• 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

Ziggurat said:
Are you really sure that's the standard you want to adopt? Because that hasn't been the case in the past, and the consequences for such a shift will go far beyond just air travel. Think carefully before answering, but I really would like to hear your answer.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what defines where the lines are drawn? Where the majority defines what is reasonable and unreasonable? Isn't that why our country went from slavery to the civil rights movement?
 
Last edited:
Macgyver1968 said:
Why not use dogs? They could smell both bombs and drugs without any scans or groping...and would be orders of magnitude cheaper than multi-million dollar scanners, and probably more effective, as they could detect residue.

Just park a dog next to the metal detector, and you can passively scan everyone quickly...not just a few selected individuals.
Click to expand...

I too am curious about this. Does anyone know the reason for not utilizing them?

I started out agreeing with the OP, but now I have doubts since reading the criticisms regarding the effectiveness of the procedure. The actual groping isn't the issue, I'll gladly 'take one for the team' if it was somehow proved effective in saving lives.

BTW, exactly how long does their hand rest on the naughty bits during one of these pat downs? One, two seconds? Is it really that traumatizing given the context? Obviously, I can't speak for everyone, just sayin'.
 
ugot2bekidding said:
I started out agreeing with the OP, but now I have doubts since reading the criticisms regarding the effectiveness of the procedure.
Click to expand...



Yes this seems like a BIT of a failure. It's no bomb obviously but any nutcase could kill someone with it easily.

Also we are still only talking about airports. What happens when a terrorist gets a bomb on the subway or train? The security on those are both very lax. Are we to assume the pic & grope is in the pipeline for other modes of travel? How far are we going to take this "in the name of security"? I think people who see nothing wrong with this are part of the problem. You give up freedom, privacy, and dignity for a little bit of security? Those all trump security to me. If there is another attack lets lay the blame first on the terrorist and second on the intelligence field who usually have all the pieces handed to them but fail to put the puzzle together time and time again.
 
Wikipeia indicates that tsp has 45,000 screeners earning 25 to 35k, and that they miss 70 % of simulated bomb parts. Private company screeners using the TSA procedures miss 20%.

Those apply to the old screening procedures, not the "new improved ones".

So the government agency thinks it can spend 4B on porno-scanners, piss off a huge part of the population with unconstitutional, annoying and objectionable handling, then inch their quality in production up? How much?

How much closer to the standard already set by private industry without porno scanners?
 
Last edited:
Policenaut said:


Yes this seems like a BIT of a failure. It's no bomb obviously but any nutcase could kill someone with it easily.

Also we are still only talking about airports. What happens when a terrorist gets a bomb on the subway or train? The security on those are both very lax. Are we to assume the pic & grope is in the pipeline for other modes of travel? How far are we going to take this "in the name of security"? I think people who see nothing wrong with this are part of the problem. You give up freedom, privacy, and dignity for a little bit of security? Those all trump security to me. If there is another attack lets lay the blame first on the terrorist and second on the intelligence field who usually have all the pieces handed to them but fail to put the puzzle together time and time again.
Click to expand...


In my defense, I don't see it as a sacrifice of freedom, privacy, or dignity. You could come over, we could take a public shower together, and engage in non-sexual activity where you touch my junk and would never be bothered by it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
In my defense, I don't see it as a sacrifice of freedom, privacy, or dignity. You could come over, we could take a public shower together, and engage in non-sexual activity where you touch my junk and would never be bothered by it.
Click to expand...
You and Sen. Craig...
 
BobTheCoward said:
In my defense, I don't see it as a sacrifice of freedom, privacy, or dignity. You could come over, we could take a public shower together, and engage in non-sexual activity where you touch my junk and would never be bothered by it.
Click to expand...

Uhhh.....

That I think is missing the central point. First it's about whether we recognize that others would find such things to be a sacrifice of freedom, privacy and dignity, and that they have a constitutional and practical right to their views. As opposed to thinking they should all share our/my/your views.

Secondly consider the following:

Suppose we were playing the game of junk touching and as a result of that "consensual" encounter something seems to be in your pocket:


  1. three hemp cigarettes OR
  2. a copied CD OR
  3. $4200 in cash.

Then I call law enforcement.

Then they check and you have a traffic fine not paid from a neighboring state from three years ago, and there has been a warrant for your arrest that you never heard about.

Third, apply the above to the TSA procedures:

You hurried to go to your flight and at the last minute realized that you had one of the above items 1, 2 or 3 on your person. You turn around and try to exit but they won't let you.

You are going to a little room handcuffed, buddy.

Suddenly you are in world of hurt and it didn't have to happen. It occurred as consequences from the premise that your rights could be given up without reasonable cause for the search, and that some sort of administrative bureaucracy could dictate how that was going to be done.

TSA in "preventing terrorism" is also going to enforce any and all other laws that they decide they want to.

Drugs? That's terrorism.
Cash? That's terrorism.
Traffic ticket warrant? Not terrorism but let's call the policeman over. Can't let that slide, can we?

Starting to see little bits of a problem?:)
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Uhhh.....

That I think is missing the central point. First it's about whether we recognize that others would find such things to be a sacrifice of freedom, privacy and dignity, and that they have a constitutional and practical right to their views. As opposed to thinking they should all share our/my/your views.

Secondly consider the following:

Suppose we were playing the game of junk touching and as a result of that "consensual" encounter something seems to be in your pocket:


  1. three hemp cigarettes OR
  2. a copied CD OR
  3. $4200 in cash.

Then I call law enforcement.

Then they check and you have a traffic fine not paid from a neighboring state from three years ago, and there has been a warrant for your arrest that you never heard about.

Third, apply the above to the TSA procedures:

You hurried to go to your flight and at the last minute realized that you had one of the above items 1, 2 or 3 on your person. You turn around and try to exit but they won't let you.

You are going to a little room handcuffed, buddy.

Suddenly you are in world of hurt and it didn't have to happen. It occurred as consequences from the premise that your rights could be given up without reasonable cause for the search, and that some sort of administrative bureaucracy could dictate how that was going to be done.

TSA in "preventing terrorism" is also going to enforce any and all other laws that they decide they want to.

Drugs? That's terrorism.
Cash? That's terrorism.
Traffic ticket warrant? Not terrorism but let's call the policeman over. Can't let that slide, can we?

Starting to see little bits of a problem?:)
Click to expand...

I don't think I was missing the first point. Most complaints I have seen focuses on the contact and nudity. I believed I was reasonable in not seeing that, sort of. I am sure we both agree that not every view of privacy is constitutional and practical. Where we establish what views are "constitutional and practical" and which ones we do not, would be a fun debate for later.

I wish to thank you greatly for presenting a critique that didn't focus on the actual nudity and contact. I believe you are the first to really do that here.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I don't think I was missing the first point. Most complaints I have seen focuses on the contact and nudity. I believed I was reasonable in not seeing that, sort of. I am sure we both agree that not every view of privacy is constitutional and practical. Where we establish what views are "constitutional and practical" and which ones we do not, would be a fun debate for later.

I wish to thank you greatly for presenting a critique that didn't focus on the actual nudity and contact. I believe you are the first to really do that here.
Click to expand...

Could be. But take the reverse, we've pretty much today in the US got a right to view pornographic materials, etc. Those who wish to do so. Does that mean that there is a right to force everyone to view them?

Nope, obviously...

Now take the case I above cited, of the person who suddenly realized they were about to walk through a scanner with something on their person that shouldn't be there. Suppose it's a county or federal facility.

I know exactly what happens in this case. The person says "Uh, excuse me Officer, I have to go put something in my car. I'll be right back". The officer LIKES THAT. He doesn't want a scene and he doesn't want to have to fill out all the paperwork for basically nothing.

But now let's take the TSA: They say:

"Nope, you are in our clutches and you cannot walk back out. Let's see what you got..."

And they are not even a law enforcement agency. This is a case of "unreasonable search and seizure" separate from the porno-scanners, because the person is seeking to opt out by walking out, and is prevented from doing so.
 
mhaze said:
Could be. But take the reverse, we've pretty much today in the US got a right to view pornographic materials, etc. Those who wish to do so. Does that mean that there is a right to force everyone to view them?

Nope, obviously...
Click to expand...

I have long wondered why sexual intercourse in public is wrong.
 
BobTheCoward said:
In my defense, I don't see it as a sacrifice of freedom, privacy, or dignity. You could come over, we could take a public shower together, and engage in non-sexual activity where you touch my junk and would never be bothered by it.
Click to expand...


Uh, no thanks. I think I speak for the vast majority of participants in this forum when I say that I very much prefer not to accept your invitation. In fact, I find it rather creepy, at best.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I have long wondered why sexual intercourse in public is wrong.
Click to expand...

I encourage your asking of this question to the next TSA agent who is doing the porno-grope job on you. Please also tell him that you don't mind his gentile fondling and to be nice.

And to check a bit to the left please.

A bit higher?

Oh yeah baby.

Let's make their job something they never bargained for.;)
 
Last edited:
Why can't we have a right to our person? Why would we want the gov't to invade our person without just cause?? This is like giving the cop permission to search your vehicle when he has no probable cause. Why would you invite the gov't into your property (person) without a reason??? I don't understand this at all.
 
EatatJoes said:
Why can't we have a right to our person? Why would we want the gov't to invade our person without just cause?? This is like giving the cop permission to search your vehicle when he has no probable cause. Why would you invite the gov't into your property (person) without a reason??? I don't understand this at all.
Click to expand...

When little AMERICAN Timmy or your 85 year old AMERICAN Grandmother decides to fly on an airplane, they might resort to Jihad in the name of Allah...so that means Obama and the TSA have probable cause to search Timmy's pants and Grandma's wheelchair....:cool:
 
Macgyver1968 said:
Why not use dogs? They could smell both bombs and drugs without any scans or groping...and would be orders of magnitude cheaper than multi-million dollar scanners, and probably more effective, as they could detect residue.

Just park a dog next to the metal detector, and you can passively scan everyone quickly...not just a few selected individuals.
Click to expand...

Multi-million dollars scanners are good for the economy.

There' is lots of money to be made from the Homeland Security industry and from naked body scanners, in particular. By Michael Chertoff, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom