Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by soxxy, Nov 16, 2010.
Lindt chocolate--I'd confiscate it too.
I'm listening and I'll reiterate a few points I'm not sure everyone gets.
1. There is NO solution that is economically feasible and will make flying safe. Can make it safer, but that's it. The solutions being implemented are not intended to be a total fix so I would ask some to stop dismissing solutions because they won't make the skies perfectly safe.
2. When I used to live in the West Indies they had a saying. Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die. That means people expect a lot but have little interest in sacrificing. I recommend that the public get off the notion that security can be improved markedly without some privacy invasion. Wave your constitution, champion your rights all you want...that's fine. But you don't get if you don't give.
3. You can always find a handful of examples of poor execution of a strategy. The media lives on this premise. Don't be too tempted to use them to dismiss a solution if the idea itself is really not a bad one.
4. Corruption will always happen. Get over it. If any of as are in a position to help our friends based on our power or contacts we do. Starbucks employees give free coffee to their friends. I've given away a few DVDs. It's human nature that runs right up to the highest levels with bigger stakes. Sure, can still be called out and challenged, but don't be so self-righteous to think that you'd be any different. I've come to realize over the years that temptation affects most of us.
So that's the game. Figure out what the public will accept in terms of a sacrifice and in exchange for improved security. All wrapped around economic realities and the bumps along the way in implementation. I don't think any solution will satisfy 100% of the public, but I agree options should regularly be put on the table that explore this balancing act of security-privacy. But for what's currently in place, I have to decide if the general direction is good for me and the general public...even if it's a little unsettling. And I'm good with it, so I'll leave y'all to this topic while I go stir the pot in others.
Peace be with you.
Yeah, I'm just not interested in sacrificing my 4th Amendment rights for the sake of elaborate kabuki theater at the airport. If this backscatter and groping stuff did somehow guarantee 100% safety every time you fly, then *maybe* I'd think about it as a somewhat fair exchange (although I'd still be extremely troubled by the long list of privacy issues already mentioned in this thread and probably would still think it's a bad idea).
But can anyone give a good explanation of how it makes flying even one tiny little bit safer? You're either safe from a terrorist attack or you're not, and as others have said, any determined terrorist with at least the intelligence of a 5th grader would have worked out how to get past the scanners/pat-downs long before either of you reach the security gate.
Except they haven't.
I've read this four times and I'm still not clear. Are you saying you are willing to be fingered by the government or not?
But that's a specious argument. That's like saying because a terrorist attack hasn't happened on 9/12, it's the safest day to fly.
Wow - way to justify being a criminal! I, for one, have never used my position at work to benefit a friend, especially in an illegal way.
So now, we have the right to succumb to a violating search in order to fly or choose not to fly. Next, we will have the right to have our personal vehicles tracked by government GPS or we don't get a driver's license. We'll have the right to leave the state only if we file certain forms and get permission, the right to get married and reproduce (only in that order, please!) as long as we fit a certain profile. We'll have the right to access only sanctioned websites, and those will be recorded and scanned by government employees.
Any other rights you want taken away, just so you have the illusion of safety?
ooooh, the slippery slope argument!
Now that you mention it. The right to bare arms is a little outdated. Stricter gun laws sound good to me.
Mandatory sleeves for all!
Not sure how this is evidence of anything. Who has tried and been caught by measures implemented by TSA? Hasn't the TSA already admitted that there's a good possibility the underwear bomber would have slipped through the new screening any way?
I don't know. I thought the reasoning behind them was that it would have caught him.
I just find it interesting that allegedly the "average fifth grader" can find all sorts of ways around these devices, and yet that doesn't seem to be happening.
Windspirit, you are right on.
Flying is too friggin expensive for me to do with any regularity, so it's not an issue I really worry about personally, but I would like to travel again someday.
I think everybody who is for this policy has an agenda. They want the TSA to take images and touch their junk. They think, for safety reasons, their junk should be imaged and touched. They have concluded that unimaged and untouched junk is unsafe.
. . . and they think this guy that does not want his junk imaged or touched is creepy
I credit you with being a law abiding citizen, and I would like you to be an example to those who are not by walking through a neighborhood after these new gun laws are passed where you are the only one that no longer knows how to get a gun
huh? These machines and groping policies have been around for what, 2 months? Maybe longer at a few airports, I don't know, but they certainly haven't been widespread until fairly recently. Give it some time and it will happen. Terrorist attacks aren't attempted and thwarted every day, after all! There was a good bit of time separating the shoebomber and the underwear bomber...
Fluorescein is right on, I can't recall the last time any terrorists were caught at airport security - have they ever? As for whether the scanners would have caught the underwear guy, there's this, at http://grendelreport.posterous.com/airport-body-scanners-may-not-have-caught-und:
Not sure where you're going with that. Or if it even pertains to what I actually said.
Maybe because the smart ones gave each other high-fives over succeeding on 9/11 and moved on to other things?
I think there are many other aspects of security that can be improved, that don't involve invasively screening EVERY passenger. Jon Stewart pointed out once on The Daily Show, how both the shoe bomber and underwear bomber paid for their one-way trips with cash, which obviously makes sense if they were planning to blow themselves up and cover their financial tracks. Maybe people who buy one-way tickets with cash would have to go through more extensive screening? Stuff like that. The TSA needs to be smarter about how they do this.
I didn't dismiss the solution. I said the gain was too small for the sacrifice. I refuse to be groped and photographed naked because it makes flying a little safer. Especially since they don't have any clear rules for it. I'm OK with a thorough pat down that does touch the crotch/breasts but groping/twisting/lifting your genitals, especially underneath the clothes and by a different gender? I don't think so. And yes, it's happening. And if I refuse, they'll threaten to sue me?
But I was perfectly fine with the security we had before the groping/scanners.
Most of the cases if not all of the bombings/etc. happened because someone hadn't done their job properly. Intelligence and common sense should be used first. Most of those people had been on the CIA/FBI lists, they had their contacts/conversations, etc. For god's sake, the father of the underwear bomber had contacted the CIA himself. But many people are still using him as an excuse to justify the new Big Brother era.
Like I said, I was happy with how the things were before. And again, like I said, I would be fine with a reasonable thorough pat down, not the degrading and violating one. Oh, and yes, unconstitutional.
As for the Constitution. It's there for a reason. If we're not going to use it, we might as well throw it all away.
I don't get this part. Are you talking about people getting off on fondling strangers or those who sell the scanners making the policies on how to use them?
I'm curious about the "all wrapped around the economic realities". You know, those scanners cost a lot of money.
So because no one has tried to blow up a plane in the time we had the scanners/pat down that means they are working so well in preventing it from happening?
No. It's more like an educated guess based on what we've seen so far. And it's been progressing very fast, too. I mentioned in one of my posts that in January this year (and probably even two months ago) no one even dreamed of TSA agents touching your private parts, let alone groping/twisting/lifting them; exposing someone's breasts and putting their hands in their underwear. Especially by someone of a different gender. Or to your underage kids. But it's happening. I posted some of the links earlier, I can find those with two different men (two unrelated incidents) who were searched by someone who put their hand in their underwear and grabbed/lifted their bare testicles/penis.
Sticking their fingers into every body cavity doesn't seem so far-fetched after all. It seems more like a logical progression. After all, why not? People can very easily hide stuff in their anus/vagina. If it makes us safer we should just deal with it, right?
I will always opt for a pat-down over the full-body scan because I have zero trust that the photos will not be saved and permanently associated with my name. At least with the pat down, once it's over, only the memories haunt you.
I had one aggressive female TSA woman search. The airport didn't have the nekkid scanners yet. She ran her hand up my legs and then ... how to put this... gave me a camel toe.
One of the videos linked in this thread had a TSA official saying they wouldn't be groping children under a certain age (9?). So what's to stop a terrorist from sneaking weapon/bomb-making material on a kid?
The TSA gives me the impression that they are very much about closing the barn door after the animals have escaped.
What does Tel Aviv do in their airport? It's supposed to be the safest in the world.
El Al (flag carrier airline of Israel) interviews all passengers (all passengers have to be at the airport THREE hours before takeoff). Racial profiling apparently plays a blatant role in the extent of security checking. They have special baggage screening techniques to test for explosives that may be triggered at low pressure. Armed marshalls on all flights. They don't mention pat-downs, but, dang, that airline is NOT messing around. But the fact is, no US carrier could afford to put these measures in place.
Thank you, WindSpirit, for explaining more eloquently than I ever could why it is shocking that so many people accept being strip-searched and photographed naked (or else receive a GGG - good governmental groping) just to fly in an airplane. Especially when the commercial cargo flying in the belly of the plane has not been checked nearly as thoroughly.
Also, El Al's employees are highly qualified and trained individuals as opposed to your run of the mill TSA worker education requirements. I remember hearing that at El Al they are all college grads, at least.
Probably not. But I'm not the one arguing (nor are you) that any moron can circumvent the process.
Is this happening with all TSA employees? Or is it some bad apples?
And sorry, I'm not going to get all upset about a weird image of me "naked" getting broadcast all over the internet. I am more concerned about the health effects than that someone might get a bit excited by an outline of my bod.
I'm not upset at the thought of some stranger seeing me naked. I'm upset about being forced to 'undress' by my government as a condition of air-travel. this is not a reasonable search (a metal detector is). buying a ticket is not probable cause.
From today's NYTimes article about the new pat-down procedures:
I certainly hope Ms. McLaren is a little unclear about the correct name for her external genitalia, otherwise she got a lot worse than a camel toe! The article concludes with a quote from Ms. McLaren (which seems supported by comments in this thread),
And in the meantime, make sure that your pockets are empty before going through the airport scanners.
Exactly. Anywhere else, it would constitute sexual assault. That's the problem I have with it. Why should the TSA be exempt from the law? Once they're allowed to do something that's normally illegal if even your spouse did it to you, that is crossing a line.
And many adults have been sexually assaulted for real before, and I don't want them to relive that every time they want to travel on a plane. Just because you're okay with being touched in the crotch doesn't mean everyone else is. Not to mention young children who have been recently taught that being touched in those areas is wrong. I mean WTF.
Not all, not yet at least. But with something most people compare to a sexual assault one incident is more than enough, don't you think?
But it's not the point anyway. The point is there are no clear rules what can or cannot be done during the pat-down. I mentioned two men who went through a pat-down where a TSA agent put their hand in their underwear. There's been another case of a woman (and I'm pretty sure there's more, that's three I know of) who went through the same experience. She complained to the TSA supervisor and on the ACLU website. The TSA responded that "their officers' first priority is safety." What does mean exactly? Can they do anything to you as long as they think it's for the safety? Maybe they already can stick their finger into your vagina when they already have their hand in your pants, and you're going to find out when they do it. And they're going to defend it it's for the safety.
Bullocks, I say. There need to be clear rules and we need to know them before they put their hand on us. And of course, I'm absolutely against them putting their hands in my pants.
I'm not asking you to get upset about anyone watching your naked image. You might as well love it, and I'm pretty sure there's going to be other people who would love having someone touching their genitals or watching their naked body. I'm just surprised that you see nothing wrong with all those things I listed, because in spite of your own preference, there's quite a few things that are wrong with the whole situation objectively. And I mentioned most, if not all of them.
And btw that bit about someone getting excited about your body? Here I'm talking about those pesky things called our rights and you're going about some possible weirdo getting excited about your body? If your students came to you with all those concerns that's what you'd say? "So what if they take a pic of your genitals or feel you up a little bit? It's for the safety, you know. Just gel with it, girl." Because you've been absolutely dismissive of any concerns I mentioned about the whole situation (and a weirdo getting their kicks off in the screening room would be my last).
Ta-da! We have a winner.
I had to go through one about three weeks ago when I flew out of Houston to NYC. They weren't really that big of news yet so I had no idea what they were. But I had to be patted down because there was one post it sheet in my back pocket that I had forgotten about. I stepped out of the scanner, walked forward and was searched. Uncomfortable!
Separate names with a comma.