Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

TSA Worker Jailed In Body Scan Rage Incident

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the checking-out-your-package dept.

Crime 352

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."

cancel ×

352 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

good idea there, buddy (5, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131848)

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

Re:good idea there, buddy (5, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131942)

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:good idea there, buddy (2, Insightful)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131972)

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

Re:good idea there, buddy (5, Insightful)

jkauzlar (596349) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132014)

thanks to the scanners, it also now appeals to perverts, wankers and child molesters

Re:good idea there, buddy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32131966)

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

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=grower not a shower [urbandictionary.com]

Of course, some guys just have really small dicks.

Re:good idea there, buddy (5, Insightful)

butterflysrage (1066514) | more than 4 years ago | (#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?

Re:good idea there, buddy (1)

nj_peeps (1780942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132038)

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?

not just your kids, but you too. and it's not a good idea.

Re:good idea there, buddy (4, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132318)

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?

not just your kids, but you too. and it's not a good idea.

I think his point was that he was bringing in the "think of the children" mentality and maybe using public hysteria over child porn and whatnot as a means of destroying this intrusive and questionable method of security.

A terrorist, intent on striking against us infidels, will shove explosives up his ass or have something surgically implanted around his body. Now, how will these things prevent that? Are we going to move to full body x-rays just to fly next?

Re:good idea there, buddy (1)

Mike Buddha (10734) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132064)

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

Re:good idea there, buddy (5, Insightful)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132184)

"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?

Notice how the media implies it's okay. (4, Interesting)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Actually, good for everyone else (4, Interesting)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132322)

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.

Re:good idea there, buddy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32132344)

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

To be fair, he started out by trying to tea-bag the guy but his entire sack got caught in one of the teaser's nostrils.

Re:good idea there, buddy (1)

Haxzaw (1502841) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132370)

As George would say, "Don't they know about shrinkage?" Maybe he just came in from the cold.

Re:good idea there, buddy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32132420)

It would help if his co-workers wernt immature jackinapes. Now the whole world knows how the TSA cannot be trusted to act professional in these situations.

Re:good idea there, buddy (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132444)

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.

Re:good idea there, buddy (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132506)

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

Re:good idea there, buddy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32132558)

I guess he didn't have much to hide...

View Picture? (3, Funny)

Nukenbar (215420) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131862)

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

Potent question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32131872)

Maybe it was too damn big?

MAKE NO ASSUMPTIONS!

As he was beating the victim... (5, Funny)

2names (531755) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131884)

The attacker said, "my rod feels pretty damn big now, doesn't it? [thump] Huh? [whack] You like this big rod? [thump whack]"

What is idle for anyway? (-1, Offtopic)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131888)

Doesn't this belong on Idle? Or is it because there was a mention of the body scanner? Really?

Re:What is idle for anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32131938)

it's a privacy issue (for people who care who sees them naked)

Re:What is idle for anyway? (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132074)

TFA is more about the incident and less about the privacy issue. I read two sentences that barely make a passing remark at privacy issues. This belongs on idle if anything. Reading the comments thus far just reinforces this.

Re:What is idle for anyway? (4, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132146)

Welcome newcommer!

We enjoy having new recruits at our site, slashdot. I am one of our sites many moderators, so that means I'm super important. Don't upset us or we'll downmod you. You have been warned. Back to the welcome message!

I see that you are unfamiliar with how editors handle messages at Slashdot. It's a proprietary method, since we love Microsoft, its also open source, like Linux, and it also makes no sense, like Apple. There are various categories in which a story might be filed under. When a submitter submits a story, they put in what category they believe it to be under, and other tags that might help in its placement. Slashdot editors take a look at the category, and give it a 50% chance of being filed in there. Then the editors look at the stats of the submitter. This includes Kharma, previous story entries, upmodded comments, skill in grammar, and other various related fields. They use these stats to come up with a 1x, 2x, or 3x* modifier. The Editors then roll a D-20, and multiply the value to the modifier, and add it as a percentage to the total to the previously mentioned 50%. They then create a pie chart in excel with the proper category being proportional to the new percentage. All other categories divide the remaining space. Using a random number Generator, they generate a number between 1 and 100. Where the number lands determines which category the article is placed under, based on the ranges previously defined.

And thats it! Simple right? I know, I didn't know how it worked when I first got here either, but when once someone tells you, you kind of look back at how silly you were for not seeing it before.

Welcome to slashdot, and thank you for posting.

Re:What is idle for anyway? (3, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132190)

Almost forgot,

*In cases with a 3x* modifier, where a value higher than 17 is rolled, that would instantly put it inside the category, and the remaining steps can be ignored.

**In the case of KDawson submitting a story, the modifier is automatically 0x, and gets only a 50% of getting it right, since his stories can hardly be considered good to begin with.

Re:What is idle for anyway? (4, Insightful)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132442)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Or, in this case, who screens the screeners? (my Latin sucks, English will have to do)

Stories like this simply make it clear that:

a) the level of detail coming out of these scanners is somewhat better than many have been led to believe.
b) the level of professionalism of some of the people charged with operating the scanners is somewhat worse than many have been led to believe.

If seeing people naked is what it really takes to introduce real security into the scanning process, just tell everyone they have to get naked to go through security. Don't hide the fact behind millions of dollars in technology and bullshittery and try to convince us that the people operating the gear are anything other than underpaid security guards, some (the vast minority, but still some) of whom will jump on the chance to sell any images they can capture, and that the images are of sufficient clarity that they are worth capturing.

I'm not against such scanners per se, though they seem like a very expensive way to gain a possibly marginal but mostly imaginary increase in security. But let's stop bullshitting ourselves that there will be any realistic expectation of privacy once they get implement, mmmm'kay?

Note to self: (5, Funny)

wiredog (43288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131896)

Bring bratwurst when flying.

Re:Note to self: (3, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132178)

Bring bratwurst when flying.

Protip .. watch This is Spinal Tap [wikipedia.org] for what to do at airports

Re:Note to self: (1)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132410)

Bring bratwurst when flying.

Protip .. watch This is Spinal Tap [wikipedia.org] for what not to do at airports

There fixed that for you.

If you're gonna shove stuff down your pants to make if look like you have a larger member always remember: do not wrap the item in aluminum foil. Find some other way to keep it from sliding out your pant leg.

Or.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32132206)

wear t-shirt that says, "I'm a Grower!"

1 Month after the institute this system... (5, Insightful)

sir lox elroy (735636) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131898)

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.

Re:1 Month after the institute this system... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32132070)

This system has been in place for quite some time now.

If you have flow recently, you probably walked through one.

Re:1 Month after the institute this system... (3, Funny)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132092)

This system has been in place for quite some time now.

If you have flow recently, you probably walked through one.

So the system is only for girls?

Re:1 Month after the institute this system... (2, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132148)

I flew not long ago, and I didn’t walk through one. I went past it, like most everyone else. They didn’t stop me, but I did see them stop one lady (a rather attractive lady, now that I’ve come to think of it) and have her walk into it.

I want their job.

Re:1 Month after the institute this system... (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132306)

Really? You want to sit is a darkened, isolated room for hours at a time and click through an endless stream of vaguely-nude-looking images with unsettlingly high contrast, featuring men, women and children of all different body types?

Hint: There's free porn on the internet. Real porn.

Re:1 Month after the institute this system... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132332)

Hint: There's free porn on the internet. Real porn.

Not where I work.

My darkened, isolated basement will always be waiting for me at home, though...

I’m kidding: I don’t have a basement.

Re:1 Month after the institute this system... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32132588)

The arch/booth is just a ruse, it actually scans the people that walk around it!!

Re:1 Month after the institute this system... (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132186)

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

Re:1 Month after the institute this system... (2, Insightful)

Erinnys Tisiphone (1627695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132220)

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 sharp eye out, and they use the right response for the situation at hand. I'm sure as hell not flying commercial anymore. I hope enough people share the sentiment that the US airline industry manages to tank even more. And I love flying so much I have an aviation degree.

Re:1 Month after the institute this system... (1)

hazem (472289) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132294)

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.

Re:1 Month after the institute this system... (1)

Jerrry (43027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132456)

"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.

So much for the obfuscation promised (2, Insightful)

jonpublic (676412) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131902)

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

Re:So much for the obfuscation promised (4, Insightful)

jonpublic (676412) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132028)

According to gizmodo they were teasing him for an entire year.

Re:So much for the obfuscation promised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32132458)

And then people can't believe it when some go postal...

Missing the Point (4, Interesting)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131904)

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

Re:Missing the Point (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32131984)

Or it's just clear to deranged lunatics.

Re:Missing the Point (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132524)

I'd like to say it is just paranoia, but from the few times I've flown, I had the distinct feeling that much of what was done, was done for affect. I haven't heard the terms, "now", " immediately" or "we cannot/will not tolerate" as often since perhaps high school.

It is the gestapo imagery that really kicks it off. Uniformed men lining you up one by one to pass you through a set of doors to some unseen location. First they take any small valuables you may be carrying for inspection/safe keeping, then they take your shoes and check your mouth for gold fillings. Your loved ones, pass into another stall and are sometimes re-grouped elsewhere. On the sideline there are guards yelling at you; demanding obedience. To hear myself, it sounds completely nutty, but on a subconscious level the process is terrifying.

Re:Missing the Point (4, Insightful)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Just how they're used... (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132482)

> 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 around it, but it deters a lot of people from trying things they shouldn't try and catches a few really stupid people. Like Congressional Representatives who have their aid carry a gun for them or multimillionaire basketball players who take their weed through customs, plus a hundred thousand really stupid people we don't hear about because they're not famous.

Sure, most of the time the behavior it deters or catches is probably stuff that doesn't hurt anyone. But that doesn't mean it doesn't serve a function beyond emasculation.

Strangely, that last paragraph may also apply to significant others... (of either gender)

It's News, but... (1)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131908)

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.)

Re:It's News, but... (4, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#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:It's News, but... (3, Funny)

SpectreHiro (961765) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132230)

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:It's News, but... (1)

Ares (5306) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132478)

silly slashdot poster. you wave your comically undersized wang (or not depending on how comically undersized it is), but waive your rights.

Re:It's News, but... (2, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132518)

"waive" is what you do with your rights. "wave" is what you do with your "comically under-sized wang". Any questions?

Re:It's News, but... (1)

dollarwizard (1806856) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132532)

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!)

I think this might actually be insightful. After all, the guys with big dicks were getting laid so much in high school that they had no need to develop their brains and become nerds. And the people who become nerds... well, it's simple logic. :)

Re:It's News, but... (2, Informative)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132622)

It is a well established medical fact that a man's circulatory system is not capable of simultaneously supplying adequate blood flow to both the brain and the penis.

Re:It's News, but... (5, Insightful)

Gorkamecha (948294) | more than 4 years ago | (#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:It's News, but... (2, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132094)

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 its a rights online issue.

Re:It's News, but... (3, Insightful)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132152)

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.

And we expect them to behave LATER? (4, Insightful)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131928)

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?

Re:And we expect them to behave LATER? (5, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131994)

No, we cannot expect TSA employees with a proven track record of acting like 10 year old boys to later respect the dignity and rights of passengers. I say fire the entire crew.

Re:And we expect them to behave LATER? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32132612)

It does not matter if you get laughed at. Grow up.

Question (4, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131932)

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

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32132120)

nude != porn.

Re:Question (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132564)

I suspect that argument has already been made by hundreds of individuals currently in jail for possession of pictures of nude children. I also suspect that that argument has failed in every case.

Re:Question (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132594)

nude != porn.

Since we're talking about children, I think that equation may be incorrect on several levels. Notably, in the legal sense.

Re:Question (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132130)

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 (5, Insightful)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32131996)

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.

Re:Nice punchline (1)

dollarwizard (1806856) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132382)

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.

...which brings up the question, would guys with big dicks ever become NBC reporters? Presumably they'd be too busy getting laid in high school or college to ever give a shit about studying, so they wouldn't have needed to develop their brains to get a career as a reporter. Actually, that may describe most/all of Slashdot too. :D You know, since big-dicked guys have no incentive to become nerds (since they got laid so much), does that mean nerds have small penises? :D

Re:Nice punchline (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132602)

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.

After a year of solid teasing, he lost it. (5, Insightful)

gotpoetry (1185519) | more than 4 years ago | (#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".

Re:After a year of solid teasing, he lost it. (5, Insightful)

Joe U (443617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132100)

A full year?

Ok, at that point, you get to break his legs.

On a slightly more serious note, Negrin should have sued for sexual harassment. The end result would have been much more entertaining for him.

Re:After a year of solid teasing, he lost it. (3, Insightful)

nj_peeps (1780942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132150)

If he had gone to his HR dept. but he didn't, now he's the one with the charges against him.

Re:After a year of solid teasing, he lost it. (2, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132212)

If he had gone to his HR dept. but he didn't, now he's the one with the charges against him.

To parphrase a previous comment

And these are the people who are meant to be protecting us??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Re:After a year of solid teasing, he lost it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32132262)

As a juror, I would say not guilty based on these facts. That way the message is loud and clear. A little ribbing is OK, keep it up and you deserve to get decked. The point - stand up to the bullies as a man rather than as a wimp behind a lawyer.

4th Amendment (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#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:4th Amendment (2, Informative)

Tsunayoshi (789351) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132172)

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.

Re:4th Amendment (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132394)

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:4th Amendment (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132280)

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, and the other is a quick and painless “we’ll use this machine to essentially take your clothes off but you won’t feel a thing”. If I’m going to be forced to submit to an intrusive search, I want it to appear intrusive... to me, to the people around me, and to the people forced to perform that particular search.

May 7th (4, Funny)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132042)

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....

Re:May 7th (1)

corruptblitz (1486729) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132590)

I had May 7th. Where do I claim my prize?

...and by doing so... (2, Insightful)

BForrester (946915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132112)

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

Nice icon (1)

starglider29a (719559) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132142)

Why do we want to see this guy's face as the Slashdot icon?

Re:Nice icon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32132312)

Why do we want to see this guy's face as the Slashdot icon?

It's preferable to the other picture...

So full of win. (5, Interesting)

Ransak (548582) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132154)

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...

This raises an interesting question (1)

jdb2 (800046) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132160)

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

Re:This raises an interesting question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32132632)

So should guys make sure they have a full erection before going through one of the scanners?

sexual harassment (2, Insightful)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132168)

can this guy sue the tsa for sexual harassment?

Re:sexual harassment (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132270)

Probably not. Unless the guy said "small pecker huh? I LOVE those! SHOW ME!". It's about unwanted sexual advances.

Re:sexual harassment (1)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132630)

I don't believe so if your gay and you get harassed for it. Its still a type of sexual harassment just like telling the hot blonde how nice her tits look in that pink sweater.

Oh an why did this damn broswer just tell me that blonde is spelled blond. Then when I googled blond it asked me if I meant blonde and then the first link is for blond on wikipedia?

Re:sexual harassment (2, Informative)

dollarwizard (1806856) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132296)

can this guy sue the tsa for sexual harassment?

Actually it would be for a hostile work environment [google.com] .

No matter how the government/corporations oppress (3, Interesting)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Prepare for the lawsuits... Sexual Harassment 101 (2, Insightful)

hadesan (664029) | more than 4 years ago | (#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...

Sexual harassment in the workplace (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132302)

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.

You Know, ... (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132368)

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.

Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32132406)

Time to get out the tin foil hats and place them on your...head.

yes, it's true (0, Offtopic)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132586)

this man has no dick

Thank you for illustrating, TSA (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32132626)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>