TSA and venues other than airports

[terryg]

Good Heavens! Got a problem with security groping people? Who 'ya gona call? TSA!

The patients have taken over the asylum!

Bwaaa Haaa! No Kidding!!!!

[SewTexas]

If you read beyond the headline, and on to the article it wasn't the TSA it was a TSA certified person. Just as I can be a Red Cross certified CPR person, that does not mean I work for the RC. I do not see anywhere in the article that the person worked for the TSA, looks to me like the judge said "you get to pay for this person". I think that the silly girls thought they were going to cry SH and get someone fired and get some $(which unfortunately often works) and instead probably got all of their friends po'd instead. Honestly, TSA though???

[JP171]

I'm still trying to figure out how a safety adminstration is a law enforcement agency, sounds gestapo like to me.

Agent: PAPERS NOW CIVILIAN!!!!
poor guy: huh??? what papers?
Agent: YOUR UNDER ARREST FOR UNAUTHORIZED TRAVEL!!!!

sound familiar?

TSA need to return to what is supposed to be, the agency that promulagates rules concerning the safe movement of commercial carriers. period!

[sjfcontrol]

If you read beyond the headline, and on to the article it wasn't the TSA it was a TSA certified person. Just as I can be a Red Cross certified CPR person, that does not mean I work for the RC. I do not see anywhere in the article that the person worked for the TSA, looks to me like the judge said "you get to pay for this person". I think that the silly girls thought they were going to cry SH and get someone fired and get some $(which unfortunately often works) and instead probably got all of their friends po'd instead. Honestly, TSA though???

Well, I read the entire article, and actually quoted the part you mentioned. I must admit, I fail to see much difference between the "TSA" and a "TSA certified person". Are not the TSA agents at the airports "TSA Certified Persons"? And for whom is the TSA "certifying people" if not for the TSA? The point I was making, is -- Who better to know how to grope someone than the TSA? (or "TSA Certified Person", if you prefer).

Actually, come to think of it, the TSA is an agency, and as such CANNOT grope somebody, since an agency has no hands.

[VMI77]

You haven't said anything here that I disagree with. What you say about ticket sales is exactly my point: Sea World conduct is limited by their calculation of cost and revenue, and the feedback mechanism that regulates this conduct is probably quick and direct. The TSA doesn't care if you don't fly, in fact, fewer passengers would no doubt make their job more pleasant. There is no direct connection between dollars and their behavior, especially at the margin where people first start to react.

However, I still think you're training your children that you find "Shamu's" searches acceptable and in the long run the threshold of what is "acceptable" will thereby be raised. You may understand the distinction between searches conducted by Sea World and searches conducted by the TSA and pass this comprehension on to your children, but I submit to you that the process helps accommodate the bulk of the population to being searched, and over time will lead to more intrusive searches by both Sea World and the government.

Truly I think if anything/anyone is conditioning people to greater searching capacity it would be the TSA, not Shamu. Part of the difference between the two is Sea World search of my bags is legal, and does not humiliate or assault my family. In comparison to Sea Worlds search of bags, the TSA is deliberately humiliating and degrading people with no cause whatsoever, and what they are doing is not legal because they are government officials.

As for what I am teaching my children, you could say that I am teaching my kids that if you want to go somewhere you have to obey the (legal) stated rules, and if you don't like the rules and can't abide by them you don't go. So is Shamu accustoming people to having their privates felt, because they are looking in my bag--maybe, but that is a stretch. I at this time have the ability to avoid TSA searches for myself and my family, so I do. That could change if the TSA is not stopped and they continue to branch out to all forms of transportation. That is what the point of all I said at the start of this thread.

Well, I think both Shamu and TSA are conditioning people. I also think you're making a distinction between the government and corporations that no longer exists. For example, what if the government told Shamu they have to search visitors and what kind of search they have to conduct --in the interest of "public safety"? (and to stretch a point, how do you know they haven't?). By your logic, that would make groping legal for Shamu, and it would be OK because the government isn't doing it. This isn't some far fetched hypothetical either: the government is already telling the companies in my industry what kind of security we have to have (it's mostly useless nonsense too).

The problem at this point with the notion that various things are OK as long as the government doesn't do them is that the next logical step is for the government to hire or order it done in the "market" via corporate proxies. The government is already doing this to circumvent legal privacy restrictions. Among other things It contracts private companies to gather data on people that whatever government agency is legally prohibited from gathering; it has the phone companies porting internet traffic to the NSA; and it has the banks reporting to them any time you write a check for more than $5,000 (I think there is actually a lower threshold now, but can't remember what it is).

And BTW, it makes more sense for the government to tell a shopping mall they have to search you than to put the TSA at the malls: all the costs will be imposed on businesses and they can dodge the Constitutional issue because it won't be government agents searching you. So, if the government tells Shamu they have to grope you --public safety demands it-- and shopping malls that they have to search and grope you --again, because public safety demands it, are you going to find comfort in the legal subterfuge and distinction that it's not the government conducting the searches, but a business? Really, how much different is a society where the government searches you everywhere you go or corporations search you everywhere you go? You seem to be saying the former is intolerable but you're OK with the latter? I'm not OK with either.

Edited to add:

Another example of what I'm talking about: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/ ... -sex-jokes

Life destroying policies imposed via private proxies to circumvent the law in order to advance a leftist agenda.

[mamabearCali]

What you are referring to would be a very thin veil between the government doing it and a private official doing it (because the government mandated it). All (hopefully) it would take would be a good lawyer and a lawsuit to puncture that one. You missed the point of why Sea World is so limited in their search. At a corporate level I am sure they wish they could get out those body scanners and such and make sure no one smuggles in so much as a packet of gummy worms. But they can't--why not? Because they would lose massive amounts of business--more than they would gain in the selling of gummy worms. I imagine if the gov't were to try to impose regulations on screening park goers that would inhibit their business model they would scream bloody murder, and because they have more $$ than I do, when they scream bloody murder they get somewhere with it. The malls would do the same. I am betting that the only reason we have not seen massive problems in the air transportation industry is because businesses still send their employees all over the world and they have to use air transit. The employees have little choice (a new job is hard to come by these days), and the CEO's of business take private air fair and don't pay much attention to what their employees have to endure.

Of course if Sea World or a Mall implemented the policies the TSA has now I would not go. I flew with only minor complaint when all we had to do was walk through a metal detector and have our bags go through some x-ray machine. I am a reasonable person, I understand that there is not only black, white, but often varying shades of gray. I can understand why the airlines would prohibit some items on a plane. I can even understand why an fight security specialist would ask me some questions before I flew to determine the risk level I was. Even a bag inspection if certain flags were raised would not be unreasonable. Incidentally what I just described is what most countries do. What is happening now is not reasonable The current TSA policies are so bad, that the last time citizens, who had done nothing wrong, were treated like this was in the USSR and Nazi Germany. It is a couple of power hungry people at the top of a pyramid of drones that are supposed to be overseen by congress, but congress is doing such a bad job and is so full of politicians that don't give a care about anyone but themselves that they have peanut butter in their ears.

There is a huge difference between a bag check and a prison pat down. I don't think it is splitting hairs to say one is not great but under certain circumstances acceptable and the other not acceptable unless a person has committed a crime and is going to jail. If you don't like Sea World--don't go, but please don't give me grief for my decision to go on occasion.

[LikesShinyThings]

so here's the question, you say you need to go shopping once in a while...why would you need to go to a mall where they would conceivably set up such 'check points' ?

other options:

strip centers; actually becoming more popular, safer (not so much of a 'target' as far as terrorism and such goes)
shop online for brands and sizes you are familiar with
shop local
shop etsy, and such, you get one of a kind, you support mostly stay at home moms trying to make a buck

So your solution is "don't like it--don't shop in malls" Really? Instead of trying to stop the TSA's illegal actions by doing what we can (writing congressmen/senators/state officials and opposing in legal manners this breach of our God given rights) your suggestion is avoid those places where they could be conceivably set up.

You know I remember a poem that went like this "First they came for the Jews, but I was not a jew." We could rewrite it and say "First they came for the airports, but I did not fly. Then they came to the train stations, but I don't take trains. Then they came to the bus stations, so I drove my own car instead. Then they came to the malls, so I shopped online. Finally they came to my door....." Right now we are 3/4 of the way through that little poem.

If I want to go to a local mall and shop I should be able to do so without having my kids and I receiving prison style pat downs. I do not live my life in fear of a terrorist attack, those who do should stay home.

I won't try to speak for SewTexas, but as I see it, why not do both:
- Contact the legislative critters behind the intrusion in our lives that leads to more searches, and
- Boycott the malls and other places where there is a "search" required for entry. Then tell them so when you spend money elsewhere - hit them where their bottom line is, and maybe that will pressure them to change. You've got a better chance of encouraging a change if you don't support the trampling of your rights by rewarding them with your money.

[speedsix]

If you read beyond the headline, and on to the article it wasn't the TSA it was a TSA certified person. Just as I can be a Red Cross certified CPR person, that does not mean I work for the RC. I do not see anywhere in the article that the person worked for the TSA, looks to me like the judge said "you get to pay for this person". I think that the silly girls thought they were going to cry SH and get someone fired and get some $(which unfortunately often works) and instead probably got all of their friends po'd instead. Honestly, TSA though???

...we DID "read beyond the headline"...
...a "certified TSA official" as the article says means an employee of TSA...who is certified...

...a "TSA certified person" means a person who has passed the TSA standards for gropification...or whatever they call it...NOT necessarily a TSA employee..

...the article says both...so which was it, and since when does TSA have the authority/credentials to train people to search other people??? it's wrong either way...it's time we stood up and said ENOUGH...I just know "they" will listen if we do...

...another Federal court intrusion into state business...and more infringement on privacy and common decency...if my daughter came home telling me those details mentioned in this article, I'd be suing anyone I could, too, only...these aren't gold-diggers, they're decent young girls smart enough to realize that what they were put through goes WAY past either necessary or justifiable...

[VMI77]

What you are referring to would be a very thin veil between the government doing it and a private official doing it (because the government mandated it). All (hopefully) it would take would be a good lawyer and a lawsuit to puncture that one. You missed the point of why Sea World is so limited in their search. At a corporate level I am sure they wish they could get out those body scanners and such and make sure no one smuggles in so much as a packet of gummy worms. But they can't--why not? Because they would lose massive amounts of business--more than they would gain in the selling of gummy worms. I imagine if the gov't were to try to impose regulations on screening park goers that would inhibit their business model they would scream bloody murder, and because they have more $$ than I do, when they scream bloody murder they get somewhere with it. The malls would do the same. I am betting that the only reason we have not seen massive problems in the air transportation industry is because businesses still send their employees all over the world and they have to use air transit. The employees have little choice (a new job is hard to come by these days), and the CEO's of business take private air fair and don't pay much attention to what their employees have to endure.

Of course if Sea World or a Mall implemented the policies the TSA has now I would not go. I flew with only minor complaint when all we had to do was walk through a metal detector and have our bags go through some x-ray machine. I am a reasonable person, I understand that there is not only black, white, but often varying shades of gray. I can understand why the airlines would prohibit some items on a plane. I can even understand why an fight security specialist would ask me some questions before I flew to determine the risk level I was. Even a bag inspection if certain flags were raised would not be unreasonable. Incidentally what I just described is what most countries do. What is happening now is not reasonable The current TSA policies are so bad, that the last time citizens, who had done nothing wrong, were treated like this was in the USSR and Nazi Germany. It is a couple of power hungry people at the top of a pyramid of drones that are supposed to be overseen by congress, but congress is doing such a bad job and is so full of politicians that don't give a care about anyone but themselves that they have peanut butter in their ears.

There is a huge difference between a bag check and a prison pat down. I don't think it is splitting hairs to say one is not great but under certain circumstances acceptable and the other not acceptable unless a person has committed a crime and is going to jail. If you don't like Sea World--don't go, but please don't give me grief for my decision to go on occasion.

Sorry, it's not my intent to give you grief for going to Sea World. For the most part I agree with what you're saying. My focus is not on Sea World but on the distinction you're making between government actions and supposedly "private" actions. I'm just using Sea World as an example for various venues.

[boba]

Good Heavens! Got a problem with security groping people? Who 'ya gona call? TSA!

The patients have taken over the asylum!

It makes complete sense. Who knows more about sexually assaulting kids than the TSA?

[mamabearCali]

Sorry, it's not my intent to give you grief for going to Sea World. For the most part I agree with what you're saying. My focus is not on Sea World but on the distinction you're making between government actions and supposedly "private" actions. I'm just using Sea World as an example for various venues.

The distinction I am making is not so much gov't vs private, it is more because the it is a gov't entity that is doing these searches and they are insulated from any effect that the searches have on business. As a result they are more likely to abuse and assault people during the search because there is no consequence to them. The TX bill that will be voted on soon would end some of that (you touch someone's private areas you can be arrested--just like anywhere else). I was also trying to make the distinction between an annoying minimal search that was what was originally done in airports and other venues (sporting events), and the invasive searching that is now used that rises to the level of sexual assault on our families--the TSA attempting to hide behind the rulings the courts gave dealing with far less invasive searches.

[RottenApple]

IANAL, but it seems to me that government cannot require civilians to do what they cannot do themselves. A LEO cannot ask a civilian to conduct an illegal search on his behalf because then the civilian would be acting under police authority. I'm fairly certain that would be, at best, entrapment; And in court it would be inadmissible as evidence.

Is there a lawyer in the house who can confirm or refute this?

[VMI77]

IANAL, but it seems to me that government cannot require civilians to do what they cannot do themselves. A LEO cannot ask a civilian to conduct an illegal search on his behalf because then the civilian would be acting under police authority. I'm fairly certain that would be, at best, entrapment; And in court it would be inadmissible as evidence.

Is there a lawyer in the house who can confirm or refute this?

I'm not talking about an individual LEO asking or ordering an individual to conduct an illegal search. I'm talking about systemic abuses: phone company spying, third party data collection, quasi-government regulation, and future extension of the model for these existing activities into other areas, like conducting searches at malls, sporting events, and theme parks. Further muddying the water, so far, these systemic processes don't directly "require" people or corporations to do anything --they get "cooperation" through various methods of "encouragement" (be it financial inducement or regulatory coercion). I think I've pretty much explained the process in previous posts.

Also, I'm not all that concerned about whether proxy search evidence would be admissible in court, though in the context I'm suggesting I don't see why it wouldn't be. If Sea World found someone in possession of something illegal, why wouldn't it be admissible? Are you saying that if Sea World discovered a baggie full of illegal drugs in someone's diaper bag and informed the police, they wouldn't be arrested and tried on the evidence discovered by Sea World? I'm not objecting to these kinds of searches because they might reveal evidence of a crime, I'm objecting because they are fixtures of a police state, and I don't want to have to show "my papers" and be subject to searches wherever I go.

[RottenApple]

Also, I'm not all that concerned about whether proxy search evidence would be admissible in court, though in the context I'm suggesting I don't see why it wouldn't be. If Sea World found someone in possession of something illegal, why wouldn't it be admissible? Are you saying that if Sea World discovered a baggie full of illegal drugs in someone's diaper bag and informed the police, they wouldn't be arrested and tried on the evidence discovered by Sea World? I'm not objecting to these kinds of searches because they might reveal evidence of a crime, I'm objecting because they are fixtures of a police state, and I don't want to have to show "my papers" and be subject to searches wherever I go.

I didn't say that at all. But Sea World is not acting on LE's behalf. Therefore the evidence is perfectly admissible. If, however, LE required Sea World to search the bag and Sea World found something, then it would be inadmissible because they were acting as LE's agents.

[JoeS3]

Well it is not so hypothetical now...they are going to bus stations, train stations, metro stations, and High School Proms apparently.

High School proms? Really?!? How are they justifying that one?

It's more unnecessary government spending by the Obama administration. Have you seen high school girls today? I could easily round up volunteers to search them for free.