How can we punish the TSA Gate Rapers?

[Kaylee]

Letters to Senators and Representatives, and petitions never hurt --

Here's an on-line petition:
http://flywithdignity.org/get-involved/petition/

Practically speaking, the most likely way to get the new procedures removed is to boycott air travel as much as you can. Obviously people like Ducky don't have a choice and you may not want to skip once in a life time events like Grandma & Grandpa's 50th wedding anniversary... but other than that boycott the airlines!

 

[apathoid]

Ugh. Just when I thought my job security was improving, leave it to the gubmint to cripple the airline industry more than an actual terrorist attack would.

Letters to Senators and Representatives, and petitions never hurt --

Here's an on-line petition:
http://flywithdignity.org/get-involved/petition/

Practically speaking, the most likely way to get the new procedures removed is to boycott air travel as much as you can. Obviously people like Ducky don't have a choice and you may not want to skip once in a life time events like Grandma & Grandpa's 50th wedding anniversary... but other than that boycott the airlines!

Not that anyone gives a damn, but none of this is the airlines fault. In fact, if you put the airlines in charge of their own security, you' probably wouldn't even know it was there and it'd likely be far more effective.

And rest assured travelers: the airlines aren't taking this lying down. On my employer's intranet home page today, there was a news story about our CEO up in DC pleading with lawmakers trying to get this idiocy stopped. He wasn't alone. They've already been successful relaxing the process for pilots, and flight attendants will follow soon. So the DHS and TSA are already listening to criticism and changing the policy. Hopefully this will pass soon.

 

[apathoid]

Its called to your research first or pay the fine. Options abound.

Nonsense. Lets assume that there is no warning of a 10,000 dollar fine and civil lawsuit when you purchase your airline ticket**. Lets further assume that for whatever reason, you are averse to both a pat-down and a body scan for either yourself or a loved one. You opt to leave the security area and drive to your destination. On what possible legal grounds can the TSA fine you? All you did was:

- buy a airline ticket(with no fine print about agreeing to a body search or suffering legal consequences)
- go to the airport(and not at any time enter the sterile zone without proper screeing)

Where's the offense? You are doing nothing wrong! They are forcing you to submit to the screening because they know that simply refusing it creates a serious security loophole. The only non-moronic thing to do is make the enhanced screening mandatory for all passengers, thus eliminating the loophole and the need for the ridiculous fine. But that's not an option as it would create gridlock, so apparently the best option is to half-ass the whole thing and threaten a hefty fine for standing up for yourself.


** I don't know that this is the case for revenue airline travel, but I do know this is the case for non-revenue airline travel, having just reviewed my company's non-rev travel agreement and creating a flight listing(non-rev version of buying a ticket). No warnings whatsoever.

 

[JihadJane]

Demand Destruction.

Declining global oil production will make flying the preserve of the rich anyway so we might as well get used to it! If the oil supply cannot be increased then the demand has to be reduced instead.

Making flying akin to being sexually assaulted should achieve this.

Plebs don't fly!

 

[Paranormal Inquirer]

This is the logic I don't follow. What makes this necessary? What makes an airplane any more or less dangerous than a crowded concert hall or a football game or a shopping mall?

Obviously hijacking a plane and flying it into a building creates a unique sort of danger. That can't happen again. We lock the doors now.

Any member of Al Qaeda in the United States can get some explosives and kill lots of people at just about any time. Being on a plane with 200 people is no different than being in any other crowd. Should we get body scans to attend festivals in Grant Park or go to a Cubs game?

That's why this is so much theater. We've decided to focus on airplanes, but even if we made them 100% secure, we'd still live in a dangerous world.

Scanning people on domestic flights means that we expect Al Qaeda members to be in the United States, make explosives, then try to get on a plane. If they've satisfied the first two elements, then they can just skip down to the movie theater and take out a hundred people watching the new Harry Potter flick.

I'm happy to give TSA workers a little thrill by letting them scope out my dong, but all of this is just nonsense.

What you say is logical and I agree in theory. But the simple fact of the matter is that airplanes just happen to be a favorite target by these groups.

 

[WildCat]

The scanner is optional, so I'm not seeing how an optional method of search would be unconstitutional. Do you disagree?

No, it's not. People are selected randomly from the line and made to go in the scanner instead of the metal detector. At that point their only "option" is to have their genitals groped by a stranger.

As for the invasiveness of the pat-down, you might have something there. It's not like this type of pat-down is new technology. Do you know of any cases that have addressed this? I am familiar with cases where police have the right to pat down and even handcuff people who are not suspected of a crime in order to create a safe environment for the encounter such as patting down passengers in a vehicle stop. I don't recall if checking a person's junk was involved or not.

Airline passengers are not criminal suspects.

Then there's the issue that flying is voluntary, thus the entire process can be avoided.

And leaving your house is also voluntary, does that make one subject to random searches when walking down the street?

 

[Paranormal Inquirer]

Airline passengers are not criminal suspects.

Well, neither are the people in UncaYimmy's example.

I am familiar with cases where police have the right to pat down and even handcuff people who are not suspected of a crime in order to create a safe environment for the encounter such as patting down passengers in a vehicle stop.

 

[WildCat]

Well, neither are the people in UncaYimmy's example.

That's not an example, that's just something he made up. Police don't have the right to handcuff and search you without cause.

 

[mhaze]

One clarification, the 10k number for the fine is wrong it is 11k. And it is a tsa administrative court not a county or federal court. There is no jury just a panel of judges. And the proceedings are not likely to be held in your home town.

Those things drag on for years and are not regular court procedure with rules for evidence depositions and due process.

 

[Paranormal Inquirer]

Really? You don't think the press would have gotten wind of it?

Not the ACLU, but....

 

[WildCat]

Not the ACLU, but....

EPIC filed one in July: http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_of_body.html

 

[mhaze]

Not the ACLU, but....

From boardingarea.com here is a simple, clear explanation of the two court cases that result in the administrative power of the TSA today.

What this amounts to is the TSA being able to decide ON THEIR OWN what your rights are. There is no review and no checks and balances. What they think is a "reasonable search" is what they will do. What you think doesn't matter.

When the government decides what your rights are, you have no rights except those which they give. That's the exact opposite of the intent and wording of the Bill of Rights.

Side note, amusing: I note from the TSA contract specifications that the porno-scanners have to run on "a standard operating system', namely windows XPe.

So much for security.

 

[Drewbot]

Cars could be made safer, however, the costs of those modifications to the consumer, have prevented many of those changes from being made.

Another point I'd like to make: If terrorists are really wanting to blow something up, and they know they have little chance of making it onto a plane, why haven't they gone after a less secure target?

Once that happens, will we then require all those entering a College football game to be scanned and/or patted down?

How about a good old fashioned threat? If we get bombed, we are going to blow up Tehran.

 

[rwguinn]

No, it's not. People are selected randomly from the line and made to go in the scanner instead of the metal detector. At that point their only "option" is to have their genitals groped by a stranger.

waittadamnminute!
According to the TSA guy on Channel 5, DFW, last night, the additional measures are only triggered if you blow it on the metal detector or luggage x-ray...
Somebody's lying.

Airline passengers are not criminal suspects.

Apparently they are...

And leaving your house is also voluntary, does that make one subject to random searches when walking down the street?

 

[TraneWreck]

Really? You don't think the press would have gotten wind of it?

http://www.indyposted.com/128847/arkansas-man-files-lawsuit-against-tsa-use-of-full-body-scanners/

http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/21690?c=airport_aviation_security

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...ecurity To Face Legal Challenge&channel=busav

The more serious legal challenges are likely being prepared right now.

One thing you can count on in America is that someone WILL file a lawsuit every time the opportunity presents itself...and also when it doesn't.

 

[twinstead]

The only people really suffering from the War on Terror are those who have sacrificed their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers. Personally, compared to what they have gone through, if the only sacrifice I am required to endure is to allow a scanner operator to see my junk then so be it.

 

[Kaylee]

Letters to Senators and Representatives, and petitions never hurt --

Here's an on-line petition:
http://flywithdignity.org/get-involved/petition/

Practically speaking, the most likely way to get the new procedures removed is to boycott air travel as much as you can. Obviously people like Ducky don't have a choice and you may not want to skip once in a life time events like Grandma & Grandpa's 50th wedding anniversary... but other than that boycott the airlines!

Ugh. Just when I thought my job security was improving, leave it to the gubmint to cripple the airline industry more than an actual terrorist attack would.

Yep. Well put.

Not that anyone gives a damn, but none of this is the airlines fault.

Yes, and perhaps the agencies that run American airports don't share the blame either, or at least not as much as the TSA.

In fact, if you put the airlines in charge of their own security, you' probably wouldn't even know it was there and it'd likely be far more effective.

That I doubt. IIRC, years back, weren't the airline carriers the ones that originally lobbied heavily against airplanes being required to have a secure cockpit door because it would increase manufacturing costs, and the additional weight would increase fuel costs?

And rest assured travelers: the airlines aren't taking this lying down. On my employer's intranet home page today, there was a news story about our CEO up in DC pleading with lawmakers trying to get this idiocy stopped. He wasn't alone. They've already been successful relaxing the process for pilots, and flight attendants will follow soon. So the DHS and TSA are already listening to criticism and changing the policy. Hopefully this will pass soon.

Interesting. I thought the pilots unions were taking credit for that one?

Anyway, I do know that the airline industry is on board lobbying against this the new procedures. But I think the driving force is their fear of reduced income.

Like fuelair said --- sometimes you can't reach the people who make the rules directly -- you have to make other people's lives miserable instead. There is so much money involved and lobbyists have their hands gripped so firmly on the nation''s pursestrings that unfortunately I don't think that letters and petitions to our senators and representatives will make a difference without any other action taken by consumers.

Tell you what, give us an effective way (that does not involve heavy use of guns and explosives) to get to the guys at the top without making life miserable for those at the bottom firstand it might get tried.

The people who have to get smart and make the change aren't the low paid unqualified persons at the bottom, but they are reachable. The system likes to work that way.

 

[I Ratant]

Declining global oil production will make flying the preserve of the rich anyway so we might as well get used to it! If the oil supply cannot be increased then the demand has to be reduced instead.

Making flying akin to being sexually assaulted should achieve this.

Plebs don't fly!

.
Boeing plans to sell 3,600 airplanes to China alone in the future.
I don't fly anywhere anymore.
No need or desire, or money.

 

[I Ratant]

No, it's not. People are selected randomly from the line and made to go in the scanner instead of the metal detector. At that point their only "option" is to have their genitals groped by a stranger.


Airline passengers are not criminal suspects.


And leaving your house is also voluntary, does that make one subject to random searches when walking down the street?

.
Depends on the street and the paranoia of the Neighborhood Watch.

 

[I Ratant]

That's not an example, that's just something he made up. Police don't have the right to handcuff and search you without cause.

.
They handcuff the noisy bystanders and place them in the cruiser during incidents, just to shut the noisy people up.