantage that he's local, and is likely to see you frequently, but you don't seem to be worried about him. The TSA screener at a busy hub hundreds of miles from where you live, who you're likely to see only once, has you frothing.

The problem as I see it isn't really about all of the awful possibilities that could arise, but with the groping itself. It doesn't really matter whether the offender knows you, has a badge, has your address, or what. The groping is the violation. If a man gropes women on the street, with no other intention, the women can remain more or less anonymous and it is hardly any less of an assault - a violation.

Just the usual problem that you're mis-stating the facts. The TSA is not hiring everybody that applies regardless of criminal history -- any of the categories you mention will disqualify the candidate if the conviction is within the past 10 years. That's not "regardless of criminal history," is it?

And even if they're not automatically disqualified by a criminal record, in this economy it's a safe bet that they have plenty of candidates to choose from who are not rapists and child molesters. They certainly aren't hiring "everybody that applies."

Show me a rapist or child molester who's actually working as a screener, and I'll concede that your concerns aren't completely baseless. Show me any screener who doesn't do his job in a professional manner, whether he has a record or not, and I'll support you in asking that he be removed from the job.

If anyone is molested or raped, I'll support criminal prosecution. I consider the scenario you propose to be about as likely as a plane crash due to a collision with birds -- it's a remote possibility, but it seems too unlikely to be a source of legitimate concern.

Since one of the two egregious TSA policies involves the unwanted touching of my junk, that makes all TSA screeners who enforce that policy molesters, and all the ones who abuse children in that way child molesters. The other policy makes them pornographers. If this sounds extreme, I consider it no less extreme than their consideration of every single American as potential terrorist, and stealing their dignity along with what's left of their liberty.

You're the one who's paranoid - of terrorist attack. Why don't you form your own airline, call it "Fearmonger Air", and submit everyone to prison-style admittance procedures. Let everyone else restore sanity to our airports. I'll be happy to risk being blown up or hijacked every time I fly if it means restoring this country from the mediocre cesspool it has become.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why not stop the hysterical appeal to emotion and be honest? You have no evidence that any convicted child molesters are groping anyone's kids, and it's entirely within the parents' control whether ANYONE gets to touch their kids at these checkpoints. Let them walk through the scanner, and there's no groping by anyone, much less your imaginary "convicted child molesters".

Well, OK, not “convicted”, and alas, probably won't be; but here's at least one documented case of a child being blatantly molested by a TSA agent. By definition, that make this agent a child molester, even if he hasn't been prosecuted as such.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=77140

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The problem as I see it isn't really about all of the awful possibilities that could arise, but with the groping itself. It doesn't really matter whether the offender knows you, has a badge, has your address, or what. The groping is the violation. If a man gropes women on the street, with no other intention, the women can remain more or less anonymous and it is hardly any less of an assault - a violation.

The man on the street, of course, could be arrested for this, and on conviction, spend a fair amount of time in prison and thereafter be required for the rest of his life to be registered as a “sex offender”. There is absolutely no justification for allowing TSA agents to engage in this same conduct, without facing the same consequences.

 

[mhaze]

This is a lie. This is what they are permitted to do. You do not want to know what the procedures are and if they have changed since 2003.

Third time, support your claim or STFU.

And don't tell us "you do not want to know what the procedures are"...blah blah blah....

You do not fly do you?

BWHAHAHAHAHAH!