$10K fine for not going through TSA screening?

Travis said:
It's becoming quite clear that no one is being rational. The pat downs only happen if you refuse the scanner and there is no rational reason to refuse the scanner. And why does everyone keep disparaging the poor TSA people? Seriously people.
Click to expand...

You're right, no one is being rational. No rational reason to refuse the scanner, but no rational reason for there to be scanners in the first place. Unless you're worried about another 9/11 style attack (which is irrational for the reasons I've mentioned) a plane is no more attractive a target than a crowded restaurant, rock concert, or amusement park line. Oh, and you can get much bigger bombs into those places.

So them going out of business after hundreds if not thousands of people are dead is alright.
Click to expand...

Emotional appeal. What about the hundreds of lives Disney World is going to be "risking" tomorrow by not having backscatter machines? WHY is everyone only worried about PLANES? Either this is irrational security theater based on latent 9/11 emotions or we're not NEARLY worried enough about terrorists hitting the other 99+% of the country.
 
Last edited:
Emperor_Gestahl said:
a plane is no more attractive a target than a crowded restaurant, rock concert, or amusement park line. Oh, and you can get much bigger bombs into those places.
Click to expand...

No, it is all about bang for buck, isn't it? Experience in the Middle East has shown us that a decent sized suicide bomb can kill at most about a few dozen people. A 757 carries more than 200 people - get a successful bomb on that and you will kill everyone, plus whoever happens to be on the ground when the wreckage arrives.

Plus, you get a really good reaction from the public if you can bring it down, and you get brilliant press coverage.

Aircraft have been the holy grail for terrorists for decades for a reason.
 
richardm said:
No, it is all about bang for buck, isn't it? Experience in the Middle East has shown us that a decent sized suicide bomb can kill at most about a few dozen people. A 757 carries more than 200 people - get a successful bomb on that and you will kill everyone, plus whoever happens to be on the ground when the wreckage arrives.

Plus, you get a really good reaction from the public if you can bring it down, and you get brilliant press coverage.
Click to expand...

Plus, you reduce future air travel which, if large enough, can start to impact the economy. On the other hand, bombing a few shopping malls the week before Thanksgiving could also make a pretty big hit on retail sales and thus impact the economy.
 
Travis said:
It's becoming quite clear that no one is being rational. The pat downs only happen if you refuse the scanner and there is no rational reason to refuse the scanner.
Click to expand...
It's not rational to refuse what amounts to a strip search? :boggled:
 
An ABC News employee said she was subject to a "demeaning" search at Newark Liberty International Airport Sunday morning.

"The woman who checked me reached her hands inside my underwear and felt her way around," she said. "It was basically worse than going to the gynecologist. It was embarrassing. It was demeaning. It was inappropriate."

...Thomas Sawyer, a bladder cancer survivor, said he was humiliated after a pat down broke his urostomy bag, leaving the 61-year-old covered in his own urine. Sawyer said he warned the TSA officials twice the pat down could break the seal.

"I was so embarrassed and so petrified of going out into the airport and people would see me and quote unquote smell me," Sawyer said. "My underwear had dropped to the floor and I'm standing there in front of them with my underwear and had to ask to pull it up."

Cathy Bossi, a long-time flight attendant and breast cancer survivor said the TSA made her take off her prosthetic breast.

"She put her full hand on my breast and said 'What is this?' I said 'It's a prosthesis because I've had a breast cancer,'" Bossi said. "And she said, 'You'll need to show me that.'"
Click to expand...
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/tsa-re...ges-underwear-search-happen/story?id=12208932

I can't believe people are defending this crap.
 
One other thing about the nude scanners. I don't remember where I read it, but one official attempting to dismiss the cancer risk of the scanners said there was only a 1 in 30 million chance of getting cancer from a single scan. But there's ~670 million air travelers in the US every year, which means that we can expect over 20 cases of cancer from these machines every year.
 
my concern with the scanners is the radiation.

the images are erased after 30 seconds, and I really feel bad for the TSA agents who have to look at the ugly bodies of fat and disgusting Americans. i doubt they get any kicks out of such duties.
 
WildCat said:
It's not rational to refuse what amounts to a strip search? :boggled:
Click to expand...

Well the case could be made that dignity itself is irrational for what amounts to upright monkeys. Rational or not I'd say it's very normal not to want to be strip searched, cavity searched, what have you.. But a lot of what we place value on and concern ourselves with isn't strictly "rational".
 
WildCat said:
One other thing about the nude scanners. I don't remember where I read it, but one official attempting to dismiss the cancer risk of the scanners said there was only a 1 in 30 million chance of getting cancer from a single scan. But there's ~670 million air travelers in the US every year, which means that we can expect over 20 cases of cancer from these machines every year.
Click to expand...

I would think 30 million scans would probably give you cancer. :D
 
Emperor_Gestahl said:
Well the case could be made that dignity itself is irrational for what amounts to upright monkeys. Rational or not I'd say it's very normal not to want to be strip searched, cavity searched, what have you.. But a lot of what we place value on and concern ourselves with isn't strictly "rational".
Click to expand...
I had this discussion with a friend of mine last week. I challenged him to go outside naked, perhaps ring a few doorbells, to prove his point.

He mumbled something about how it was too cold and changed the subject... :p
 
tsig said:
I mean the ones the agents are taking every day.
Click to expand...

There are only examples out there, at least as far as I have been able to find. The only ones I have seen that were not "examples" were of the less detailed variety, the millimeter wave machine. However, I believe it's just a matter of time.

bokonon said:
They keep certain kinds of weapons off of planes. They make certain kinds of people hesitate to attempt to board planes carrying weapons.

(SNIP)
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to support that claim? What specific weapons will the back-scatter/enhanced pat down prevent from getting on board a plane?

And what kind of people would now hesitate boarding a plane with a weapon.

I can think of at least one way to sneak on a plane with a weapon.


Ocelot said:
Like these ones

http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans

Courthouse, not airport but still....
Click to expand...

While this does demonstrate a willingness of those in a security role to leak images, this is not the same kind of technology as what is being discussed here. The new back-scatter technology is much more detailed and more dangerous to those being imaged.

Instead of jumping through hoops to address every security threat the terrorists come up with, we need to make our security procedures smarter. We just keep adding on steps every time they come up with something new.
 
richardm said:
But I've been assured on this thread that the pictures are embarrasingly clear and not at all grainy.
Click to expand...
Those are from 8 years ago and a previous generation of machine. Here's what the new ones look like:
backscatter-xray-scan.jpg
 
nescafe said:
More TSA fun here:
Pistol and assault rifles AOK, but nail clippers are a Menace to Safe Skies.

Because, you know how crazy those troops coming home can get...
Click to expand...

I call BS. RedState is unreliable, the source is anonymous, and the guy argues it's legit saying that "you can't make this up!" (you can) and that he knows the guy.

Aside from that, the whole "nail clippers aren't allowed on airplanes" thing is bogus:

http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/01/lighters-nail-clippers-and-lithium.html
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm
 
WildCat said:
Those are from 8 years ago and a previous generation of machine. Here's what the new ones look like:
Click to expand...

Sure, and whenever these machines are discussed, it is invariably that very image - taken as a demonstration image to be released - that is used as an example. I've not seen any leaked photographs from them. The old images were so poor as to be useless; it seems that the newer machines are much improved so perhaps the image security is also improved.

I do accept the point that the grainy images linked above might demonstrate a willingness for operators to distribute them, and if the machines become totally commonplace then perhaps the restrictions on having cameras around them may become more lax.

Perhaps the best solution would be to turn the scanners off but not tell anyone that they're not working. Keep 'em on the same principle as lie detectors. No leaks of pictures guaranteed and probably about the same level of protection for the passengers. And no junk feeling required (unless you particularly want it I guess).
 
Maybe it's the color, but that picture always makes me think of the robots in that Will Smith movie.

I don't get the point of it, thought--wouldn't the gun have been found in a regular metal detector anyway? Outside of the movies, who actually has metal-free ceramic or plastic space age spy guns?
 
richardm said:
Perhaps the best solution would be to turn the scanners off but not tell anyone that they're not working. Keep 'em on the same principle as lie detectors. No leaks of pictures guaranteed and probably about the same level of protection for the passengers. And no junk feeling required (unless you particularly want it I guess).
Click to expand...

You know those black domes in the ceilings of stores, that are supposed to have security cameras behind them? I worked in four different stores in my youth, and all four had those domes. Not a one of them had a single camera, though. It's cheaper to just make customers think they are being watched than to actually watch them.

And some of those "alarm" tags on clothing are dummies, too, but that's less common because that tech is much cheaper than installing working cameras.
 
Skeptic Guy said:
While this does demonstrate a willingness of those in a security role to leak images, this is not the same kind of technology as what is being discussed here. The new back-scatter technology is much more detailed and more dangerous to those being imaged.
Click to expand...

Yes back scatter uses ionising radiation and so is more of a health concern. Also these pictures do look rather indistinct. Though I wasn't trying to dismiss worries by showing how bad these particular images are. My concern is the assurances given that the images are erased. Whether millimeter wave or backscatter technology is used, the weak link here is the operator who chooses to save images and the administration which allows that capability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom