I think we need to harness some of nature's superpowers. There's got to be a bug or animal of some sort that can be trained to sniff out explosives even better than a dog....
yes please, I'd like that flight.As for those who (unlike this guy) are TRULY protesting/yelling about the invasion of privacy blah blah blah ... maybe we can have flights for those who want to not die in a sky terror episode, and those who want to whine about having their boxers, turbans, shoes, or what-not searched.
you know, I generally enjoy your posts, but you've really touched a nerve here. god knows I'm no tea-partyist, and I'm not even particularly modest, but I'm horrified as a law-abiding citizen that my government believes it has the right to undress me while I go about my lawful business.
sure, I want safety, but 100% safety is not possible. life is risky. get over it. I'm not willing to trade that much dignity for the illusion of safety. beacuse these machines don't make us safer, not when the money spent on them- (I've heard diffferent figures- but generally between $150,000 and $200,000, or ten times what a metal detector costs (oh, and by the way, Chertoff, who made to the decision to use them, invested heavily in the company that makes the machines. was he thinking safety, or ka-ching?)- the money spent on them could be better spent on screening cargo- most of which is not scanned before loaded onto a plane).
yes, bad people want to kill me for the crime of having been born American. and guess what? even if we start randomly pulling peple aside for cavity searches, and one of them will almost certainly succeed in blowing up a plane. and yet I'm more frightened of you, because you see nothing wrong with trading in my right to not be sexually assaulted so that you can pretend that you are safe.
oh, and by the way, there's no opt-out for children. so either your kid will be photographed naked (and doused with radiation in the process), or molested by a stranger. we may disagree on whether that's acceptable for an adult, but if you think it's ok to put a kid through this so, again, you can pretend that you're safe, you're sick.
one of the more interesting arguments I ever heard against torture was about what it does to the torturer. the problems were: some became terribly distraught by what their 'job' entailed. and some got to like it.Does Mr. "Don't touch my junk" really think that the TSA agents get some sort of thrill from feeling up strangers? It's their job. And it's a sucky job. They have to put their hands on hundreds of strangers a day.
if you're that frightened by the thought of terrorism, don't fly. also, don't ever leave your house. they could be anywhere.Besides, if you don/t want to be patted down, then just walk through the scanner. Or don't fly.
Not too sure how I feel about the new body scanners, but for me it is a non-issue. I have an artificial heart valve and a pace maker, so I have no choice in the matter. It is a pat down for me whether I like it or not if I want to fly.
Peace & Love, Gypsy
Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright.
If you're that frightened by the thought of "having your junk checked/touched", don't fly. Also, don't ever leave your house. Junk touchers could be anywhere.if you're that frightened by the thought of terrorism, don't fly. also, don't ever leave your house. they could be anywhere.
Again, flying is a priviledge. Not a right. Noone has to fly.
wrong. travel is a right. and I can't swim to Cambodia.
Flying is a form of transportation, not a privilege.
Or did you mean flying is becoming a privilege to those who don't mind a little groping and a loss of dignity?
Tessa and Scott: Thank you
Who said anything about "travel being a right"? We were talking about flying. You have the right to travel anywhere you want. There are boats, trains, buses, taxis, cars, horses, mules....and legs.wrong. travel is a right. and I can't swim to Cambodia.
Noone has to fly anywhere if they don't want to be searched.
Everyone has the priviledge to drive a car. But noone has the right to drive a car drunk. Innocent people get killed.
Last edited by AliasJohnDoe; 11-16-2010 at 09:35 PM.
Have any of you actually seen the images from the scanners? Because no one is being "photographed naked."
I don't enjoy being groped at the airport, either, so I use the scanner.
And I get that some people who use the scanner also get checked by hand. That also happened with the metal detector.
So some of you who don't want to use the scanner, but don't want the body search, what do you propose? Go back to the metal detectors? (I would be fine with this.) But it seems as if some of you think we should have minimal checking to get on flights. I don't agree with that. As for the "a terrorist is going to get on eventually," I agree. But I would like to make it a bit difficult for them.
The next one might not be as incompetent as the Shoe and Underwear bombers.
From CNN:While the TSA says the machines are safe, backscatter technology raises concerns among some because it uses small doses of ionizing radiation. The use of millimeter-wave technology hasn't received the same attention, and radiation experts say it poses no known health risks.
The risk of harmful radiation exposure from backscatter scans is very small, according to David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University and a professor of radiation biophysics.
But he said he is concerned about how widely the scanners will be used. .. Skin cancer would likely be the primary concern, he said. Each time the same person receives a backscatter scan, the small risk associated with the low dose of radiation is multiplied by the number of exposures. Brenner said the risk to an individual is "very small indeed" for a single scan. He said he is most concerned about frequent fliers, pilots and young people, because children are more sensitive to radiation.
I have a solution. Mandate that all TSA screeners have a degree in proctology/gynecology. Problem solved. Degrees paid for at taxpayers expense.
If you agree this kind of security isn't likely to keep terrorists at bay, is this treatment of people worth it to "make it a little bit difficult" for terrorists? If they've gotten past all the intelligence, the CIA, etc., the TSA guys are going to be the ones to catch them? My sister is a forgetful packer and routinely gets boxcutters and very sharp fiskar scissors through security. You could probably do a lot of damage with a filed/sharpened credit card. By the time a terrorist arrives at airport security they'll know exactly how to get past it and in my opinion they're probably attracted to the challenge - otherwise why not target crowded events, ferries, trains, etc. that have little to no security?
Yes, I much preferred that level of security, dubious though I am that either form of security measure really stops much. At least you can't just walk on with a gun and blow people away. But I draw the line at being effectively strip searched.So some of you who don't want to use the scanner, but don't want the body search, what do you propose? Go back to the metal detectors? (I would be fine with this.)
yes, I have:Have any of you actually seen the images from the scanners? Because no one is being "photographed naked."
cnn felt the need to blur out the groin area in its stories on the issue. I will never willingly consent to have one of these images made of me. your mileage may vary.
they still use metal detectors. and I'm fine with that.So some of you who don't want to use the scanner, but don't want the body search, what do you propose? Go back to the metal detectors? (I would be fine with this.)
neither do I. just to be clear, I want security. I just want smart security. I'm not advocating that we get rid of metal detectors. I don't believe the strip-search machine provides enough of a security upgrade to metal detectors to justify their use, or the expense.But it seems as if some of you think we should have minimal checking to get on flights. I don't agree with that.
yes. what is the best way to go about this?As for the "a terrorist is going to get on eventually," I agree. But I would like to make it a bit difficult for them.
some slightly good news, now they're saying that children under 12 will not have to submit to the pat-down. of course, children over the age of 12 are still screwed. oh, and of course, now the terrorists will just strap the bomb onto a child.
I must agree with the folks that say if you don't want to play the TSA game, find another way to travel. It is not my right to fly or to tell the airlines how to run their airline or how much to charge etc...It's the same with this damn toll booth I pay every day. I don't have to pay it; I can find another way to work. It's just faster and more convenient.
I hated flying after the whole 'take off your flip flops off and step forward' routine...and you can only have one plastic baggie or some such nonsense but if I have to fly I need to play by their rules (as silly as I may think they are) or transport myself another way.
I hope this douche enjoys his 15 minutes.
Funny, the story has been covered thoroughly today, but I haven't seen him. Maybe he's not doing interviews.I hope this douche enjoys his 15 minutes.
I don't think he was looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
Tessa and Scott: Thank you
And yes he has done interviews. From what I saw, I don't think any TSA agent would get a thrill touching his junk. Really creepy looking/talking guy.