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This discussion has been archived.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

  • 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?
  • 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...
  • 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 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.

  • 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 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 Jurily (900488) <[jurily] [at] [gmail.com]> 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)?

  • 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.

  • by gd23ka (324741) on Friday May 07, 2010 @07:09PM (#32133792) Homepage

    And in related news, check this couple or shall we say "duo":

    http://www.gadling.com/2010/05/03/detroit-airport-cop-and-tsa-worker-accused-of-stealing-pizza-and/ [gadling.com]
    http://www.infowars.com/detroit-airport-cop-and-tsa-worker-accused-of-stealing-pizza-and-punching-clerk/ [infowars.com]
    http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/officers-accused-of-crossing-the-line [myfoxdetroit.com]

    He's an airport cop, she's a TSA worker at the same airport. On the weekends these two love to booze it up
    and ... watch the video!!

    The short of it, they go into a gas station convenience store, she grabs two pieces of pizza and they try to leave the
    store. The store clerk comes after the two demanding payment for the pizza, she takes out her TSA id card
    and says she's with "Homeland Security". The store clerk not impressed by the two follows them out to the
    pumps and tries to get their license plate. She opens the tailgate thus flipping the license plate up so the clerk can't
    see it. Some back and forth. At one point then the clerk gets the tailgate but then the cop runs after him and
    punches him in the face.

    It turns out though, "Homeland Sekurity" used her credit card to pay for an item in the store, the shenanigans
    outside the store trying to cover up the sign were completely unnecessary.

    Just think about it, these fucks get to see you naked, they get to harrass you each step of the way until you're
    in the plane.. :-) but in real life they are pathetic scum. Keep that in mind next time you see any..

  • by JWSmythe (446288) <(moc.ehtymswj) (ta) (ehtymswj)> on Friday May 07, 2010 @07:49PM (#32134070) Homepage Journal

        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 JWSmythe (446288) <(moc.ehtymswj) (ta) (ehtymswj)> on Friday May 07, 2010 @08:43PM (#32134668) Homepage Journal

        But that's where "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" comes into question. The definition of "lascivious" is not included in the definitions. We'll fall back to the dictionary definition in this case.

    1. Given to or expressing lust; lecherous.
    2. Exciting sexual desires; salacious.

        Viewing of my genitalia has been cause for lust and has excited sexual desire. Even a normal mask wouldn't hide my full package (as it were). In that, it could be believed that a viewer would find it sexually exciting to view a nude image of me, in a normal photograph or a TSA/DHS authorized scan. Therefore it could be argued that the image of me in such a manner does fall under the cited laws.

MATH AND ALCOHOL DON'T MIX! Please, don't drink and derive. Mathematicians Against Drunk Deriving

Working...