TSA Body Scan leads to SPH

[Cosmic]

After a TSA Body Scan revealed a TSA worker's small penis his co-workers made fun of him on a daily basis. On May 4, 2010 he assaulted one of his tormentors:

 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0506101tsa1.html

 

I think it would have been better for him to suffer in silence than to lose his job, be arrested and face the further humiliation of having his story circulated in the media and a court of law. Or suing for harassment would be another non- violent alternative, though somewhat humiliating.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

http://www.dotcr.ost.dot.gov/Documents/complaint/Preventing_Sexual_Harassment.htm

 

 

 

Edited May 7, 2010 by Guest

[canuck45]

Sue the manufacturer and all airports for providing the means to create sexual harassment. Whats next, total nudity and cavity searches for everyone? After all 'security' dictates anything goes, whether it really makes a difference or not.

 

Just another means to suck money from the overburdened public (we pay for these new features). We have a few wacko's so everyone will be treated as a criminal just on principle. Keep catering to the LCD and we will all be prisoners of 'our' government Machiavellian mentality and as smart as a sack of hammers.

 

Long live the Totalitarian movement.

[53Jim53]

The headline at Drudge Report is "X-ray revealed 'small penis'...". You click on the link and there is a picture of the guy, with his name.

 

Nightmare scenario.

 

 

[Skot]

I think he'd have a reasonable defence given he'd put up with the bullying over it for a year with no sign of the company actually doing anything to stop it.

 

There was a similar case recently where one guy made a comment on the size of a colleagues breasts as she walked through the scanner and she turned litigeous immediately.

 

Rather makes a mockery of the claims that the scanner isn't detailed enough to be an invasion of privacy...

 

 

 

[Dave33511]

Beat me to posting this. This happened in locally for me and it was discussed on the morning news.

[Riftalope]

I wouldn't say this works against the privacy issue of the scanner. The only reason they knew who it was was because they were doing a demo.

I can only ask if the guy tried to file a complaint before this happened. If not he is screwed.

Moral of the story, don't make fun of a grown man's cock.

:susel: (He might use the weapon on his hip.)

Edited May 7, 2010 by Guest

[Thorn]

That is ridiculous, one would hope that TSA employees would be both more mature than that, and more mentally balanced...

 

I don't think this is at all a valid argument against the use of these scanners. If passengers are allowed to bypass these scanners and get a traditional pat downs and metal detector run over them instead than all the power to them. If airports or whoever is in charge of paying for these things were smart they would charge people a small fee if they want to bypass these things, if you are concerned about privacy and already paying $100s of dollars, what is another $10-$20? They charge you for everything else anyway...

 

The one thing people forget when they get all angry about rights, freedoms and privacy, in regards to air travel; is that flying is not a need. Yes it would be a unjust to force people to be scanned while walking down the street, or pulling people over to do so, but an airport is not a public space that anyone needs to be in.

 

Now I would agree that if there is no way around these scans than that would be an invasion of privacy. If the airports can offer other options, even if they may be slower due to taking longer to clear each person, or more expensive, than that is the free market system, and there is nothing wrong with that...

[toadfish327]

I feel sorry for the poor guy. The last line in this story sums it up pretty well.

 

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/TSA-Fracas-After-Body-Scanner-Reveals-TMI-92971929.html

[Nubdick]

great. and im probably going to be flying in a few weeks. i think id rather deal with the potential possibility of a terrorist (who's going to north dakota?) than of someone definitely seeing my little dick.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Guest

[Guest]

Nubdick. Someone who will never see your face. Someone who will never know your name. Unless you have contraband.

 

[Skwirl]

great. and im probably going to be flying in a few weeks. i think id rather deal with the potential possibility of a terrorist (who's going to north dakota?) than of someone definitely seeing my little dick.

 

Just don't shift your eyes around too much. Then no one will suspect you of being a terrorist. :sneaky:

 

Then there's always this method of getting through security. It worked for me.

 

[Nubdick]

but...but that goes to 11!

[Rick]

OK Everybody breathe!

 

I just went through the TSA inspection process twice today, and in particular, found the agents in Philadelphia to be affable and courteous. Still, none of them grandly volunteered to give me a dick massage the way that hot cutie did back home last year when I was selected for the "special" pat-down.

 

I did note one additional security precaution now in place, given recent terrorist attempts, and the fact that we were on board a 4-hour flight out over the open Atlantic. During the final hour of the flight, the pilot announced that he expected to encounter severe turbulence, and everyone, therefore, was required to buckle up and remain in their seats for the duration. In retrospect, we never encountered any turbulence whatsoever. Still, no one roamed the aisles during that interval, and we landed on-time and without incident.

 

Rick

 

 

[Cosmic]

If passengers are allowed to bypass these scanners and get a traditional pat downs and metal detector run over them instead than all the power to them. If airports or whoever is in charge of paying for these things were smart they would charge people a small fee if they want to bypass these things, if you are concerned about privacy and already paying $100s of dollars, what is another $10-$20? They charge you for everything else anyway...

 

The reasons why the body scanner is being bypassed and why I feel passengers shouldn't be charged extra fees for metal detectors and pat downs are as follows:

 

T.S.A. costs are already covered by ticket taxes. Metal detectors, pat downs and searches detect smuggled contraband cheaply and effectively without the need for expensive body scanners. The body scanner proved unreliable when it failed to detect bomb making parts concealed on the person in the link's video:

 

http://boingboing.net/2010/01/22/naked-airport-scanne.html

 

N.B. I have never been subjected to a body scan. In my recent U.S. travels the airport security staff relied on the usual procedures and mandatory pat downs. They were professional and courteous and I expect them to act in that same manner if they were to do body scans on airplane passengers.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Guest

[canuck45]

You think it would be ok then if they stripped you naked and walked you out of the airport. You do have a bag over your face so no one will know who you are!

IF if look through my windows at the naked person next door, even if I can't see her face its being a peeping tom.

Image the crossdresser, getting caught with a penis showing under her dress, over zealous security dodo's immediately arrest him thinking he has a pack of plastic explosives shaped like genitals to fool them.

 

Besides there is a thing called the internet, how long before pics start appearing especially of 'celebrities'

 

Wait I know this girl, its my cousin. I do recognize people from their backside also. LOL

My cousin Violet

Edited May 9, 2010 by Guest

[Guest]

Adrian, you're usually much better with analogies, and far less prone to breathless paranoia. There is a huge difference between walking naked where everyone has access to you, and being fully clothed, and temporarily scanned under your clothes BY CHOICE!

 

Any new scan deletes the previous one. Images cannot be saved. I don't see how celebrity scans are going to be able to be leaked out. What are they going to do? Use a cellphone image? How are they going to know which scan to photograph? If the person facing the celeb in question picks up their walkie-talkie and tell the scanner who they are scanning, it will be immediately obvious. It's not a sound-proof chamber when you stand inside the machine.

 

This poor man was only known to his scanners because it was a training exercise with a limited number of people who all knew each other. They probably radioed down to the floor, and asked who they were seeing.

 

If they found anything suspicious, including the unassuming cross-dresser's penis, they would take this person to a private room for a real strip search and discover the misunderstanding.

 

And again, so far, no one is being forced to use the imagers. If you choose to use them, you get on a significantly shorter line, and have much less hassle. Your arguments against it hold water like a sieve.

[TinyJock]

Yep, I'm sure after scanning thousands of bodies a day, some tired, over-worked airport security jock is just pining for a peek at YOU & YOURS!

 

:omgsmilie:. . . It's him, at last! :wank:

 

Yep, he (or she) is just waiting for the chance to catch an x-ray glimpse of your Wee Willie Winkie all scrunched up in your undies.

 

:ilovethecock:. . . I think. . . :thinking:

 

Now, let me summarize the situation: there's a queue of crazed loonies stretching from here to Islamabad with nothing on their crazed minds but forty virgins and blowing up Times Square or whatever plane they're on (obviously they've been studying the battle plans of General George Armstrong Custer for inspiration) . . .

 

. . . and we have only a handful of options to ruin their fun. . .

 

1) Give all young Arab males the telephone numbers of Elliot Spitzer's and John Edwards' girlfriends (Do not, I repeat, do not give them Monica Lewinsky's number. . . you thought they were pissed before?);

 

2) Lock the doors and let no one into the U.S. but retired morticians and members of the Elks; if ya leave, better check out the housing market on the Costa del Sol;

 

3) Build a wall around the Middle East (ala the Great Wall of China) and let no one in or out but Halliburton employees;

 

4) Permit flights in and out of the U.S., but allow no luggage; and all passengers must remove and discard their clothing upon boarding and fly nude (or United); for an excessive fee the airlines may provide blankets in first class;

 

If the above seem too extreme for the faint-of-heart, and bearing in mind that the loonies are getting loonier (note slow progression of bombs from baggage compartment, to shoes, to crotch. . . "Where next?" we might ask), it seems like we are only left with the following:

 

5) Complete pat-downs, cavity searches, and colonoscopies, plus an intimate romp with Wonder the Sniffing Dog;

 

6) An updated hyper-sensitive x-ray machine which will take pics of your whole bod, including your ear wax and your scrunched up weiner. (Handsomely framed copies available for purchase at the customer service counter.)

 

Of course, there is always:

 

7) Stay home and stop whining.

 

Of the above, it's no question for me. I opt for number one.

 

:stoplookingatporn: :waytogo: :stoplookingatporn: :stupid: :stoplookingatporn: :yeahthat: :stoplookingatporn:

Edited May 10, 2010 by Guest

[canuck45]

all in the name of security.

 

When you lose all your privacy and rights because of the NSA, then you will be screaming. It starts small, under the guise of good and before you know it you are living under a military regime with no rights.

 

And each image is erased by the next, you believe that; and the police throw out your fingerprints if you are cleared. hahahahahaha and clear yourself of a crime by providing DNA samples.

[Rick]

Adrian!

 

Seriously, have you ever actually flown as a passenger on a commercial aircraft, and/or attempted to enter the USA, and/or done the two in tandem?

 

If you ever did, you would perhaps understand that there are special restrictions on flying between Canada and the USA, most of which have been imposed by the Canadian government,-- like no carry-ons, the requirement to match checked luggage with each passenger, as well as the mandatory passport pre-clearence within Canada for actual entry into the USA. So stop whining about your "privacy" and your "rights," as your paranoia is really showing. Instead, attempt to grasp what both Bronxy and TJ have been stating. Otherwise, opt for TJ's choice #7.

 

Security restrictions are nothing new. Many years back, during the height of the airline hijackings to Cuba, I was astounded at the thoroughness of the body searches being done back at that time when one wished to depart the Dominican Republic by air. More recently, when departing Chile on a Panamanian airline, I even witnessed a "double-standard" search, whereby passengers destined for Panama were given a less thorough search, while those continuing on to the USA were searched 8 ways from Sunday. To summarize, we've lived with tight security for years and years in this part of the world.

 

Your argument about the cross-dresser being exposed and arrested is foolish. If one happens to have such proclivities (and I'm not certain whether you're speaking for yourself here), I'd suggest "stowing" the female disguise during the formalities. And ditto for those inclined to wear metallic genital jewelry, and/or butt plugs, and the like.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[RoughPoint]

I'm going to stand up for Adrian's point of view here, to this degree: I think the opportunity for abuse exists. We'll have to wait and see what actually happens.

 

You would never have thought that your credit card information would be compromised by TJ Maxx, but it was. I am personally fighting 3 different fraudulent accounts appearing on my credit reports. I don't just assume that because it's the TSA or a federal bureaucracy that every one of their (our) employees is as pure as the driven snow.

 

What's happening isn't going to keep me from flying, but I am concerned about privacy issues, and as a concerned citizen, I will be watching (and voting).

[canuck45]

Thank you, someone that can see which way the slope is sliding. In the name of security anything goes and the public buys into it...its called propoganda.

 

The newest measures accomplish only 2 things: creates the idea that we are safer and creates a new industry making billions.

 

Are you any safer, don't kid yourself.

 

Much like video cameras in public, its for your safety and to reduce crime (hahahahaha).

The ACLU screamed and were ignored. NOW you are filmed everywhere you go and crime is way down, right! Whats next, all new homes will have cameras installed in every room to monitor for potential terrorists activities.

 

It used to be a communist on every corner (ask Hollywood stars about that), now its a terrorist in every airport.

 

I feel confident that the next thing will be an RFID implanted in all newborns. Citizen-1984 cease and desist. You are in violation of your designated travel area!

 

The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor. Mark Twain

 

:content: :smash: :onarant:

 

 

[TinyJock]

A little bio first: I have a long-known animus among my friends regarding encroachments on our rights, particularly by the Supreme Court. Ask RoughPoint on this. He can bear witness to my raving lunacy on this topic.

 

However, our constitution does not guarantee us absolute rights in many areas. As the saying goes, it is a privilege to drive a car. I do not have the right to drive without a license testifying to my over-all ability to handle the vehicle (and which can be revoked at any time). I do not have the right to drive with a tankful of alcohol in my system, nor in many states do I have the right to text my friends while running down school children in the crosswalks.

 

There are many areas in which our rights are similarly restricted, particularly in areas of public safety. Airlines must follow certain regulations regarding the safety of their craft, and I am not allowed to pilot one of those things.

 

So we are presented with a conundrum. There are those, like canuck45 and RoughPoint, who contend they have the absolute, God-given, "Don't-Tread-on-Me (you-asshole)" right to elbow their way aboard any commercial aircraft they please without any screening whatsoever. So does your friendly terrorist. He also feels he has the right to board the aircraft and that it is his inalienable right to bring aboard anything he damn well pleases. Particularly things which tick and make loud noises.

 

There are also many, like moi, who feels he has the right to arrive at his destination in the same number of pieces as he started out with. And, toward that end, will be willing to undergo the odd grope and giggle by sex-starved security personnel and TJ Maxx.

 

And, finally, to put things in perspective, I'm not quite sure how the occasional pat-down or x-ray at the airport equates to the witch hunts of the 1950's, nor to what ill-purpose an x-ray of my crotch could be used. I suppose I could imagine some, but then I'd have to be committed to the local booby hatch for therapeutic macrame.

 

 

PS. By the way, canuck45, although I'm a great fan of Mark Twain, is it really appropriate to label all persons who disagree with you, or just don't give a damn, as traitors. It tends to dissipate that level of bonhomie necessary for lively discussion. Even my wife is content to just call me an idiot.

[Rick]

Adrian!

 

Since you blissfully chose to ignore my point-blank question, and instead, continued to rant on about propaganda, video cameras, the ACLU, communists, traitors, and whatever other extraneous issues happen to enter your mind, I'll ask my question again:

 

Adrian!

 

Seriously, have you ever actually flown as a passenger on a commercial aircraft, and/or attempted to enter the USA, and/or done the two in tandem?

 

 

And btw RP, credit card fraud/identity theft has nothing whatoever to do with TSA scanners doing their jobs.

 

Rick

 

 

 

[RoughPoint]

Wait a minute! I don't recall invoking any constitutional right to board a plane unfettered by a security screening. All I said was that an opportunity for abuse exists, and I used the example of a formerly trusted retailer as an example. I stand by that statement.

 

I agree that like driving, flying is a privilege, not a right. Just as shopping at TJ Maxx is a privilege -- arguably -- and not a right. My only point concerns the possibility -- I'll even go on record as saying probability -- for abuse. We seem to all be taking for granted that this will make us safer. I'm not so sure.

 

The September 11 terrorists boarded their planes with nothing impermissible at that time. I used to fly a lot. (A LOT!) I believe that most of the inconvenience we endure at airport check-in is theater. It wouldn't take James Bond's Agent Q to conceal a blade in the frame of a piece of carry-on luggage. Yet I have been forced to surrender my forgotten pen knife so often that I now order them in bulk.

 

Sorry for getting off topic. No one has a god-given right to fly, but the scanners will be abused. Mark my words!

[TinyJock]

OK, RoughPoint, you caught me in a bit of hyperbole there.

 

But it was for the purpose of positing these basic choices:

 

-- Security measures, with some degree of intrusion, and some degree of protection; or

 

-- Remove any security which impinges on your privacy and go on the honor system.

 

It's your choice. Any move to increase security reduces personal privacy; and any move that increases privacy reduces security. So, to put it simply, how would you keep terrorists off a plane? Everyone kvetches but offer nothing to keep us safe. But when their mother, wife, or child are blown to smithereens by a terrorist with a bomb up his butt, you can be sure that they'll be the very first to complain and the first to file suit.