Vic 17 Posted April 7, 2011 Recently, Wil Wheaton had to undergo the indignity of a routine security at the Los Angeles airport and he found the experience anything but routine. When passengers in America fly, they are given a choice between being scanned, where not much is left to the imagination, or if they opt out of the scan, an intrusive pat-down by a (Transportation Security Administration) TSA agent. Wheaton chose the pat-down, partly due to concerns over the radiation exposure from the backscatter scanners, and partly due to privacy concerns. His pat-down experience left him “violated, humiliated and angry.” “Yesterday, I was touched, in my opinion, inappropriately, by a TSA agent at LAX,” he said. “When I left the security screening yesterday, I didn’t feel safe. I felt violated, humiliated, assaulted, and angry. I felt like I never wanted to fly again. I was so furious and upset; my hands shook for quite some time after the ordeal was over. I felt sick to my stomach for hours.” On his Twitter account, Wheaton said that he “got groped so aggressively…I never want to fly again. Not even my doctor touches my junk that much.” Some people have chosen other means of transportation due to the choice between being seen nude or being groped, but that is not always an option. “I do not have the luxury of simply refusing to fly unless and until this policy changes,” Wheaton said. “I have to travel dozens of times a year for work, and it simply isn’t practical to travel any other way. Airlines know that I am not unique in this regard, so they have no incentive to take a stand on their customers’ behalf. “I believe that the choice we are currently given by the American government when we need to fly is morally wrong, unconstitutional, and does nothing to enhance passenger safety. “I don’t believe that all TSA officers are automatically bad people…For example, I recently flew out of Seattle, opted-out, and got a non-invasive, professional, polite pat-down. I realize that most TSA officers are doing the best they can in a job that requires them to interact with people who automatically dislike them and what they represent. It isn’t the individual officer who is the problem; it’s the policies he or she is instructed to carry out that need to change.” Wheaton plans to consult his attorney regarding the ordeal. View the full article Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
He Who Shall Not Be Named 2 Posted April 8, 2011 There's just too many jokes I could make about this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldfan1 0 Posted April 9, 2011 Wait till they start cavity searches. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
He Who Shall Not Be Named 2 Posted April 10, 2011 Wait till they start cavity searches. Cavity searches? They want to make sure we brush, floss, and see our dentist twice a year? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kor37 9 Posted April 13, 2011 He's just mad that Picard wasn't doing the search........ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
He Who Shall Not Be Named 2 Posted April 13, 2011 Wasn't LAX where that "Don't touch my junk!" guy came from? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trekz 7 Posted April 13, 2011 There IS something wrong with the system, though, when a six year old is getting a pat-down at security. Common sense, anyone? It seems to me that if ALL our bags were being searched, EVERY truck that delivers stuff to the airport was being searched, there was real security around the airport perimiter, etc, then maybe people wouldn't question the TSA so much. But the assumption that every person they encounter is a potential terrorist, which is the way some TSA employees treat people, ticks people off. Because most of the flying public are law abbiding citizens and some ARE getting tired of being treated like suspected criminals every time they fly. It's the zero tolerance principal run amok. Because there were a couple shoe bombers, everyone has to take off there shoes, etc.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
He Who Shall Not Be Named 2 Posted April 13, 2011 To play devil's advocate, someone could use a 6-year old to smuggle something on board. The question is how much invasiveness are we willing to put up with for slightly more safety? You don't even need to set foot on airport property to be a security threat. A machine gun fired in the general direction of a plane would do just fine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
He Who Shall Not Be Named 2 Posted April 13, 2011 A friend of mine won a fight with TSA recently as she was able to prove that BBQ beef is not a liquid. As far as I know Jell-O is still a case-by-case basis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
