Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

TSA Worker Jailed In Body Scan Rage Incident 352

Posted by samzenpus
from the checking-out-your-package dept.
A TSA worker in Miami was arrested for aggravated battery after he attacked a co-worker for making fun of the size of his genitals. Rolando Negrin walked through one of the new body scanners during a recent training session and a supervisor started making fun of his manhood. From the article: "According to the police report, Negrin confronted one of his co-workers in an employee parking lot, where he hit him with a police baton on the arm and back."

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TSA Worker Jailed In Body Scan Rage Incident

Comments Filter:
  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:33PM (#32131848)

    If you just shrugged it off then only your coworkers would know you have a small dick. Now the whole world knows.

    • by sznupi (719324) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:39PM (#32131942) Homepage

      The best part is that this story plays nicely with one opinion about such institutions, popular here and there - that working for TSA appeals to people who need to compensate for their emotional insecurity.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Knara (9377)

        The best part is that this story plays nicely with one opinion about such institutions, popular here and there - that working for any sort of security or law enforcement agency appeals to people who need to compensate for their emotional insecurity.

        FTFY

      • by jkauzlar (596349) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:43PM (#32132014) Homepage
        thanks to the scanners, it also now appeals to perverts, wankers and child molesters
        • by LifesABeach (234436) on Friday May 07, 2010 @04:25PM (#32132698)
          I figure it's only a matter of time before Celeb's occasionally get their scanned images on the *net?
          • by tiptone (729456) on Friday May 07, 2010 @04:33PM (#32132850)
            Yeah right. Celebrities won't be forced to go through these things.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by erroneus (253617)

              As a former TSA screener, take my word for it -- they WILL be forced to go through it. I have dealt with screening celebrities when they were stupid enough to come through D/FW airport. They got NO special treatment.

              •     Well, if you still have contacts there, I have one complaint. When they put me through it, I asked for a copy of my images. They still have no been delivered. Any time I have acted as a model, I have been provided a copy of all photographs during that shoot. I also did not sign a model release, and they had a clear view of my unclothed body recorded. Pursuant to Title 18, Part I, Chapter 110, 2257, they are required to have full documentation on file regarding such images. If I recall correction, violation of that code is punishable by 5 years and/or $25,000 per offense.

                    I hope they haven't put anyone under the age of 18 through, or they're in for a world of trouble. Possession of child pornography?

      • by Jurily (900488) <jurily@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Friday May 07, 2010 @04:43PM (#32132988)

        The best part is that this story plays nicely with one opinion about such institutions, popular here and there - that working for TSA appeals to people who need to compensate for their emotional insecurity.

        While the invasion of privacy is conveniently forgotten about. If someone sees you naked then jokes at your expense, is it your really insecurity if you get upset?

        Are you sure the other guy didn't joke to hide his own insecurity (thus proving your point)?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2010 @05:33PM (#32133320)

        What most people here seem to be missing is that this incident didn't happen out of thin air (incidents like these almost never do). A SUPERVISOR was harassing him on the job, and instead of the supervisor being fired and arrested, the police, like is usual in cases of harassment, arrest the victim. According to the victim,

        he had been made fun of by coworkers on a daily basis

        Of course the victim of the harassment could have filed a formal complaint, but everybody knows how that always turns out. At the most he would be laughed at, but really, it's the harassers word against the harassed.

        It's sad and pathetic that everybody here on Slashdot seems to be pointing the blame on the victim, like is always the case when it comes to school shootings [blogspot.com] and workplace shootings. When everybody is against you [uwaterloo.ca] then violence almost always seems the logical solution. Of course I don't expect the supervisor or the Human Resource Manager who carefully selected these assholes to be fired or charged with harassment or human rights violations, because it's not the neoconservative thing to do. Violence is cool and if you can't take daily jokes then... you must be weak in the head. But that logic, in my experience, comes from hypocrisy.

        Those co-workers should just be glad that he didn't show up the next day with an automatic rifle and a duffel bag full of ammunition. What goes around comes around. Work place mobbing [wikipedia.org] should not be tolerated, and the supervisor and HR Manager should, at the VERY LEAST, be fired immediately.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        The best part is that this story plays nicely with one opinion about such institutions, popular here and there ...

        I kinda expected the follow-up to be "... , that TSA workers have small dicks". ~

    • by butterflysrage (1066514) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:41PM (#32131980)

      and these are the kinds of people who will be looking at what are basically naked pictures of your kids? how is this a good idea again?

      • by MikeBabcock (65886) <mtb-slashdot@mikebabcock.ca> on Friday May 07, 2010 @08:52PM (#32134744) Homepage Journal

        I keep seeing all these great press releases about how the definition on the images is too low to be indecent, and yet this incident happens.

        If it possible to end up making fun of a man for the size of his genitals, the system is too intrusive. Period.

    • This just confirms my suspicions that TSA employees are a bunch of tiny dicked stooges.

    • by iamhassi (659463) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:54PM (#32132184) Journal
      "Now the whole world knows."

      Yep, and judging by how willing the supervisor was to make fun of his own co-worker, can you imagine what they'll say or do with your scans? Or your wife's scans? Or your children's scans?

      If they can't keep their own people from cracking jokes and heads, what hope is there for the rest of us?
      • by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Friday May 07, 2010 @04:06PM (#32132352)

        Quoth the article: "The $170,000 machines, which were introduced last year, took some heat from fliers who weren't quite ready to show their bod to government employees... But if this latest incident is any indication, the scanners sound like good news for anti-terrorism and bad news for less-than-average men."

        The implication here seems to be that it's okay to eliminate individual privacy rights because only poorly endowed men will complain. Granted, a news-hat was just trying to end on a light note, but treating it lightly undermines the legitimacy of the privacy concern.

        • by iamhassi (659463) on Friday May 07, 2010 @04:33PM (#32132858) Journal
          National Lampoon's Vacation 2010

          (teenage daughter walks through scanner)
          TSA man: (previously bored, now looks suddenly excited) Um, ma'am, I'm going to need you to go back through the scanner (reaching in pocket)
          Daughter: (rolling eyes) Fine whatever (walks back in)
          TSA man: (pulls cellphone out of pocket, taking pictures of screen) Yeah that's good, stop right there and slowly turn around.
          (daughter turning)
          (another TSA man walks over)
          2nd TSA man: Wow! (reaches in pocket, pulls out cellphone, snaps photos)
          (daughter still turning, crowd of TSA employees gather, all taking photos and mumbles of approval)
          Father: is everything ok?
          TSA man: Um, yeah, but I'm going to need your daughter's cell phone number in case we find something later after reviewing the scan in more detail.
          (daughter exits scanner)
          Father: is that necessary?
          TSA man: (looking stern) Oh? Do we have a problem here? (motions towards two armed airport security guards)
          Father: (looking suprised) NO No, no problem at all! Here's her number, call anytime
          TSA man: (looking satisfied) Thank you for complying. Who's next?
          (people in line look worryingly at each other as if no one wants to go, one person lowers head and begrudgingly steps forward toward the scanner)
    • by Moraelin (679338) on Friday May 07, 2010 @04:04PM (#32132322) Journal

      Actually, the more such stories make the point that those guys really _are_ looking at people naked, the better for the public at large.

      The things have been handwaved to the public as just some magical things that see explosives and guns and not much else, and their operators are 100% profesional and would do no such thing as looking for anything else than guns anyway. (In fact, one politician in Australia even claimed that they'll produce just stick figures with just the areas to be checked marked, and nobody would see your body at all.) And obviously if you're refusing to let them look at you that way, you're probably a terrorist and don't deserve to fly. (E.g., Muslim woman barred from flight for refusing body scan [timesonline.co.uk])

      Now it turns out that they aren't just for explosives, and they aren't that professional.

      And I mean there's not just this, but also the guy at Heathrow Airport who pressed the button to take a ghostly snapshot of a female coworker's body. She seemed pretty traumatized by it too and won't go anywhere near the machine any more, so maybe now we can also have some sympathy for the others who are scared of them.

      Or the actor who discovered some female employees there looking at a printout of his scans, so he autographed it for them.

      The sooner Joe Average gets the idea that these kinds of things happen, and no matter what some politician says, those people aren't saints, the better.

    • If you just shrugged it off then only your coworkers would know you have a small dick. Now the whole world knows.

      True. But you gotta admit, there's really no reason the beaten co-worker would have a surprised look on his face.

    • Not necessarily. Some are growers and some are showers. Now he has a chance to play catcher too.

    • by dollarwizard (1806856) on Friday May 07, 2010 @04:34PM (#32132878)

      If you just shrugged it off then only your coworkers would know you have a small dick. Now the whole world knows.

      When a women is subjected to a hostile work environment, she might be told, "If you just shrugged it off then only your coworkers would know you are a slut. Now the whole world knows."

      Clearly if this is said to a woman, then it is a blame-the-victim mentality and is wrong. It should also be wrong in this case, when it's a man who suffers from a hostile work environment.

  • by Nukenbar (215420) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:34PM (#32131862)

    I'm not sure I wanted to click on that link..

  • by 2names (531755) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:35PM (#32131884)
    The attacker said, "my rod feels pretty damn big now, doesn't it? [thump] Huh? [whack] You like this big rod? [thump whack]"
  • by wiredog (43288) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:36PM (#32131896) Journal

    Bring bratwurst when flying.

  • by sir lox elroy (735636) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:36PM (#32131898) Homepage
    If the institute this system I give it a month before we start seeing real "naked" pictures of celebrities online taken with the TSA employee's camera phones.
    • by natehoy (1608657)

      A month? The people who come out with the pictures after a month will be VERY late to the "TSA CELEB PHOTO" bandwagon.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      According to the technical details and documents online, these devices even are network ready for test and maintenance purposes. Makes you think. They can reassure me about TSA professionalism all they want. I've flown a lot, and I just don't see it. I think I lost all confidence when they were patting down my 74-year-old grandmother. These knee-jerk reactions and massive errors are getting real old. You fly to Europe or Canada, and their security personnel have a clue - they're practical, they keep a shar
      • by hazem (472289)

        Well, even if these machines aren't network ready, there's nothing to stop these valiant TSA workers from bringing their own cameras in and snapping shots of their favorite passengers.

      • by Jerrry (43027)

        "You fly to Europe or Canada, and their security personnel have a clue - they're practical, they keep a sharp eye out, and they use the right response for the situation at hand."

        The problem is that here in the U.S. we have to be oh so politically correct at all times. We have to treat 74 year old white-haired grandmothers *exactly* the same way as we treat 20-something guys with a bread and a strong middle-eastern accent when everyone knows that the odds of someone from either of these two groups doing some

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Saroful (1364377)

          "You fly to Europe or Canada, and their security personnel have a clue - they're practical, they keep a sharp eye out, and they use the right response for the situation at hand."

          The problem is that here in the U.S. we have to be oh so politically correct at all times. We have to treat 74 year old white-haired grandmothers *exactly* the same way as we treat 20-something guys with a bread and a strong middle-eastern accent when everyone knows that the odds of someone from either of these two groups doing something harmful on a flight are massively skewed towards the latter group.

          I think the potential threat of the latter group would depend on what type of bread that 20-something middle-eastern guy has. Pita? Not too worrisome. White? Not too bad. Whole wheat? A little unnerving. French? Time for the full body scan.

        • by osu-neko (2604) on Friday May 07, 2010 @04:44PM (#32133024)

          Yes, but when you devote more attention to one group, that means you devote less attention to another. If no one knows you're doing it, this increases your odds of catching the bad guys, but if the bad guys know you're doing it, it creates an exploitable weakness in your system. If you know a particular door to the castle is most likely to be attacked, you devote more guards to it, but if the enemy knows you'd taken guards from the other door to guard the first, which door do you think they're going to use? You ultimately weaken your defenses if you engage in that kind of allotment of resources when the enemy can see perfectly well what you're doing. It only works when they can't. That's why using a publicly available list of countries to subject travelers from to more screening actually weakens your security. You've just decreased the amount of time you spend on countries off the list (by devoting your limited resources more to the ones on it rather than distributing evenly), and provided the enemy with a list of countries that are subject to decreased security (by inverting the list). Any at all sophisticated enemy praises Allah for your gift of intentionally weakening your security.

          To foil a sophisticated enemy, you need to treat all travelers exactly the same, or keep completely and totally secret what ways you're treating anyone differently, because the moment the enemy knows you're treating people differently is the moment they have a greatly enhanced chance of pulling off a successful attack.

          tl;dr: Treating everyone equally is not about political correctness, it's about not being bad at security.

  • by jonpublic (676412) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:36PM (#32131902)

    So much for the obfuscation that's promised. Or maybe it was obfuscated and they just decided to pick on him.

  • The whole purpose of the scanners to emasculate and demean the people who pass through them. This should be clear to everyone.

    • by Bobfrankly1 (1043848) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:41PM (#32131986)

      The whole purpose of the scanners to emasculate and demean the people who pass through them. This should be clear to everyone.

      That depends on what your packing. To be strip searched for fear of hiding a club in your pants, and then finding out the club shaped item is stock equipment wouldn't be emasculating or demeaning for the person passing through, just the person doing the search.

    • > The whole purpose of the scanners to emasculate and demean the people who pass through them. This should be clear to everyone.

      No, that's just how they're used in some cases. Although to be fair, the last time I ran into an abusive and power-hungry TSA employee was pre-9/11, and everyone I've seen in the last few years has been professional, courteous, and often amiable. But I don't travel much.

      Scanners are really just a deterrent. Kind of like polygraphs--sure, someone can probably figure out a way

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by couchslug (175151)

      "The whole purpose of the scanners to emasculate and demean the people who pass through them. This should be clear to everyone."

      Too late, I'm already married.

  • Maybe I'm missing something, but this story isn't really about my rights online. It's not even about my rights at all as much as an example of hundreds of assault cases that seem to happen everyday.

    (In this case, it also sounds like there was a decidedly hostile working environment going on and that the supervisor was way, way out of line, too. Not that it justifies a physical assault, but still.)

    • by Locke2005 (849178) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:44PM (#32132020)
      The story IS about your right to not be laughed at for having an itty-bitty, tiny little pecker -- an issue that is of utmost importance to many slashdot readers (myself excluded, of course!)
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by SpectreHiro (961765)

        Nah, I think I'll wave my rights there. I frequently have a good belly laugh about my comically under-sized wang; why shouldn't everyone else?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Locke2005 (849178)
          "waive" is what you do with your rights. "wave" is what you do with your "comically under-sized wang". Any questions?
    • by Gorkamecha (948294) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:45PM (#32132048)
      It highlights the personality types of the people we've trusted with this technology. It additionally demonstrates that there is enough private information shared by the device to create a uncomfortable breach of privacy.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Wyatt Earp (1029)

      These devices are networked and have storage devices attached to them. The official story is that the connectivity and storage is only active for testing and training.

      Oh and the official story is that the naughty bits on screen are blocked out, well this proves that the naughty bits aren't blocked out and that the TSA folks here in the US and the UK, where there have already been problems, who will be seeing travelers naked are raging morons.

      http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0324/warning-airport-breast-xray/ [rawstory.com]

      So it

    • by natehoy (1608657) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:52PM (#32132152) Journal

      It's also an enlightening example of the behavior of the "trained professionals" who are supposed to not be paying attention to the size of your johnson when you walk through the scanners. It's like being a porn star, only you aren't being paid and you have no choice in the matter.

  • by Ambiguous Coward (205751) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:38PM (#32131928) Homepage

    So, they can't even this technology in regards to each other, and we're supposed to believe they won't behave the same (or worse) when confronted with the public at large being forced to expose themselves in these things?

    Really?

  • Question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Locke2005 (849178) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:38PM (#32131932)
    Can a TSA employee be arrested for child porn if the cops catch him just as a minor is walking through the scanner?
    • by OzPeter (195038)

      Can a TSA employee be arrested for child porn if the cops catch him just as a minor is walking through the scanner?

      I would submit a half-arsed guess that just like a police officer can legally get away with murder in the pursuit of his/her employment, that a TSA officer can also get away with looking at naked people of all ages in the pursuit of his/her job. However that does depend on the legal system having built in the correct protections - such as female officers only viewing females etc.

  • Nice punchline (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ambiguous Coward (205751) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:42PM (#32131996) Homepage

    But if this latest incident is any indication, the scanners sound like good news for anti-terrorism and bad news for less-than-average men.

    So what you're saying, NBC, is that the only people who would complain about this invasive technology are terrorists and guys with small dicks?

    Well done.

    • But if this latest incident is any indication, the scanners sound like good news for anti-terrorism and bad news for less-than-average men.

      So what you're saying, NBC, is that the only people who would complain about this invasive technology are terrorists and guys with small dicks?

      Well done.

      NBC seems quite adept at manufacturing consent. And if you disagree you have a small penis.

  • by gotpoetry (1185519) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:43PM (#32132010)
    As usual there is more to the story. TFA fails to mention that he was teased about it for a solid year [theregister.co.uk] before he decided to take action.

    Rolando Negrin was exposed to fellow Transportation Security Administration (TSA) operatives' ridicule during training on the body scanners, when they copped an eyeful of his "private body parts".

    Cue a year of ribbing, until Negrin attacked one of his tormentors with a baton in the airport's employee parking lot on Tuesday. In the arrest report. Negrin claims he "could not take the jokes any more and lost his mind".

  • 4th Amendment (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:44PM (#32132034)

    The TSA is a government agency and has no right to, essentially, strip search you if you refuse. Refuse full body scans and request other search options.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tsunayoshi (789351)

      As far as I know, you can refuse to walk through the scanner, they will pull you to the side for extra security scanning.

      If you're lucky, they are not understaffed that day and you get a good TSA employee and can get through the extra process with only a minumum of hassle.

      Or, you can get some TSA employee having a really bad day who is pissed of that (s)he now has to deal with you and it will could forever and be a pain in the ass.

      • by Zerth (26112)

        Or, you can get some TSA employee having a really bad day who is pissed of that (s)he now has to deal with you and it will could forever and be a pain in the ass.

        Literally!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by clone53421 (1310749)

      Agreed.

      I very rarely travel by plane, but I did fly somewhere last month and I’ll be flying there once again later this month. They didn’t require me to stand in the body scanner, but if they had, I would have refused.

      You can either peek under my clothing, or give me a pat-down? I don’t want your dirty looks. I’ll take the handjob.

      They’re equally intrusive (okay, the scan might actually be more intrusive), but one of them emphasizes the fact that it’s an intrusive search,

  • May 7th (Score:5, Funny)

    by iamhassi (659463) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:45PM (#32132042) Journal
    Alright May 7th 2010, who had May 7th as the date a TSA worker would get arrested for something related to the new body scanners? .... Anyone? ..... come on people, I have 454 comments [slashdot.org] of people saying this is a Very Bad Idea, someone had to have May 7th....
  • by BForrester (946915) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:50PM (#32132112)

    ...has demonstrated that the allegations are definitely true.

  • Why do we want to see this guy's face as the Slashdot icon?
  • So full of win. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ransak (548582) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:52PM (#32132154) Homepage Journal
    As a frequent flyer, I love this story. If anything was going to lend credence to the inappropriateness of these scanners in a lawsuit, this is. A TSA supervisor making fun of genitals now a matter of public record? So... much... legal... win...
    • Re:So full of win. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fermion (181285) on Friday May 07, 2010 @05:07PM (#32133192) Homepage Journal
      As a flyer I have seen just how useless these are, having been selected for hand frisking for no apparent reason. The number of false positives are a big impediment to these devices.

      I think the only reason we have these is that conservatives want to spend government money, but can't spend it on useful things like roads and schools and keeping people from starving. So they create things like Homeland security and buy lots of useless machines that make their friends rich. That is the only reason I think we have the TSA. Otherwise we would trained agents in the airport looking out for suspicious behavior, not poorly paid perverts peering at peckers.

  • Wouldn't the package in question be considered "carry on?" If you had to "check it" at the gate wouldn't that be a personal problem?

    jdb2
  • sexual harassment (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sixsixtysix (1110135)
    can this guy sue the tsa for sexual harassment?
  • by calmofthestorm (1344385) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:54PM (#32132192)

    Stand tall and proud. The sole purpose of these horrible machines is to reinforce the idea that we are subjects, not citizens, and consumers, not producers. Resist them. Big, small, average, female, intersex, whatever you are, stand proud against this filth and hope that some day Americans will once again care more about freedom than fighting a few terrorists and a lot of shadows.

  • by hadesan (664029) on Friday May 07, 2010 @03:58PM (#32132240)
    What a mess. If it was his supervisor cracking the jokes, the supervisor just opened up the whole sexual harassment facet of this. Mr. Negron has a case if can prove it made his work environment hostile.

    Based upon the available information - sounds like they should fire the supervisor, train the employees on sexual harassment, and fire Mr. Negron for assault.

    Unfortunately, we as taxpayers will ultimately pay for all of it...

  • Sounds like he's got a good case for sexual harassment in the workplace. Sounds like he was subject to a hostile work environment, a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended.

  • Guys with little dicks are so touchy about that kind of thing.

    He should have responded "It's cold in here, dammit. IT'S COLD IN HERE!" or "It's a grow-er, not a show-er".

    Still, nobody cares except the guys with little dicks. Buy a Corvette . . . or a hovercraft.

  • No, the new scanners are absolutely no privacy threat. How could anyone think so?

  • by thetoadwarrior (1268702) on Friday May 07, 2010 @04:43PM (#32133002) Homepage
    TSA employees are assholes. I don't object to body scanning even if it's cold and it'll show. I've happily done it in the UK even when it was voluntary.

    I don't really care to do it in the US though. Pretty much every TSA employee I have ever met was a cock. They feel the need to make comments because I'm an American who opted to live outside the US (I know, a real crime) and even asking a simple question like where a certain gate is apparently is enough to be quizzed and have your travel documents looked through and maybe even have your bags checked despite having already went through that when entering the country.

    It's the sort of job wanna-be tough guys take. It's no surprise it turns out they have little dicks. It explains a lot about their attitudes.

All constants are variables.

Working...