Sign in / up

back to article Stateside security screeners sacked for squeezing 'sexy' sacks

Two security strokers screeners at Denver airport got the boot after investigators were tipped off about gratuitous groin groping of certain male travellers, a police report reveals. The Office of Inspection of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) were informed of the pair’s pervy prowess and did a little probing …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *

  1. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Percentage is a bit off

          Seriously, what is the difficulty with that? You have a choice when you visit a doctor, why is this any different?

          A doctor will only touch you if there is a real need, and will ask your permission or he/she can get into real trouble. Security people are not really required to indicate cause, have absolutely no need to touch you in certain places and you don't have much recourse for inappropriate activity because they'll just happily slow you down or even detain you until the plane has left - something that will cost you, not them. There is not really an established format for handling complaints either.

          15 2 Reply
        2. DocJames
          Reply Icon
          Flame

          Re: Percentage is a bit off

          You have a choice when you visit a doctor, why is this any different?

          There is a cubic fuckton of difference. Even if you don't know the difference, be glad that your doctor(s) do.

          Hugs, kisses but not fondles (TFIC (not your cheek)),

          A Doctor.

          12 3 Reply
  2. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Stop

    hang on

    weren't wee told that things like this could "never" happen ?

    27 1 Reply
    1. Mark 85
      Reply Icon

      Re: hang on

      Indeed. As I recall there were questions about this very thing in front of Congress who was told that the screeners were as above reproach as the Congress Critters are. Which means this couldn't have happened.. oh wait.

      20 0 Reply
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    No victim, no crime. Well done everyone.

    5 6 Reply
    1. Doctor_Wibble
      Reply Icon
      FAIL

      Sarcasm, surely?

      Because I can't see any non-sarcastic meaning - the wording would be different so three (current downvote count) 'fail' badges to be awarded. The AC here pinpoints the official method of ensuring that accountability can be a thing of the past.

      Seriously, how TF can they not identify the person concerned?

      Do they not have passengers meticulously tagged and logged when going through the system? How is that secure when you can't look at the records and narrow it down to e.g. 'roughly the third person ahead of the inspector in the queue'?

      Someone I suspect is talking bollocks, either for job preservation or to beg for the trivially-removable image-blurring to be officially removed so they can do nudie-scan archiving 'for reference'. Don't look at me, I'm not the one into ghost porn!

      8 0 Reply
      1. Crazy Operations Guy
        Reply Icon

        Re: Sarcasm, surely?

        "Seriously, how TF can they not identify the person concerned?"

        I travel through Denver international quite often (In fact I'm posting from that very airport). There is a space in between the station where they check ID / Valid ticket and where the screening takes place (This is because it goes from 2 lines to 4 in this area). The passengers get mixed together and even knowing the time frame for when the incident happened, 100-150 people would have gone through in even a 5-minute window.

        Even if it would have been possible to identify the victim, it still would have taken several minutes for it to be reported to a supervisor, then several more for the footage to be reviewed to get an image of the victim, then quite a bit of time to compare those images to the photo database, and then they'd have to track them down. By that time, the victim would likely already be on the plane and in the air. And why would you hold someone back to inconvenience them further? The normal screening process is bad enough as it is...

        2 0 Reply
      2. Martin Budden Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Coat

        Re: Sarcasm, surely?

        "Someone I suspect is talking bollocks"

        Yes. In fact I'm surprised El Reg didn't manage to shoe-horn that pun into the story... a bit of a cock-up if you ask me.

        1 0 Reply
  4. Tromos
    Joke

    The screeners were terminated as a result.

    A bit harsh. I'd have thought summary dismissal would be adequate.

    19 0 Reply
    1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      Black Helicopters

      Re: The screeners were terminated as a result.

      Nobody makes TSA look bad and gets away with it.

      Oh. Wait... that means the entire TSA should self-terminate. Oh well. Guess air travel in the US just got a whole lot easier.

      Ooh look a pair of ropes has just dropped in front of my window. And there's a strange noise above the hou

      21 1 Reply
      1. Crazy Operations Guy
        Reply Icon

        Re: The screeners were terminated as a result.

        The TSA is a joke anyway. I recall an analysis done by an Israeli security researcher talking about all the glaring issues with the TSA's practices. Then there are the incidents in Los Angles and New Orleans where someone attacked the airport before the screening area because there were quite a few victims all standing around with nowhere to go. I fear the day that someone walks into one of those lines with a bomb vest or a bomb loaded into a suitcase and takes out a hundred or more innocent people at once.

        Besides, as pretty much every air-related accident in the past decade has shown, you have more to fear from the guy in the cockpit or those on the ground than the passengers:

        Asiana 214 was pilot incompetence;

        AirAsia 8501 wasn't even supposed to be in the air;

        Malaysian MH17 was hit by a SAM;

        And of course the recent GermanWings crash

        And in the cases where the TSA should have stopped a passenger from getting onto a plane, they failed horribly, consider the "Underwear Bomber" and the "Shoe Bomber". Both made it on the plane despite going through screening and where only stopped by way of pure luck.

        3 0 Reply
        1. Alan Brown Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: The screeners were terminated as a result.

          > consider the "Underwear Bomber" and the "Shoe Bomber".

          Neither of whom embarked on their flights at US airports.

          Personally, I've been kind of wondering how effective a few drops of putresene in a shoe would be at clearing a screening area.

          0 0 Reply
  5. frank ly

    They should be charged

    With conspiring to and commiting indecent assault.

    20 0 Reply
  6. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Can't charge...what rubbish.

    So if someone had photos of themselves having sex with minors, or killing someone on a video, but in each case the victims face was covered, they couldn't be charged?

    Thought so.

    14 0 Reply
    1. SolidSquid
      Reply Icon

      Re: Can't charge...what rubbish.

      Considering it's generally not the victim who decides if charges are pressed, it's the courts themselves (to prevent victims being pressured into not pressing charges), they don't actually need the passenger to cover it. Similarly, while you generally have a right to face your accuser in court (which I suspect would be the reason they gave here), the fact that one of them confessed means you have an accuser right there

      6 0 Reply
      1. gnasher729 Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Can't charge...what rubbish.

        I thought the accuser would be the prosecutor, or the state in general, and not the victim who is just a witness?

        5 0 Reply
        1. dan1980
          Reply Icon

          Re: Can't charge...what rubbish.

          @gnasher729

          "I thought the accuser would be the prosecutor, or the state in general . . ."

          I had to think about this because my first response was (literally): "abso-fucking-lutely". But, on further reflection, touching someone's crotch and groin is not a crime. Nor is it a crime to be driving someone else's car or to walk out of someone else's apartment with their TV.

          These things are all perfectly legal, provided that they are consensual.

          In these cases, what makes them a case for law enforcement is that someone is complaining about the behaviour and wishes to press charges.

          If your ex-wife 'keys' your car one day then that is clearly malicious damage but it's your car so, while the perpetrator can be arrested, she can't be charged if you don't want to.

          Some acts, of course, are considered criminal and the perpetrator can be charged regardless of whether the 'victim' wishes to press charges or not. This is the case in what is commonly known as 'statutory rape'. This is when an adult has sex with a minor because even if the minor says it was consensual, if they are below the legal age of consent, then it is a crime.

          So, while I really believe that this behaviour by the TSA staff was utterly reprehensible, I do understand why they can't be charged with a crime.

          That said, this matter should be in police hands and they should make every effort to identify the person involved and give them the opportunity to press charges. And the TSA should be URGING the police to do so with all possible zeal.

          0 2 Reply
      2. Crazy Operations Guy
        Reply Icon

        Re: Can't charge...what rubbish.

        They don't really need the victim anyway, with the confession, they can pull camera footage and convict them on evidence alone.

        2 0 Reply
  7. Hud Dunlap
    Boffin

    The victims are coming forward.

    This should get interesting.

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-victims-denver-airport-groping-scandal-20150415-story.html

    3 0 Reply
  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Happened to me Twice

    Once in Chicago and once at SFO. The bloke in Chicago was pretty bold; as he snuck a squeeze of my nut sack.

    0 0 Reply
    1. Sir Runcible Spoon
      Reply Icon
      Joke

      Re: Happened to me Twice

      I have a very tender nerve in my groin, when tweaked unexpectedly it results in a sharp 'knee-jerk' reaction into whatever is in front of me.

      8 0 Reply
  9. jake Silver badge

    There is a reason ...

    ... I've been calling the TSA's approach to this aspect of security theater "Federally Mandated Molestation Stations" since 2010 (maybe 2009). Happened to me, way back then. When I reported it, I was told that if I made waves I'd be put on the "does not fly" list. I told the asshole paper-pusher to fuck off, I'll be flying myself from here on out. And have been :-)

    http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/922561

    2 1 Reply
    1. jake Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: There is a reason ...

      (I hate replying to myself ... but it was just after New Years, January 2010. I was heading home after visiting my daughter in Cincinnati, OH. Cincy -> Chicago -> SF).

      http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/663026

      0 1 Reply
  10. Stevie

    Bah!

    Hmm, mis-use of the scanning equipment by "fully trained" and "properly screened" airport "security" personnel?

    Fair enough. No-one could have seen that coming.

    0 0 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon