backtop


Print 86 comment(s) - last by detesticle.. on May 16 at 9:56 PM


Don't make fun of TSA employee Rolando Negin's small junk, or he will beat you with a club.  (Source: MSNBC)

President Obama has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to pepper airports with the scanners, which have been shown in independent tests not to accurately detect plastic, powder, liquid weapons, or explosives.  (Source: AP)
One worker is now in jail after assaulting a co-worker who teased him about his small genitalia

Rolando Negrin, 44, had a pretty good life including a steady job with the Transportation Security Administration.  However, when he stepped into a full body scanner during a training session and it revealed him to have rather small genitalia, he quickly became the butt of his supervisor's jokes.

Filled with rage at the insults to his manhood, Negrin confronted his boss in the airport parking lot, armed with a police baton.  He struck the man on the arm and back.  A police report describes, "[Negrin] then told victim to kneel down and say 'your sorry'.  Victim stated he was in fear and complied with [Negrin]."

Surprisingly, Negrin made no attempt to flee following the attack.  He showed up at work the next day, acting as if nothing had happened.  He was promptly arrested.  He was booked into the Miami-Dade jail.  He was wearing his blue TSA shirt at the time of his arrest.

The incident raises serious questions about the full body scanners that the Obama administrationis looking to spend millions of dollars in taxpayer money to roll out at airports across the country.

Homeland Security and TSA officials, as well as the scanner manufacturers have previously claimed that the scanners blur private parts.  The incident clearly indicates that if these capabilities are present, they aren't on in at least some of the scanners -- a serious privacy concern.

Beyond the privacy concerns, there's also concern over the efficacy of the new scanners.  British experts say that the scanners are virtually useless at detecting low density substances like chemical powders or liquids, and would be unlikely to detect plastic weapons.

Despite these concerns the U.S. and British governments are charging ahead with plans to roll out the controversial devices.  It looks likely that the U.S. may soon implement a no-scan-no-fly policy, much like Britain.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Or..
By GreenEnvt on 5/7/2010 1:53:12 PM , Rating: -1
The scanner did blur it out, and the supervisor just was making a joke, even though he couldn't see the guys junk.

Not that I agree with these scanners, I'm just sayin..




RE: Or..
By acase on 5/7/2010 2:00:44 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly what I think. Evidently it was a good guess too if it pissed the guy off that much.


RE: Or..
By Smartless on 5/7/2010 2:05:37 PM , Rating: 3
You know in this modern age, you'd figure he'd sue instead of doing things the old fashioned way. In any case, so if it blurs it out, what's to stop them from molding the explosive like a guy who shoves a sock in his pants to enhance? Or wire bras that totally cheat. hehe.


RE: Or..
By jonmcc33 on 5/7/2010 2:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
I concur. I'd rather sue for sexual harassment than beat someone up and go to jail. That's big time money there. Lawyers would jump on the opportunity to dig into the pockets of a big company like TSA. Go public about it too? Ouch!


RE: Or..
By mattclary on 5/7/2010 3:08:02 PM , Rating: 5
Since he isn't female, it wouldn't be pursued.


RE: Or..
By jonmcc33 on 5/7/2010 4:06:42 PM , Rating: 1
Sexual harassment doesn't need to be female to male or male to female. It can indeed be male to male. Google it if you don't believe me. Here's one for you: http://www.newsweek.com/id/230677

Because it involved harassment of his sexual organs it is indeed sexual harassment by definition.


RE: Or..
By dragonbif on 5/7/2010 4:21:37 PM , Rating: 5
His boss is doomed. He will be fired and he will not be able to get a job anywhere else for the rest of his life. I just hope they let this guy go, his boss needed to get hit a few times.


RE: Or..
By tjr508 on 5/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Or..
By sleepeeg3 on 5/7/2010 10:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
There seem to be multiple incidences of testiculus minimus going around...


RE: Or..
By Phoque on 5/7/2010 7:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
"You know in this modern age, you'd figure he'd sue instead of doing things the old fashioned way."

While I agree with you that he should have sued or deal it in a more 'peaceful' manner, what you suggest about the average person`s wisdom is just not right. I would believe we are not much wiser than we used to be some 30000 years ago when we first appeared on the anthropological radar. Only technology and environment has changed.


RE: Or..
By Targon on 5/8/2010 9:14:53 AM , Rating: 2
Then again, some people feel they can get away with just about anything online, which is why you have all these kids trolling on forums. Sometimes, it is a good wake-up call to hear about someone getting their ass kicked for being an asshole, since it will make SOME people remember that not everyone will do things "the right way".

If people thought that trolling would bring the threat of real life violence, they might not do it. People would think twice about insulting someone if the TYPICAL reaction would be violent as well.


RE: Or..
By clovell on 5/7/2010 2:08:08 PM , Rating: 5
Regardelss, that's not something you joke about at work - particularly not with your subordinates.


RE: Or..
By TrailHound on 5/7/2010 2:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
I guess HR has a purpose after all. Pffft!


RE: Or..
By MrBlastman on 5/7/2010 2:29:26 PM , Rating: 4
Very true. Perhaps though, the supervisor was just talking dirty to him in an effort to goad his employee into giving him some of his man love.

The supervisor got what was coming to him, and it wasn't what he expected. :)


RE: Or..
By TrailHound on 5/7/2010 2:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
Mr. Supervisor will remember the receiving end of the stick before he makes another dick joke.


RE: Or..
By MrBlastman on 5/7/2010 2:40:52 PM , Rating: 5
I'd say he got the shaft. :)


RE: Or..
By daInvincibleGama on 5/8/2010 11:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
Thats's a 6.


RE: Or..
By omnicronx on 5/7/2010 2:51:45 PM , Rating: 2
He should have just given him an old fashion punch in the face, somewhere off company property.

At that point its very hard to lay charges in a he said she said situation where weapons are not involved.

Still funny though..


RE: Or..
By MrBlastman on 5/7/2010 3:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
Very good point--they don't exactly hire TSA officials based on their aptitude. He could have had a better chance at getting away with it, but, come to think of it, he might have just done it at work to send a message to everyone there possibly.

Well, the only message he sent is that despite him having a tiny prick, and not putting up with a cock of a boss, he's really going to be getting the fat shaft now that he is on the pokey with bubba.

I still say the boss deserved it. :) I hope the jury acquits... all he needs is a wookie.


RE: Or..
By omnicronx on 5/7/2010 2:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
particularly not with your subordinates.
Bingo, he should have known better, and because of the media coverage, this boss will most likely get what is coming to him again.. disciplined, suspended or perhaps even fired.


RE: Or..
By AssBall on 5/7/2010 2:03:34 PM , Rating: 5
His supervisor could have been just an ass who made jokes about him every day at work, and this was just the the last straw.


RE: Or..
By MrBlastman on 5/7/2010 2:24:31 PM , Rating: 4
What a prick.


RE: Or..
By Omega215D on 5/8/2010 12:24:39 AM , Rating: 2
How big of a prick?


RE: Or..
By albundy2 on 5/8/2010 4:32:46 AM , Rating: 1
he said ------- she thought ---- can you imagine -


RE: Or..
By Cullinaire on 5/10/2010 8:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be so hard on him, it's probably congenital.


RE: Or..
By walk2k on 5/7/2010 2:27:18 PM , Rating: 5
Incredibly expensive and virtually useless? So, business as usual for "Homeland Security".


RE: Or..
By ipay on 5/7/2010 2:33:40 PM , Rating: 5
A nice theory, but it would be better if you only commented on things you actually knew something about. Britain, where all passengers are required to show their genitals to the airport staff, has had problems with this very thing. Most notably when an Indian actor was given a copy of his fully nude scan by a woman who wanted a signature.
Blurring is done after the image is taken, the raw image could not possibly be obfuscated. Moreover, the same people who promise us they aren't just looking at our genitals, also said the machines are not capable of storing or saving images. Then, to prove that the genitals are blurred, they provided many scans with genitals blurred out. This leaves me with 2 questions - since the genitals are really the only thing you can't investigate through other means, what's the point, and if they can't store or save pictures, what are they showing us?!


RE: Or..
By MojoMan on 5/8/2010 12:37:03 AM , Rating: 2
You haven't read much on the scanners evidently. There is no blurring. Stop believing main stream media.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki