$10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

[sahiel]

Yeah that probably makes sense, though it was just referred to as a 'background check' it was almost certainly what you're describing, some of the databases I had to access and use on a daily basis were very definitely not things your run of the mill person should be seeing or able to get into without some sort of clearance.

I'm not sure whether the British army does anything similar re: the "just don't write it down" bit towards new recruits, will have to bug some of my mates in the job and see what they've heard about it.

[Amirya]

Careful there, Amirya - I'd hate to give the TSA any ideas!

I'd have answered yesterday, but went to see Harry Potter instead.

Besides, I live in Arizona. Here, we'd set up the Breathalyzer stations, and with every blow, the police would ask, "What's your immigration status, hombre?"

So TSA-lackey Pistole is defending the sexual assault by government as necessary with these high terror threats. I see that somewhere, looks like they're also claiming they stopped the underwear bomber from succeeding...

[Fivelives]

Ha, I'm from Arizona too.

I can see that being the new "twinkie defense" in major sexual assault trials: "I had to. S/he might've had a BOMB down there!"

[Shathus]

It's the same check they use to get into the military. Sounds like you had the government security clearance check - the one where they actually follow up with your references and such. Walk into any recruiting office and tell them you got popped for marijuana possession or have a history of a psychological condition that required medication in another state, they'll (almost) all tell you the same thing: "Just don't put that on your paperwork".

They don't go in depth with everyone unless your job requires a security clearance. Then they'll check "standard" things that don't come up in a background check, like medical records and unsealing juvenile records.

I actually work for my state's police (in IT) and had to go through a pretty length background check. This included references both professional and personal (they called my HS football coach!), drug screening, and a polygraph. And they definitely checked for everything, not just what I told them about.

When looking into my history, he found nothing using my full name (first middle last) but when leaving out my middle name, was like "i found someone matching your name with multiple tickets, evading police officers and <other crap>" up in some area of the state I have never lived in. Other than the fact that I was annoyed since he was basically accusing me of doing all those things, apparently they don't store SSNs along with any of those incidents so he couldn't actually verify that it wasn't me.

Anyway, ramblings aside, I also know any BG checks we do here involve hits for criminal records, mental health, etc at both the state and national level. But I can't speak for everywhere.

[Fivelives]

Working for the police gives you secret security clearance. It's basically the "entry level" stuff, just because police departments are given access to some FBI databases, like AFIS. Even if you're just a deputy doolittle in mayberry, you've still got that clearance as a "Just in case" measure.

Edit to add: Just like when I was in the military. I started off as a chemical weapons specialist, and didn't get or require a security clearance; but when I reclassed to M1 Abrams crewmember, I needed a secret security clearance just because there are still classified stuff about tanks (biggest joke in the US military "intelligence" is the composition of our tanks armor plating) - especially the A2. That tank... it's like if they took the A1 to the show Pimp My Ride.

Anyway, when I reclassed, I had to go through another background check, and they asked me about some of the things I hadn't listed on my initial entry paperwork, like my sealed juvenile record and some other stuff from my past.

[Amirya]

Ha, I'm from Arizona too.

I can see that being the new "twinkie defense" in major sexual assault trials: "I had to. S/he might've had a BOMB down there!"

/facepalm

Sad part is, I can actually see that happening.

[Fivelives]

I'm surprised it hasn't already.

[Lightbeard]

I'm surprised it hasn't already.

Has anyone tried to file a serious sexual harassment case against the TSA without the judge throwing it out?

[Amirya]

Not that I'm aware, and being that I've opted to not fly until this silly thing goes away, I sadly won't be the first to try it out.

But what makes you think a judge would automatically throw it out? Just because it's a governmental agency doesn't make it exempt from obeying the laws of the land. Some people just think it does.

[Fivelives]

Judges have tossed them so far because the 4th amendment has a clause in it dealing with "reasonable expectations of privacy". The argument is that, since people know about the search beforehand, and the TSA publishes what it entails, the search is legal and doesn't constitute sexual assault.

However, since they only started using palm searches within the last week (it was November 16th, I think), judges might sit up and take notice. The allowance was always that "contact with the back of the hand does not constitute sexual assault" - palm to skin contact (like they're doing now), though, hopefully that'll be a different story entirely.

[Amirya]

Judges have tossed them so far because the 4th amendment has a clause in it dealing with "reasonable expectations of privacy". The argument is that, since people know about the search beforehand, and the TSA publishes what it entails, the search is legal and doesn't constitute sexual assault.

However, since they only started using palm searches within the last week (it was November 16th, I think), judges might sit up and take notice. The allowance was always that "contact with the back of the hand does not constitute sexual assault" - palm to skin contact (like they're doing now), though, hopefully that'll be a different story entirely.

That makes no sense to me. It's like saying, "Well, you knew that your boss was a womanizer, and he told you that he might ask other favors of you, therefore, it is legal and doesn't constitute sexual assault."

I'm probably overexaggerating, stressful day.

[Lightbeard]

Long story short I really doubt anyone could win a legit case against the TSA for sexual assault especially when they have the option to go through the scanners or not show up at the airport having prior knowledge of what goes on.

[Dorvan]

A lawsuit would go nowhere unless the TSA agent went beyond the protocol (in which case the suit would most likely be against the individual agent rather than the TSA). Of course, if the protocol was at all vague or had grey areas, that could leave the door open for such a lawsuit.

I don't think this issue will have a legal solution though...a political or economic one? Much more likely.

[knaughty]

http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter

On November 21, 2010, I was allowed to enter the U.S. through an airport security checkpoint without being x-rayed or touched by a TSA officer.  This post explains how.

Short version: TSA cannot prevent you re-entering the country if you're a US citizen. If you politely refuse to be Nude Scanned or Gate Raped, and say "Let me in, or arrest me, pick one. they well (eventually) back down and let you into the country. Took this guy two-and-a-half hours, but he thinks that it was worth it.

Go go people standing up for their rights.

Same thing won't get you on an airplane, but it will get you off one.

Personally, I'm stunned that they even try and nude scan you when you're re-entering the country? What possible justification is there? You clearly aren't trying to blow up a plane, you're getting off one!

[Fivelives]

Customs used to be a much worse experience than TSA checkpoints. Now, if I leave the country for my vacation, I'm going to have to go through both?

Joy.