"Don't Touch My Junk!"

[IceAlisa]

Another look at "pat downs:"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7ssGEIXRlg

Lindt chocolate--I'd confiscate it too.

[ryanbfan]

entire post

THANK YOU!!!

[Rock2]

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.

[zippy]

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.

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.

[PrincessLeppard]

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.

[marbri]

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.

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?

[hydro]

Except they haven't.

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.

[Schmeck]

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.

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?

[PrincessLeppard]

ooooh, the slippery slope argument!

[AliasJohnDoe]

Any other rights you want taken away, just so you have the illusion of safety?

Now that you mention it. The right to bare arms is a little outdated. Stricter gun laws sound good to me.

[jamesy]

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!

[fluorescein]

Except they haven't.

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?

[PrincessLeppard]

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.

[Hannahclear]

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.

[bardtoob]

I think he was looking for his 15 mins of fame. I believe he had an agenda before he even went to the airport. Oh, and he just happened to tape the whole thing from the start. Then he illegally left the airport terminal(which he may also be slapped with an $11k fine), and ran home and posted it on youtube to prove his agenda.

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.

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

Now that you mention it. The right to bare arms is a little outdated. Stricter gun laws sound good to me.

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

[zippy]

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.

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/a...ve-caught-und:

While officials said [the scanners] performed as well as physical pat downs in operational tests, it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident," the Government Accountability Office, Congress's audit arm, said Wednesday in written testimony to the House Homeland Security Committee.

[AliasJohnDoe]

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

Not sure where you're going with that. Or if it even pertains to what I actually said.

[Anita18]

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.

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.

[WindSpirit]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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'm curious about the "all wrapped around the economic realities". You know, those scanners cost a lot of money.

[WindSpirit]

Except they haven't.

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?

ooooh, the slippery slope argument!

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?