Alaska state rep refuses TSA grope of her mastectomy scars, drives home from Seattle

Alaska State Rep Sharon Cissna, a breast cancer survivor who has had a mastectomy, was barred from flying home to Juneau from Seattle by the TSA when she refused to allow a screener to touch the scars from her operation. She drove home instead. Apparently she is always selected for an invasive "hand screening" because the "irregularities" presented by her prosthesis when viewed through the pornoscanner raise the TSA's suspicions. As others have observed, the War on Terror is really a War on the Unusual -- it's the systematic erosion of rights for people with nonstandard appearance, health, itineraries, and beliefs, without regard to whether those "irregularities" are correlated with terrorist activity. It's as though the TSAhas said, "All terrorists are engaged in something unusual, therefore all unusual occurrences should be viewed as potential terrorism."

"So last night, as more and more TSA, airline, airport and police gathered, I became stronger in remembering to fight the submission to a physical hand exam. I repeatedly said that I would not allow the feeling-up and I would not use the transportation mode that required it."
"For nearly fifty years I've fought for the rights of assault victims, population in which my wonderful Alaska sadly ranks number one, both for men and women who have been abused. The very last thing an assault victim or molested person can deal with is yet more trauma and the groping of strangers, the hands of government 'safety' policy."
"For these people, as well as myself, I refused to submit."

I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.

MORE: Action • News • Technology

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Freek

Isn’t the whole entire point of having real human beings in the chain of security so that these people can use their judgement and training to determine in what situation strict security patt downs and scanning is actually usefull rather then invasive harrasment of innocent people?
Putt competent people in those jobs, give them the training they need and stop the absurd robotic treatment of passengers. The alternative is that terrorist don’t need to terrorize anymore, the government does it just fine all on their own.
Anonymous

Folks, the purpose of airport security is not to prevent terrorism. Preventing terrorism is just one of the means used to ensure confidence in the air transportation system so people continue to fly. If people think the risk of terrorism is too great then they wont fly and the airlines will go bankrupt again and we’ll have to bail them out again.

The courts are not going to stop this injustice. The ONLY thing that will put an end to it is if you refuse to fly and make it known to your representatives why. Explain to your relatives why you cannot easily visit them as often as you would like and encourage them to write their representatives explaining why their loved ones wont visit. Only Congress has the power to stop this and they will not do so until it is clear that the survival of the airlines and their very status as representatives depends on their switching sides.

I have put my money where my mouth is and have not flown since October. Forgoing opportunities to travel cross country, driving and taking the train or bus is a sacrifice but it is a small one.
Anonymous

Our beloved right wingnuts are celebrating. Those neo-conned are relishing in the fact she was abused…they say, she deserves it…blasted Liberal Democrat.
Lucifer

TSA, Gaddafi, Bahrain’s royal family, Hosni Mubarak.
What do all these have in common?
lordmax

Clap for her.
Cunning

It wasn’t sexual and it wasn’t personal and it certainly wasn’t the result of racial profiling. If the Alaska State Representative suffers from body image anxiety, it’s certainly her perogative to drive to Seattle, but it doesn’t make her a hero.
- Anonymous
  
  Because sex and race are the only forms of discrimination you should care about, and anyone else who’s different in some way deserves what they get?
- Xof
  
  It wasn’t sexual and it wasn’t personal and it certainly wasn’t the result of racial profiling.
  
  It is not required to be any of those things to be wrong.
  - Cunning
    
    What requirement of wrongness did it fulfill? You can argue that this type of screening is ineffective, but I don’t understand why it’s so offensive to Americans. It’s the human body – get over it.
    - Anonymous
      
      It’s amazing – I can’t see you and I don’t even know what part of the world you’re from. Yet somehow, I can be certain that your body is well within the average type, and you’ve never had to deal with any real social reactions to it in your life.
    - Xof
      
      What requirement of wrongness did it fulfill? You can argue that this type of screening is ineffective [...]
      
      Answered your own question.
    - Anonymous
      
      The problem is that this submission is coerced, as it is a requirement to exercise ones freedom of movement. I’m very open with my body and will let pretty much anyone see it and touch it and put a collar on me a lead me through public places on a leash if they ask nicely. If it’s a requirement to exercise my rights, you get nothing, it’s a violation. Just because I’m a slut doesn’t mean I can’t be raped.
    - Anonymous
      
      You don’t get to touch my body, unless I find you attractive and the opportunity is propitious. Same for TSA, bucko!
- IronEdithKidd
  
  If you got the 4 red s’s on your bording pass every single time you took a flight, you’d probably have some empathy for this woman.
  
  It’s unfortunate she’s not a federal congrescritter. I call this a lost oportunity, not heroism.
- Anonymous
  
  Her freedom of movement has been curtailed. Remember, she’s Alaskan, so her freedom of movement from Alaska to the rest of the US by car depends on the cooperation of a foreign government, something the US government cannot assure. Her ability to do her job requires her to be able to fly.
  
  If you think the government should be allowed to do things that can cause severe trauma without a warrant or pressing, immediate need, well, I’m almost hoping you’ll get to experience it. Almost. Either everybody has rights or nobody does, and if the only way to exercise your rights can involve psychological trauma, you are being denied that right. Since she hasn’t done anything, there is no cause to deny her any rights.
  - Cunning
    
    I have had a screenerâ€™s gloved hand down my pants, checking that mysterious area between my scrotum and rectum, presumably for explosive devices or maybe contraband. For reals. It is very disconcerting to say the least, but I guess because I’m an average weight white guy who never lost a breast to cancer, I managed to get past this indignity and lead a full and moderately productive life.
    
    I’m really not defending the TSA; I’m not convinced that most of this screening is necessary. But let’s be honest: we don’t object because it’s ineffective, we object because we’re a nation of Puritans.
    - Anonymous
      
      Nope. See my comment at #42. Intimate contact with my body is a privilege, very easy to get if you ask, but not if you demand. That’s the difference. I’m no Puritan, I’ve done things with knitting needles that’d make your eyes pop out like organ stops.
      - Cunning
        
        Anon, we may disagree, but I sure admire your ability to turn a phrase.
    - Antinous / Moderator
      
      It is very disconcerting to say the least, but I guess because I’m an average weight white guy who never lost a breast to cancer, I managed to get past this indignity and lead a full and moderately productive life.
      
      Mostly likely, as a white guy, you haven’t been sexually assaulted and don’t get profiled for spot searches on the street either. That might be why you haven’t managed to develop any empathy for people who might have good reasons for feeling traumatized by this.
    - Xof
      
      I’m really not defending the TSA [...]
      
      In that case, why are you insulting people who stand up to them?
    - Donald Petersen
      
      But let’s be honest: we don’t object because it’s ineffective, we object because we’re a nation of Puritans.
      
      I disagree. I’m not puritanical. I’ll flash my contraband-free taint to the whole congregation, if the invitation to do so is polite enough. See: it’s my taint, to flash or not flash as I please. I might adhere to modern standards of common decency, but not because I happen to suffer the shame of Adam and Eve when it comes to my unclothed nethers, but simply out of deference to the unprepared eyeballs of the multitudes; as my wife taught my three-year-old daughter to say when my plumber’s butt rears its hideous rear, “No one wants to see that.”
      
      The widespread objection stems from privacy, which is not necessarily based upon a puritanical shame of our nakedness, but based more powerfully upon a sense of ownership of our physical selves, a sense that our body is our own personal, private temple, and that nobody is welcome to touch it in any way without explicit invitation. This sensibility is the very foundation of the distinction between assault and battery (your jurisdiction may vary).
      
      Now, plenty of people make the tired argument that “9/11 changed everything,” and with this changed world we are told to expect a certain lessening of our liberties and conveniences, and yes, even privacies in the interest of greater safety. But when a mundane, routine trip to the airport includes a body examination more thorough than those enjoyed by prison inmates not so very long ago, then we certainly expect these searches to be quite, quite effective at helping guarantee our safety.
      
      So when these searches prove to be more invasive than anything John Q. Public has endured outside of his doctor’s office, and these searches also prove to be about as useful as a “No Terrorists Beyond This Point” sign at maintaining public safety, that’s what causes the widespread brouhaha.
      
      People would grumble and bitch, but they’d put up with a lot if they felt it was for a defensible reason.
    - Anonymous
      
      Not wanting to be felt up by security officials makes you a puritan? I suppose not wanting them to steal your things makes you a hoarder, and not wanting them to beat you with a night stick makes you a coward.
- Howlsthunder
  
  And all Rosa Parks did was sit in a different part of a bus.
  
  I’m not saying what Cissna did is revolutionary in any way but I’m not about to turn down any story that could add to the visibility of this issue.
  
  Also, she didn’t drive to Seattle – she was IN Seattle and had to get back to Juneau. Without flying that is one hell of a trip (Cissna took small planes to Canada where she could catch up with the ferry and reach Juneau by water).
  
  Having driven from Seattle to Alaska myself, I can tell you it isn’t a quick or easy trip. I did it with a friend, driving in shifts and only stopping for a couple hours each night and it took us three entire days. I’m young and like that sort of adventure but making that kind of journey when you are older and especially when you’d planned on flying and have limited time is an enormous statement to me, and, I’d assume, to other Alaskans.
  
  Speaking as a lifelong Alaskan, I am very conflicted over the state of our airline industry and its ties with the TSA. I have to fly if I want to go anywhere but I refuse to submit to unwarranted searches at the airport. As I said, I can’t just hop in a car and be-bop down to the Lower 48 any time I want to see my friends. A lot of people don’t have that kind of time or energy, and it’s not particularly cost effective. (It is also very difficult to drive to Hawaii from here as well, which is where most of my travel will be to so I can help my mom as she goes through chemotherapy there).
  
  Cissna may be a small fish to the rest of the world but Alaskans take notice when other Alaskans make news like this. And with Alaska’s dependency on air travel, stories like these have the ability to spark some heavy debate on the subject. Gotta keep up the momentum somehow. :)
  - Donald Petersen
    
    Having driven from Seattle to Alaska myself, I can tell you it isn’t a quick or easy trip.
    
    Google Maps tells me that there are 1,142 miles between Seattle and Juneau. If you set out from Manhattan and drove west for 1,142 miles, you’d end up within walking distance of Kansas City (okay, sixty miles would be a longish walk).
    
    And I expect the road between Seattle and Juneau is neither as wide, flat, nor straight as, say, Interstate 70.
    
    So yeah, she was put to some considerable inconvenience.
    - Anonymous
      
      > Google Maps tells me that there are 1,142 miles between Seattle and Juneau.
      > …
      > And I expect the road between Seattle and Juneau is neither as wide, flat,
      > nor straight as, say, Interstate 70.
      
      It’s kind of beside the point, but if you’re interested, and since you bring it up.. There actually ISN’T a road between Seattle and Juneau — any route to Juneau necessarily has to travel at least part way by air, barge, or passenger ferry, assuming one is not prepared to make a foot or dogsled traversal of the roadless Coast Mountains and the Juneau Icefield.
      
      In point of fact the 1142 mile route that Google Maps recommends for the trip would require 4 legs on three different ferry systems (Washington State Ferries, BC Provincial Ferries, and the Alaska Marine Highway System), would take the better part of a week even if all ferry schedules matched perfectly (which they rarely do), would require two international border crossings, and would probably cost $1,000 or more just for passenger and vehicle ferry fares, more if you wanted overnight accommodations on the longest segments (between Port Hardy, BC and Prince Rupert, BC, and between Prince Rupert, BC, and Juneau, AK.)
      
      One could choose a route that included less ferry transportation and more driving but most people planning such a trip are surprised to find that beginning not very far north of Vancouver the remainder of the mainland British Columbia coast is essentially roadless. There is literally no highway along the western coast of Canada; the most direct and fastest route requires travel through Prince George, BC, which is several hundred miles and about 5 hours inland from the nearest coast.
      
      Bottom line — travel through this region is not like travel through most of the more developed parts of the United States and Canada. There are compensations, however — if you ever do make such a trip you’ll almost certainly remember the scenery and scope of it for the rest of your life as one of the most striking places you’ve ever been. But it’s not easy or trivial to get around up here.
      - Donald Petersen
        
        There actually ISN’T a road between Seattle and Juneau
        
        Yeah, I just figured that mentioning how much of the route was over water (or off-highway or via dogsled) might be belaboring the point. But you’re right, I was understating just how different this trip would be from similar mileage on the lower 48′s Interstate system.
        
        I’m sure it’s a beautiful, if strenuous, trip.
      - AndrDrew
        
        What, couldn’t come up through Canada?
        I bet that’d be a hell of a trip through Canadian wilderness.
    - Ugly Canuck
      
      Unless I am mistaken, taking that route also exposes one to some risk of an intrusive search at the Canadian Border, eh?
      - mccrum
        
        Yet, ironically, less likelihood of a frisking. However, you should ship your laptop ahead.
      - Anonymous
        
        That was something I mentioned upthread: if she drives, her freedom of movement within her own country can be curtailed by Canada. Since the US can’t control what it’s hat does, requiring people to drive through it to exercise their freedom of movement is not protecting their rights. As nice as Canada is, the US government can’t foist its responsibilities on a foreign government.
      - Ugly Canuck
        
        Anon #45:
        I think I speak for most of us Canadians, if not for all, when I state that we will NOT grope Americans simply because the US Government would like us to.
    - Anonymous
      
      There are no Outside roads to Juneau. Sharon Cissna had to also take small planes and a ferry on her journey to Juneau.
- Anonymous
  
  Touching someones breast cancer scars is personal….really.
Anonymous

I don’t and won’t fly because of these measures. These reports are disturbing but it’s the pictures of the little kids being strip searched that turn my stomach. Kids are taught to report if an adult has tried to touch them. Then parents take them to the airport and inadvertantly teach them it’s okay if the person has a uniform on.

I can see the child psychologist video now, “Okay Billy, can you show me on the doll where Uncle TSA touched you?”
Anonymous

the argument is wrong

> All terrorists are engaged in something unusual, therefore all
> unusual occurrences should be viewed as potential terrorism

please stop the complaints about the “targeted” screening. If they could screen everyone for everything efficiently, they should. Targeting (e.g. detecting metal, chemical, profile) is because screening everyone for everything is not efficient.

Now that we agree that we have to target (i.e. sampling), there will, of course, be cases that are missed (if you’re looking for a,b,c , and not looking for d), and there will, of course, be false positive (people fitting criteria ‘a’ that need further investigation but are actually not terrorists).

Note, I’m not saying stop complaining if some screening method is useless. I’m saying if we think that we should protect ourselves against the events of 9/11, then can we stop complaining if doing so is inconvenient.

Furthermore, before complaining about TSA, I think people should ask if TSA does not exist and each airline does their own screening, would you still complain? I would say that airlines should have the right to check what they want to secure their million dollar planes, and as passengers, you have the right to choose a different airline or another mode of transportation or creating your own airline. If you agree to this and think we should protect ourselves against events of 9/11, then why complain about the TSA?
- Anonymous
  
  I’m saying if we think that we should protect ourselves against the events of 9/11, then can we stop complaining if doing so is inconvenient.
  
  I don’t recall ever saying we should protect ourselves from the events of 9/11. I don’t recall ever being asked if I thought we should. I sure don’t recall ever giving anyone the authority to do so.
  
  speakertweaker
- Anonymous
  
  You sure do base a lot of your argument on saying “if you agree” and “now that we agree” about a lot of things that I’m pretty sure nobody here would agree with you about.
- pmocek
  
  Someone anonymously wrote:
  
  “I think people should ask if TSA does not exist and each airline does their own screening, would you still complain?”
  
  That depends on what those airlines did, but we surely wouldn’t complain about our federal government making us stop and wait for permission to fly from one state to another if our federal government was no longer doing so. Presumably, if one airline instituted unacceptable policies, they would lose business to competitors with different policies.
  
  “I would say that airlines should have the right to check what they want to secure their million dollar planes, and as passengers, you have the right to choose a different airline or another mode of transportation or creating your own airline.”
  
  Airlines operate as common carriers. They cannot simply do whatever they like.
  
  “If you agree to this and think we should protect ourselves against events of 9/11, then why complain about the TSA?”
  
  Could you please be more specific? What would it mean to “protect ourselves against events of 9/11″?
  
  ~~~~
  
  Off-topic: I stood up to TSA in 2009, and was finally found not guilty by a jury last month. My legal fees total about $34,000 (that post says $20K, but I’ve since received the final bill). People have donated about $5000 to my legal defense fund. I’d appreciate any other contributions, which are tax-deductable and can be made via Paypal or postal mail. Details are in the aforementioned blog post.
Anonymous

I h8 this crap.

9/11 required no weapon, or liquids, or bomb, or even mechanical failure.

It needed only the will of a person.

Thought police? Dangerous, misdirected, WRONG!

Many beat-up nerdy teenagers entertained ideas of killing their persecutors, yet went on to improving the human condition.
Anonymous

When I wrote the PCAT I got 99th percentile on reading comprehension.

As a Canadian who knows she traveled through BC, I see why.
Brook

This is a wonderful thing she has done. It makes me happy she took a stand.

But almost beside the point, isn’t it impossible to drive to Juneau? I’ve heard this before and a cursory look at a map confirms that no roads lead to Juneau from the rest of North America. Only planes and boats. She must have taken a boat?

Sorry to digress, I know it’s a small point…
Anonymous

There are roads IN Juneau, but there are no roads TO Juneau. She’s taking a ferry from Bellingham.
Anonymous

Pretty pathetic comments so far. Everyone applauds the war on “terror” that we funnel billions into, losing our freedoms to warrentless wiretaps, financial monitoring, and a million other things but as soon as we have to sacrifice by allowing a pat down OMG where ez mah fredums goinz?? Its obvious that people are too stupid to even realize everything they are giving up until someone actually puts a hand on you.
- Anonymous
  
  Everyone applauds the war on “terror” that we funnel billions into
  
  You’re either very very new here, or a particularly confused troll.
Anonymous

A department of homeland security is inherently incompatible with this nation’s founding principles. It’s current mission, as conducted via TSA, exists mutually exclusive of liberty, freedom, and privacy. It suffocates what it claims to protect, as the founding father must have known when they created the 4th amendment instead.
Anonymous

The TSA so needs to be reigned in! I was subjected to the most invasive search possible (outside of a jail setting) when I flew home from NM this Christmas: Not only was I randomly assigned to go through the new body scanner, but I was then detained and forced to go through the “new and improved” pat-down, and then still detained to have my hands swabbed! Okay, maybe today’s terrorists look like overweight, middle-aged housewives but come on! To add insult to injury, the TSA staff were rude, impatient and non-communicative with me. It was a horrifying experience all around!!
Guysmiley

The TSA needs to be burnt to the ground. It’s security theater, they aren’t accomplishing anything other than being a jobs program for people with an authority complex who can’t hack police academy.
Anonymous

I would like to point out the inevitability of the increase in security. When the Democrats came into office many Republican mouthpieces were saying “we need another 9/11″ to stop the Dems.

Democrats have to increase scrutiny so as to not appear Weak on Terrorism! as they are constantly accused.

Unfortunately, besides constantly playing the game on Rethug’s home turf (agreeing to call SS, etc “entitlements”) they raise the security scrutiny just as people are over the War and now they get to look like the Security Overkill Bad Guys (not that they did a good job slowing down the stupidity when Bush was in office.)

As far as I’m concerned, this is your karma America. 1 million Iragi refugees, checkpoint orphans, two wrecked countries. And you wanna bitch about getting felt up? Stop the Wars first, then you can complain.

Just something to consider. I think the TSA needs to be stopped too, but here’s some perspective.
- AnthonyC
  
  I was 13 when we invaded Afghanistan. I had no say in the matter. Now that we are there, I believe it would be extremely immoral to just abandon a shattered country to whatever fate it’s most powerful entrenched interests have in store for it. Do I get to complain?
  
  Oh, wait, it doesn’t matter, my inability to stop one wrong has nothing at all to do with my right to object to another. There are many problems in the world that deserve to be addressed, in series or in parallel.
  - Ugly Canuck
    
    I was quite a bit older than 13 when the USSR invaded a Afghanistan; for the next ten years or so the US Government secretly funded, trained and equipped the Taliban to be an effective and deadly guerrilla force to fight the Soviets….and oh how the US Republicans bitterly complained when the Soviets withdrew, because they were leaving the Afghans forlorn and alone in their shattered country!
    
    But I am glad to see that you’d rather pay more taxes to “set Afghanistan right”, by arming and training their police and army, rather than say using that revenue to support health care or education for the poor in the USA.
    
    Very selfless, that.
Anonymous

I applaud this courageous woman with a strong sense of how she expects to be treated (read: her sense of personal worth.) We need more women / people with Spine in government. I deplore TSA and all it represents. That government agents can now feel underneath our clothes and examine the contents of our underwear , (as well as enter our homes without our knowledge) is the Hallmark of Homeland Securities many Brave New Projects. I rather be blown to bits than live in a world where this is the norm.
We ARE a Nation of Sheep (read the book)and I am astonished at how gutless and fearful the American public has become allowing this to happen.
TSA has by it’s own ruling exempted itself from the Privacy Act. So, how did this happen? BAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaa! WAKE UP PEOPLE.
Anonymous

And what’s she doing to end it, now that she’s noticed there’s a problem?
Mister44

Other than locking the cockpit doors, nothing we have done since 9/11 has made us actually ‘safer’ against terrorism on airplanes. I would say it makes us a bit less so. The only reason people complied on 9/11 is they thought it was like most other hijackings, not that they were on a suicide mission. If 9/11 happened today, you would have people on the plane fighting tooth and nail. Before 9/11 I’d at least have a pocket knife on me. Now I have maybe a laptop and sharp pencil. En guard?
- DavidN
  
  “Before 9/11 I’d at least have a pocket knife on me. Now I have maybe a laptop and sharp pencil.”
  
  Now you have to walk up to first class and pick up some steel cutlery or a glass made of glass.
  - Mister44
    
    Hmm First Class Cutlery + Honing Stone = TERROR
Ugly Canuck

…but I wouldn’t know whether our fine Border and Customs folks will grope ya just ’cause they can.

I’ve not heard that they’re grope-y, but I’ve not been paying much attention of late.
Anonymous

Thank you for speaking out. The insanity that has come over the government is very weird. They stopped my 90 year old mother but I just walked on by. They should send security people to Israel to learn how to judge who and how to do things. I was so hoping that the Bush area was over but as we can see Obama can not or hasn’t the power or will to stop the insanity that has taken over the U.S. Canada of course will meekly join the craziness.
Ugly Canuck

I don’t mind getting frisked much, so long as I can frisk ‘em right back.
pffft

The problem with this particular form of protest/argument is that questioning TSA policies based on the possibility that they may be traumatic or otherwise make somebody feel bad allows TSA or TSA-proponents to trump that argument by saying “Maybe, but they are necessary and effective”.

We need to be arguing effectiveness. Arguing anything else is counter-productive.

Insofar as this type of protest/argument may raise overall visibility or sway people with emotion rather than logic it may be helpful as long as that visibility can be parlayed into discussion of effectiveness.

Then again – politicians rarely seem to decide things based on logic so maybe the emotional argument playing on sympathy/compassion/outrage is better. I just worry about the “necessary and effective” trump playing on an even stronger emotion – fear.
Anonymous

Or just vote with your feet and move to a country that does not grope its citizens, treat them like criminals, and claim that a de facto police state is the “land of the free”.

I did. Never regretted it. Doubt I ever will.
Cheaplazymom

I think showing someone your mastectomy scars has got to be one of the most intimate and trusting things one can do. This falls well outside of “being comfortable with ones body”. Loosing a breast is devastating and it shouldn’t be anybody else’s business. It is shocking. Showing people your menstrual pad is pretty bad too and it sounds like that is par for the course.

Just heard from a friend that evidence of hand sanitizer on your hands is now triggering full body strip searches. Apparently bomb makers use it to clean their hands. So add germaphobes to the list of cancer survivors, transgenders, menstruating women, and colostomy bag wearers who are routinely humiliated by the TSA.

So MANY reasons not to fly.
mdh

So many other Alaskan politicians pale in comparison.
Alvis

While I like it when people take a stand, this is for the wrong reasons. The problem isn’t that those with emotional trauma shouldn’t have to be groped, it’s that the burden of proof shouldn’t be on passengers to demonstrate they’re not terrorists by giving up their privacy.
- Anonymous
  
  While I like it when people take a stand, this is for the wrong reasons.
  
  I beg your pardon, but ‘not the same as my reasons’ â‰ ‘wrong reasons.’ While the global issue you point out is certainly true, refusing what amounts to assault is never, ever wrong. I’d refuse simply because nobody’s going to lay a hand on me as a prerequisite to travel, and I will do so without regard to what is or is not legal.
  
  Don’t minimize someone else’s issue to garner attention to your own.
  
  speakertweaker
- pmocek
  
  Alvis, different people take a stand for different reasons. I, like you, am more bothered by the legal issues surrounding the body searches than the fact that a stranger is going to look under my clothing and/or touch me inappropriately.
  
  But TSA’s warrantless searches have been equally inappropriate for years, yet only since they started looking under our clothes and groping us did significant numbers of people take notice. Maybe TSA’s airport security guards insisting on feeling cancer survivors’ scars and prostheses will make people think about the strip searches, the fishing expeditions (the vast majority of what they find during their searches “for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries” are evidence of immigrations violations, credit card fraud, and drug prohibition violations), the requirement that we stop and wait for permission to travel from one state to the next (facilitated by the ridiculous ID check), the refusal to publish the rules we’re required to follow (how are we to know that some security guard isn’t just making them up on-the-fly?), the claims that super-secret TSA procedures that every minimum wage security guard can look at are exempt from public disclosure via FOIA, and the lies.
  
  I want transparency, I want the lies to end, and I want agents of our government to leave me alone unless they have good reason to believe I have done something wrong.
- Muse
  
  Yes, privacy is important for everyone, but it is simply more valuable to some people than to others. Those who fall pretty far outside of the “normal” body image suffer way more trauma from this kind of invasive search. The issue of transgendered people has been brought up repeatedly, but this story is another poignant example of the unintended consequences of giving up basic rights.
  - notasheep
    
    Thank you for bringing up the transgendered. I have a married couple who will not fly because one of them was harassed badly by a TSA employee — because her apparent gender didn’t match her government-documented gender. Cory was exactly a right that this is a war on anyone who is unusual in any way.
    
    Dog help us all, we who are outliers.
pmocek

Good for her. TSA have displayed increasingly-lawless behavior at our airports, and it’s good to see people pushing back.

When John Tyner refused a body search like what Rep. Cissna refused, he was threatened with a $10,000 fine.

On November 16, 2010, “Blogger Bob” at the TSA blog wrote:

And finally, the $10,000.00 question of the dayâ€¦ Will you receive a $10,000.00 fine if you opt out of screening all together and leave the checkpoint? While TSA has the legal authority to levy a civil penalty of up to $11,000.00 for cases such as this, each case is determined on the individual circumstances of the situation.
lkingston

OK, so I’ve actually had a mastectomy and I’m more than a little perplexed. I don’t understand how feeling my scar would assuage anyone’s fears about security issues. I pull the prosthesis away from my body and the area beneath is flat. Why on earth would anyone need to touch it to verify that?
I tell you, if this ever happens to me, I’m popping my prosthesis out and dropping it on the counter. The TSA can poke that to their hearts’ content.
Seriously, though, I would find it damn humiliating to have my scar groped. And no, I don’t think it’s any better for any of us to be touched in places that we’d rather keep to ourselves.
This is one piece of political theatre that’s gone way too far and I’m thrilled whenever anyone takes a stand.
CaliforniaCbeee

Being fondled, or body searched, or whatever you want to call it should not be a requirement to ride an airplane. It is an invasion of my physical space. I put up with it in a doctor’s office for my health, but i still don’t like it. It is just plane (pun intended) wrong! Just because some of you don’t mind being fondled or patted down doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do. If a body scan that can see me naked doesn’t find anything, what makes then think that touching me will find that explosive planted under my skin? Change the da*! law.
IronEdithKidd

I want transparency, I want the lies to end, and I want agents of our government to leave me alone unless they have good reason to believe I have done something wrong.

This.
- Anonymous
  
  I want transparency, I want the lies to end, and I want agents of our government to leave me alone unless they have good reason to believe I have done something wrong.
  
  I have the sudden urge to chisel that statement into a huge block of granite somewhere for all to see. :)
  - abulafia
    
    No need, apparently, some of your (extremely) forward thinking ancestors drafted a document called the Constitution or something. I’m not sure about the name, I’m from the UK, we don’t get taught much US history here. Obviously it was a work in progress, so they made some Amendments.
    
    Like the 4th for instance:
    
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    
    I’m a Brit, and even I’m annoyed about this whole TSA BS. When it’s all gone, I’ll come and visit. Until then, it’s just here. Shame.
- pmocek
  
  Better, this:
  
  So what is to be done? Real reform of TSA procedures would include:
  
  No more secret laws. TSA has to publish its rules and procedures like every other agency. Any unpublished rule cannot be enforced against citizens. Then the public would have early notice of rules like â€œYou have to either be photographed nude, or gropedâ€. And a flood of negative comments on such proposed rules might dissuade the agency, energize Congress to intervene, or allow a court challenge to be brought â€” before TSA molests a million more people a day in airports across the country.
  
  No more groping travelers. Assaults on innocent travelers in a way that the law oif almost every state defines as sexual battery should not be the new standard for Federally-approved suspicionless searches.
  
  No more suspicionless searches. We are in more danger from physical sexual attack by TSA employees than we are from secret bombers. Terrorism is a minor problem. Drunk drivers are more of a danger to travelers than terrorists. Heart disease kills far more people every week than terrorism did in its worst year. Mandatory heart checkups in lines at the airport would do far more to keep us all alive than mandatory searches. But neither checkups nor searches can be forced on the citizens of a free country. Millions have fought for our freedom; we should not let the government ignore the basic human rights that our families fought to obtain and keep.
  
  No more secret blacklists or secret â€œno-flyâ€ orders. The TSA canâ€™t bar â€œcertain peopleâ€ from flying by secret, extra-judicia administrative orders. If the TSA thinks someone is guilty of something, arrest them and give them their day in court to confront their accusers and defend themselves before a jury, with a presumption of innocence. If TSA canâ€™t arrest them, because they havenâ€™t committed a crime, then it must leave them (and the rest of us) alone.
  
  No more secret surveillance lists. TSAâ€™s â€œselectee listâ€ is much larger than the no-fly list. It is how a lot of people end up â€œrandomlyâ€ searched every time they go through an airport. Again, if TSA has evidence of a crime, arrest them; otherwise, treat every traveler equally.
  
  No more lying to the public. TSA claims its searches are random when they arenâ€™t. It claims their machines canâ€™t store nude photos when they can. It claims ID is required when it isnâ€™t. The history of TSA is a history of lying to the public. Congress should make sure it is both a crime and a tort (fraud) for a TSA employee or contractor to lie to a member of the public.
  
  No more identity checkpoints. Free countries donâ€™t demand that citizens produce their â€œpapersâ€ in order to move around. No more warrantless interrogations (under penalty of denial of travel) or demands for information.
  
  Restore the right to assemble and the right to travel. Neither the TSA nor any government agency has the right to prevent us from moving around in our own country. If they donâ€™t have cause to arrest us, then weâ€™re presumed innocent and weâ€™re free to move around the airports, the planes, the train stations, the trains, and the country.
  
  Itâ€™s up to the public to take action to bring about these changes. So far, the courts have done nothing to stop these abuses or hold the TSA accountable. John Gilmore, for example, sued the TSA in a case that went all the way to the doors of the Supreme Court, over their demand that we identify ourselves in order to move around in our own country. He lost. The issue that he asked the Supreme Court to review was whether an agency like TSA can make up secret rules, never publish them, and require the public to follow them. The Supreme Court declined to take the case.
chgoliz

Wait, a political representative makes a public stand to better represent her constituents….will wonders never cease?

I’ll bet she doesn’t quit her elected position halfway through, either.

Arguing that she’s doing it for the wrong reason is short-sighted, at best. Al Capone was finally put in jail: for tax evasion. If the TSA insanity is reined in because she *merely* represented cancer and abuse victims instead of the finer points of constitutional law, who frigging cares?
- simonbarsinister
  
  First they stopped harassing the cancer survivors, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a cancer survivor.
  
  Then they stopped harassing the abuse victims, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t an abuse victim.
  
  Finally they stopped harassing me, and um… where was I going with this?
Anonymous

Does not the paranoiac, when searching for something that is essentially non-existant, see that thing absolutely everywhere?
Anonymous

How about just having metal detectors and x-ray machines? Trying to get every imaginable scenario possible is what they are trying to do here and it is a losing game. It is about as sensible as pretending that if you get the perfect diet, perfect exercise regemine, perfect water filter that somehow you will never get sick. The world doesn’t work that way.

If you think the TSA should have unlimited powers in the name of safety then maybe you are too scared to fly, ever. Life comes with risks and it is a gray scale. So go ahead and check my bag for a gun or bomb, check me for metal but if you have to start groping me or taking x-rays of me then just shut the damn airports down and take a bus or ship.

Now I’m going to drive home and risk my life to hordes of distracted, speeding, careless, unskilled drivers. Some of them may even be drunk but I guess that is ok because I’m not in a plane.
Datura Greenleaf

The whole airport security thing became pointless when (recently!) a suicide bomber decided to skip the whole getting on a plane part, and just bombed the arrivals hall instead (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12268662).

A terrorist doesn’t need to bomb a plane. They can walk up to the security line and target that. They can bomb a bus, or a train. Or Times Square. Or whatever. Strip searches are not going to prevent terrorism.
mdh

Strip searches are not going to prevent terrorism.

no, but the TSA has managed to hold traffic down to a profitable level for the airlines.
- spydrmannyc
  
  Can you explain how holding air traffic down helps the airlines be more profitable?
ackpht

Make all members of Congress submit to the airport screening that the rest of us get and they’d repeal the law within a year.
- Marilyn Terrell
  
  You are absolutely right.
- Scruff
  
  Sadly. for a number of our Congress-critters being fondled by a stranger at an airport is a perk.
  
  More seriously:
  While there is a vocal part of the population demanding security from terrorism, it is unlikely that the TSA is going anywhere useful. No elected official is going to say “cut down on the security theater” because his/her opponents will start the “Weak on Terror, sekrit mooslim, hates the heroes of 9/11″ speech. In the current volatile political environment, no-one who advocates a more sensible approach will be re-elected.
  
  The bosses of TSA and DHS isn’t going to say, “this is too much” because that would mean giving up power, and our appointed officials don’t do that. Indeed, every time there is an outcry about some TSA gate-rape, we hear a few days later that “we are more at risk than ever for a terrorist attack!”
  
  What to do? Well, the other solution is to treat people who work for the TSA as we do any other sexual predator/child molester. If you know someone who works for the TSA, add their names to the sexual offenders registry. Make complaints to CPS/social services about their parenting skills. Refuse to serve them in restaurants and shops. Insist they move away from schools. Decline to rent property to them because of their depraved behavior.
  Make it so that the “power trip” of groping junior genitalia at the airport has repercussions in their day-to-day lives.
  
  Hell, it would at least be entertaining…
- Anonymous
  
  Since she was a state rep, why did she have to submit to the TSA in the first place? I thought that they got the pass.
  
  I agree that our government representatives should have to submit to the same screening as any other frequent flyer, because they are more likely to fix the issues that they are subjected to.
dumbbunny

It suddenly occurs to me that if the TSA agents who say they loath doing invasive pat downs and further hate the abuse they receive from flyers over the invasive pat downs stood together as a union and refused to do the invasive pat downs the American public would quite suddenly love them for restoring our rights. It strikes me as such a simple solution. Who knows how to make this happen?
- Anonymous
  
  Don’t do it! If they unionize, they may demand higher wages, and eventually it will settle at a point nearly equal to but slightly above a free market equilibrium. Since the US has already allocated all its money to bailouts and Middle East adventures, this excess will push it over the edge and cause total collapse. Aren’t constant invasions of privacy worth not risking the end of the Republic?
- lasttide
  
  Create a kickstarter fund to supply pizzas to the future strikers?
- Anonymous
  
  unfortunately, must of them value having any kind of a job more, the economy being what it has been the past few years