• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I have no reference why TSA policies are wrong

MG1962 said:
I have to say I find both processes intrusive. However for the life of me I can not think of a better way to do it. When I do thats when I will start complaining
Click to expand...

Why do it? Massive assault on the public for insignificant gain in "safety". Air travel by itself is a greater risk which people accept.
 
Thunder said:
wow. you know folks, when we significantly alter our way of life, out of fear of terrorists, the terrorists win.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

It may mean that everybody loses (both us and the terrorists) but I'm pretty sure that when Osama declared his Jihad he wasn't planning on calling "Mission accomplished" when and if airport screening got a bit more intrusive.
 
The TSA is a joke. All these measures they have taken to inconvenience everyone are reactive. Shoe bomber...better have everyone take off their shoes. Liquid bomb attempt...better restrict liquid containers. Underwear bomber...better grope everyone and take nude pics. What is next? Is everyone going to have to sit down on the rectal scanner like in some prisons? There are only a few more things they can try before wannabe terrorists will be surgically implanting bombs inside themselves. Then what? We will need to stop anyone that has had surgery recently and do some extra probing around? Can anyone point to what the TSA is doing proactively? What measures have they taken that are meant to thwart new and yet untried tactics? Or are they always going to be one step behind the terrorists? Only by luck was the underwear bomber unsuccessful. I have little confidence that the TSA can stop a terrorist with a brain and a unique idea for how to kill people.
 
NYCEMT86 said:
This.


Plus, I am quite sure most of these people were angry that the US Gov didn't do enough to prevent 9/11, Richard Reid, or Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. It's only a good idea until it's an inconvenience to them.
Click to expand...
If it helps - I have not flown since befor 9/11. Anybody who knows squat about security knows this method won't have any major effect on overall safety - at best (assuming all those caught actually could have brought a plane down) we have prevented five planes (or four - I forget) from being blown up - or, much more likely based on the tools found, slightly damaged. And, the cost for that in wasted time, payments to poorly trained security(a Laugh) people and unncessary equipment etc. way greater than any savings by having it. I am angry the US did not do more to prevent it by reacting at one specific time to one specific set of threats that had a trail to the Philipines (or related IIRC) for ca. 5 years previous and was already known to US security - but that is simple stupidity with a clown at the wheel at the time. Not a reason for the crap going on now. So, unlike you, I understand perfectly why people are royally P.O.ed about this foolishness. Fortunately, I don't fly - until they take security back to a reasonable level - or let people who can reasonably carry guns safely on planes do so. I am fine with either.:)
 
Last edited:
MG1962 said:
I have to say I find both processes intrusive. However for the life of me I can not think of a better way to do it. When I do thats when I will start complaining
Click to expand...

Here, here. I have flown more miles than I bear to think over the last 5 years and it is a pain. Not going to cry about it though.
 
'How can you say "only" when speaking about how many possible attempts by terrorists were stopped.

If only one was stopped it was worth it. I bet when your family is on the next plane that doesnt get stopped, you wont be saying "only" anymore.
 
I am reminded of the Simpsons episode with the rock. Anyone else remember that?

Seriously, I don't like having a doctor touch me and I never us a public shower in a gym.
 
OneShotKi11 said:
'How can you say "only" when speaking about how many possible attempts by terrorists were stopped.

If only one was stopped it was worth it. I bet when your family is on the next plane that doesnt get stopped, you wont be saying "only" anymore.
Click to expand...
Because the attempts that were stopped were stopped by passengers in flight.
 
OneShotKi11 said:
So?

Because criminals are often stopped by random civilians are police no longer needed?
Click to expand...
ahhh...

police search based on a reasonable expectation of finding something, don't they?

Take your very logic, and apply it to police and soldiers.

"if only once they find something it will all have been worth it"

You'll then discover the very reason we have prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure in the Bill of Rights. You'll also see something of the difference between a totalitarian society, one where the government dictates what rights you may have and when, and one in which the citizens have integral or "natural rights".

We've been down that road before.
 
"profiling" has become a dirty word politically, but as pointed out, I "profile" every day. I just find sufficient non-profiling reasons to stop someone....

Let's face it, terrorists are unlikely to be aged women, wheelchair-bound senior citizens, or children......
 
Policenaut said:
The TSA is a joke. All these measures they have taken to inconvenience everyone are reactive. Shoe bomber...better have everyone take off their shoes. Liquid bomb attempt...better restrict liquid containers. Underwear bomber...better grope everyone and take nude pics. What is next? Is everyone going to have to sit down on the rectal scanner like in some prisons? There are only a few more things they can try before wannabe terrorists will be surgically implanting bombs inside themselves. Then what? We will need to stop anyone that has had surgery recently and do some extra probing around? Can anyone point to what the TSA is doing proactively? What measures have they taken that are meant to thwart new and yet untried tactics? Or are they always going to be one step behind the terrorists? Only by luck was the underwear bomber unsuccessful. I have little confidence that the TSA can stop a terrorist with a brain and a unique idea for how to kill people.
Click to expand...

These are the same thoughts that I've been having. What is next? It seems that the next attempt would logically be the insertion of material inside of body cavities. If such an attempt is made and is successful, what would the response of the TSA be? Would they possibly turn up the scanners to see inside of a body? We're heading down the path of "Total Recall". (Anybody old enough to remember the Fluoroscopes they had at shoe stores in the 50's/60's? You could look at your feet inside of shoes). Or at that point would they say that there's no way to counter that threat?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Bob Blaylock 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…” do you not understand?
Click to expand...


The unreasonable part. The point of why I started this thread. I am huge proponent of the 4th amendment. Nothing here strikes me as unreasonable.
Click to expand...



If the sort of outrageous abuses to which the TSA are now subjecting travelers are not unreasonable, then the Fourth Amendment means nothing. If you defend this crap, then you most certainly are not a proponent of the Fourth Amendment.
 
I feel exactly the same as the OP. All the outrage reminds me of Peter Griffin crying rape
after a prostate exam!

Of course, treating everybody who boards a plane as a potential criminal is not reasonable, but aren't precise criteria for screening a bad idea themselves? If it's known that kids are never searched, aren't they going to be used as mules?

I think the problem is made worse by scanners. Because they enable security to search more people, more people protest the search for either health (those are dangerous, right?) or pride reasons, but then their behavior can't be ignored by the agents.

If anything, protesting the search has to raise a red flag!
 
Bob Blaylock said:
If the sort of outrageous abuses to which the TSA are now subjecting travelers are not unreasonable, then the Fourth Amendment means nothing. If you defend this crap, then you most certainly are not a proponent of the Fourth Amendment.
Click to expand...

This. If there isn't a solid argument to be made that this measures are actually making us safer against a real threat, then there's no ground to make a reasonableness argument.

If there were, then we could have a decent argument about where to draw the line, but we can't even get that far. No one can make an argument that this actually makes us safer, but I've read plenty of people making the argument that they can't think of a better way to do security, so it's all right.
 
Last edited:
quixotecoyote said:
This. If there isn't a solid argument to be made that this measures are actually making us safer against a real threat, then there's no ground to make a reasonableness argument.

If there were, then we could have a decent argument about where to draw the line, but we can't even get that far. No one can make an argument that this actually makes us safer, but I've read plenty of people making the argument that they can't think of a better way to do security, so it's all right.
Click to expand...

What you seem to be alluding to is the existence or not of a "reasonable exception" to the 4th amendment regarding airline travel.

Let's recap.

(A) Metal detectors and hand wands were not intrusive and revealing, period. Selective pat downs when the metal detector beeped or when the hand wand showed something was evidence based.

(B) Now we have new machines and new procedures which differ substantially. They are invasive of privacy - the pornoscanners. There is no "selective pat down", if you reject the pornoscan, you get the perp grope.

Clearly the TSA in moving from procedure set (A) to (B) has entered new uncharted grounds regarding the 4th amendment's application to their work.

(B) is unacceptable and solutions to (B) which do not clearly enunciate the need for compliance with the 4th amendment right are unacceptable. (eg the TSA just "backing down" informally).
 
Bob Blaylock said:
If the sort of outrageous abuses to which the TSA are now subjecting travelers are not unreasonable, then the Fourth Amendment means nothing. If you defend this crap, then you most certainly are not a proponent of the Fourth Amendment.
Click to expand...

I am realizing some of us experience procedural nudity and genital contact more than others.

I was in the navy on a fast attack submarine. When I was into running, I did a lot of showering at gyms where the shower bay was open (talking to two women today, they were shocked to learn this setup). My new athletic pursuit is grappling.

So, from my perspective, this is not unreasonable. I view it the same as a cop being able to look through a shut car window to see what is on the passenger seat. A level of visual and physical contact between strangers that is perfectly normal in everyday life.
 
I'm on the fence here, but I have to tenatively side with the OP. The horror stories notwithstanding, the TSA has always been courteous and professional with me. I've been through the (old)pat downs, wandings, toothpaste confiscations, and have had them unpack my carry-on in public before, but nothing bad enough to make me consider another mode of transportation. And if anything, I think the process is actually faster than pre-TSA. Atlanta security used to be an hour minimum, and now I routinely get through in 15 minutes or less. In other cities, I ace right through almost every single time.

However, I haven't had the privilege of taking part in the new "enhanced" screening, so I'll hold out judgment until I get a full release pat down.

I can empathize with the arguments many of you are making about the searches being unnecessary, and how the enhanced pat down can be a downright humiliating, completely unacceptable social experience - but I don't anticipate it being a problem for me, especially if given the backscatter x-ray option.
 
BobTheCoward said:
So, from my perspective, this is not unreasonable. I view it the same as a cop being able to look through a shut car window to see what is on the passenger seat. A level of visual and physical contact between strangers that is perfectly normal in everyday life.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me you'd be ok with random searches, say, in shopping malls and on city streets where people basically get frisked without the cops having any probable cause? You'd call that "reasonable"? I wouldn't.
 
apathoid said:
Are you telling me you'd be ok with random searches, say, in shopping malls and on city streets where people basically get frisked without the cops having any probable cause? You'd call that "reasonable"? I wouldn't.
Click to expand...


I guess the best term is implied consent. I would be ok with this stuff in a lot of implied consent situations.

But more backscatter xrays in my life wouldn't bother me. Same with the idea that agreeing to do something involves a pat down including contact with my genitals.


If I may hijack my own thread, I am realizing this is far more a personal thing than I expected. I never knew that people were this bodily conscious. Cat pointed out that it had nothing to do with his penis size or weight. As someone with a small penis and could lose 10 lbs, I can see that we are able to reach two different conclusions unrelated to those factors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom