$10K fine for not going through TSA screening?

dirtywick said:
It was a joke. Won't make those anymore.
Click to expand...
Please don't stop on my account. As someone who also doesn't use smilies, I've accepted that sometimes there will be people who just don't get it, and that's funny too. Sorry I missed this one.
 
Travis said:
This is such a wildly different situation that it's ludicrous.

Do you really think the only people that should go through any security to get on a plane are those that have been fingered by the FBI as a potential terrorist?



Except things are different when you are not in your home. Is a DUI checkpoint legal? I mean what's the difference between that and just pulling over everyone all the time and giving them sobriety tests? :rolleyes:



Those phrases are not appropriate for what's going on unless you think your doctor is "sexually molesting" you to when you get checked for testicular cancer.



Why did you use the phrase "grope?"

I'm beginning to see a pattern here to this irrational resistance.



Well, they apparently shouldn't. The types of pat downs they give in airports now are identical to what I have go through every time I go to court.

And yes, describing this as assault is wrong. Unless you think I should accuse the cops that pat me down in court of "assault" too.



You don't get it. It's not like the person doing it is enjoying it. They are professionals who do it as their job in the same way that a doctor checking your breasts for lumps is doing their job.



Because here the constitution doesn't apply. Don't try to fly and this "assault" doesn't happen....unless you get checked for breast cancer.



How is this coerced?



Oh come on, I was having fun with your "juicing the piglet" thing.



Well then why have any security at all? If there's no threat then what is the point?



Nobodies freedom has been limited by this. If you choose to not fly because you are insane and think a perfectly legitimate pat down is a "grope" or a, lol, "sexual assault" then you are limiting your own freedom.



This is already done. That's why we have building codes for dams and skyscrapers. That's why we have an FDA and EPA.



Do you have several hundred people locked up in a pressurized can at 40,000 feet in any of those scenarios?



And you were not forced to go to an airport and try and fly on an airliner.



It's limiting your ease of travel but the government has no obligation to allow you on flying death machines.



Actually no. Your ability to travel via the convenience of a car was impinged but not your ability to "travel." That said outlawing cars is not going to happen. Cars, unlike airplanes, are not uniquely dangerous in a catastrophic way.



And blowing up a plane with plastic explosives strapped to your crotch does not?



You really think that the security the private airlines would provide would be better? Wow. That's wishful thinking.



I'm all for that so long as it doesn't put anybody else's life in danger.



So when somebody does blow up a bunch of planes you won't make a fuss out of how there were no security precautions to prevent it?



Oh it's coercion. To not show up with bombs strapped to your body.



That's technically true. You have given up some of your rights when you do that.



It is still a choice in the same way your company could have given you the choice to crawl through two miles of muck to get your job. You didn't have to do it but you did if you wanted your job.



Why are we continuing to read sex into this?



What is with the condescension?

I'm beginning to get the picture here that people just don't like the TSA and think their employees are a bunch of perverted lowlifes.

If all this is just because of your prejudices please just come out and say so.
Click to expand...

In all your focus on style you missed responding to the substance: what is the benefit of these procedures?

You really need to stop juicing the piglet and get back on topic.
 
What part of
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
do you people not understand?
 
rwguinn said:
What part of
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
do you people not understand?
Click to expand...
I don't understand why everybody who's raising a ruckus now didn't raise a ruckus when they were required to walk through a metal detector. That's a search of your person, just as standing before a scanner is.

"Empty my pockets into a TRAY???!!! Show me your warrant, Jack Boot!!!"
 
bokonon said:
I don't understand why everybody who's raising a ruckus now didn't raise a ruckus when they were required to walk through a metal detector. That's a search of your person, just as standing before a scanner is.

"Empty my pockets into a TRAY???!!! Show me your warrant, Jack Boot!!!"
Click to expand...

A metal detector is not invasive. Having a stranger view or touch my body is.

Pause for a second, think of how many imaginative ways you could smuggle plastic explosives onto an airplane. It's almost too easy. The x-ray scanners and the "enhanced" pat downs don't address this. What they really need are better ways to detect trace residue of explosives on the skin - wands, sniffer and dogs.

If they're going to use offensive and invasive techniques, at the very least it should be something that guarantees safety. For example, having a dog stick it's nose in my crouch wouldn't be the best way to start a holiday but at least I'd know the dog would have a good chance of identifying someone who had explosives inside them. Plus the dog would have had more hours of training than a TSA agent.
 
WildCat said:
That's not how it works any more. You don't get the metal detector if you refuse the backscatter machine, you get the new enhanced pat-down, where they grope your genitals.

I see a real backlash coming from this new rule, you get the choice of a virtual strip search or to be groped by a stranger. Neither of which will make us any safer.
Click to expand...

This is my understanding, too. And I agree 100% that this does not make you any safer when you fly than you were before. I would imagine that if a terrorist really wanted to bring down a plane with an explosive, he would secret the explosive IN his body.

And from what I understand that this would not have stopped the attempted underwear bomber or the shoe bomber, nor the 9/11 hijackers (I believe they think they brought the box cutters along in their carry-ons).

What, exactly, is this buying us?

TraneWreck said:
Well, there goes my plan for smuggling explosives in my scrotum.
Click to expand...

Now you're just bragging...or are you speaking of nano-thermite?

Soapy Sam said:
I think he could be prosecuted in the UK for using a camera in the security area.

Apart from this, it's hard to see what he did wrong. He refused the xray and the pat-down, but offered to follow the same procedure as 80% of other passengers.
Refused permission to do so and refused permission to board the flight, he left the security area and attempted to get a refund and go home.
Up to there, the whole affair seems straightforward, if a bit silly on both sides.

After that, it gets extremely silly on the security side. He was leaving the airport. Assuming he had no checked baggage, it's hard to see what further interest airport security had in him.

I've only seen one of these xray gadgets. In Moscow. I went through it, because
a) I really don't care who sees my underwear.
b)I don't speak enough Russian to start an argument with Russian police.

If he really feels this strongly about it, I applaud his stand on principle, but hope next time I'm in line the 238 people ahead of me don't take the same approach.
Click to expand...

It's not the underwear they see. In any event, I don't want them seeing or touching me like any of that.

Nor will they do that to my 10-year old daughter.

fuelair said:
This needs to happen more and more - and people who do not HAVE to fly need to stop doing so and tell the arlines why. They have gone way overboard and wasted billions on all this silliness plus making a group of poorly trained incompetants (for this work) into little (and I'll take the Godwin hit with pleasure) nazis.
I have not flown since before 9-11 - no fear of flying (love it) but I am not going to tolerate the stupidity involved in taking a flight in the US.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I have no option other than to fly for business purposes. Though, I confess that I have not had to do either of these things, yet. Though a colleague going on a trip a few weeks ago had to go through the back-scatter machine.

WildCat said:
The new machines are not grainy at all. Maybe not even within the rules to show here...

Click to expand...

And I believe they may have even "smoothed" out the "naughty bits" on this image released to the press. But, as you say, their ain't nothing grainy about it.

Segnosaur said:
Even if its only a percentage of people getting searched, there may still be a benefit (especially in cases where a plot involves multiple hijackers).

For example, consider United 93 on 9/11. There were 4 hijackers and 37 passengers. Lets say (for example) they plan to do an advanced screening on 10% of the passengers so 4 people get an x-ray/pat down. Even though only a small fraction have gotten the advanced screening, the chance of catching at least one hijacker is around 50%.

Of course, this is making the assumption that such advanced security measures actually work. Other people have pointed out that there are many measures to get around things like the x-ray machines.
Click to expand...

Yet, I don't think the hijackers carried the cutters on their person and even if they did, the x-ray should pick it up. I agree that our security failed us on 9/11, but not because they were inadequate, but rather those providing them were negligent.

And I have run into some pretty miserable and surly TSA guys, I don't want them groping me on top of it.
 
bookitty said:
What they really need are better ways to detect trace residue of explosives on the skin - wands, sniffer and dogs
Click to expand...

When they pat you down, they use gloves, and they put the gloves in a device that scans them for residue of explosives.
 
nchammer326 said:
When they pat you down, they use gloves, and they put the gloves in a device that scans them for residue of explosives.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I didn't know that. It would be interesting to know how sensitive the scan is, how much residue needs to be present on clothing, or how it compares to dogs.

What type of scan for explosives does the backscatter machine offer?
 
Skeptic Guy said:
This is my understanding, too. And I agree 100% that this does not make you any safer when you fly than you were before. I would imagine that if a terrorist really wanted to bring down a plane with an explosive, he would secret the explosive IN his body.

And from what I understand that this would not have stopped the attempted underwear bomber or the shoe bomber, nor the 9/11 hijackers (I believe they think they brought the box cutters along in their carry-ons).

What, exactly, is this buying us?



Now you're just bragging...or are you speaking of nano-thermite?



It's not the underwear they see. In any event, I don't want them seeing or touching me like any of that.

Nor will they do that to my 10-year old daughter.



Unfortunately, I have no option other than to fly for business purposes. Though, I confess that I have not had to do either of these things, yet. Though a colleague going on a trip a few weeks ago had to go through the back-scatter machine.



And I believe they may have even "smoothed" out the "naughty bits" on this image released to the press. But, as you say, their ain't nothing grainy about it.



.
Click to expand...

How soon til we see scanned images on the internet?
 
bookitty said:
Interesting, I didn't know that. It would be interesting to know how sensitive the scan is, how much residue needs to be present on clothing, or how it compares to dogs.

What type of scan for explosives does the backscatter machine offer?
Click to expand...

And what about detecting radioactive materials? Cancer patients have been known to set off alarms, if they've been receiving certain kinds of radiation treatment.

Heck, lots of medical stuff will cause a ruckus. Don't they still use nitroglycerine pills for heart patients?
 
bokonon said:
I don't understand why everybody who's raising a ruckus now didn't raise a ruckus when they were required to walk through a metal detector. That's a search of your person, just as standing before a scanner is.

"Empty my pockets into a TRAY???!!! Show me your warrant, Jack Boot!!!"
Click to expand...

Except metal detectors only determine if you have metal on your person. The law states you're not allowed to have most metal objects on a plane. They then determine if you're carrying metal and nothing else. It's a very narrow test and one that has been upheld in the courts as reasonable.

The idea that if you don't like losing your rights you can just use separate transportation is quickly becoming common in all mass transportation. Bus and rail, ferrys, cars (at airports, going into neighborhoods), etc etc.

Those can all be justified by a narrow and "special interest" in mass safety. But after 9 years and only two attempts that probably wouldn't have even brought a plane down if successful, it's time to call it quits on privacy violations.
 
If I say I don't want patted down, but I'm willing to strip off right there... will I get a medal for cooperating, or a jail sentence for being nekkid in an airport and carrying a concealed weapon of mass seduction?
 
MikeMangum said:
It's going to be real fun to travel when TSA decides that a body cavity search is a requirement to board an airplane.
Click to expand...

Seems only a matter of time. Only takes one nutcase to smuggle and explosive in, and they'll have to do that. Or take full X-Rays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom