I have no reference why TSA policies are wrong

[BobTheCoward]

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.

Contact sports are creepy?

That is what I don't understand. Athletes shower naked together and have genital contact. In wrestling there is the high crotch lift. Is a snap to the quarterback worse for the center than a TSA patdown?

 

[Ziggurat]

Contact sports are creepy?

That is what I don't understand. Athletes shower naked together and have genital contact. In wrestling there is the high crotch lift. Is a snap to the quarterback worse for the center than a TSA patdown?

The center wears a cup. And the quarterback isn't a stranger. So, yeah... the TSA grope is worse.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The center wears a cup. And the quarterback isn't a stranger. So, yeah... the TSA grope is worse.

Wrestling meets?

 

[mhaze]

Wrestling meets?

The following question is pertinent:

You have a group of hundreds of people waiting to board a plane who must be subjected to pre-boarding procedures. All must be equally subjected according to present guidelines.

The nature of the procedure is that they all pair off and go into the wrestling ring prior to being okayed for boarding. Does not matter if 5 year old or 85 year old.

Once in the ring genital, breast and other groping is required prior to the government referees moving to the next match.

Any who refuse are arrested and/or subjected to a $11,000 civil penalty without benefit of due process, trial by a jury of their peers, and without the trial being in their home town of residence.

See anything wrong with the externally imposed and required behaviors behaviors mentioned, or with the punishments for non conformance?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Contact sports are creepy?

I must admit that I am not up on the lingo regarding various sexual fetishes, so I guess it's not surprising that I am not aware of having before heard it called that.

In any event, if you get up on having other guys fondle your “junk”, then that's your business. Your sexual fetish is not an argument in defense of forcing others to participate in it against their will, whether you call it “contact sports” or “security pat downs”, or by some other euphemism.

 

[Nova Land]

What do you think of this?

Secretary Janet Napolitano is actually considering exempting Muslims as per CAIR’s demands. Madame Secretary confirmed this week that there will be “adjustments” and “more to come” on the issue of Muslim women in hijabs undergoing airport security pat-downs.

What do I think? I think it would be good skeptical practice to provide the actual quote from Janet Napolitano, rather than 1- and 3-word snippets, before foolishly concluding that how a right-wing blog spins those snippets is accurate.

Search everyone.................................but not the Muslims. Hmmmmm. I know I'm just a painter but I don't think that is the right criteria.

Yes. And it's not the criteria Napolitano or anyone else in the Department of Homeland Security has proposed.

Napolitano was asked by a right-wing news outlet if muslim women wearing hijabs would have to undergo full body pat downs before boarding planes. She replied: "[W]e are doing what we need to do to protect the traveling public and adjustments will be made where they need to be made." That says nothing about treating muslim women differently than other women. But various right-wing sources have been spinning it that way -- and a number of people have been gullible enough to fall for it.

A good indicator that the people propagating this claim know it's baseless is that they keep on quoting each other rather than quoting Napolitano. If she actually had said such a thing, it would be easy (and much more effective) to quote the full passage in which she said it. But since she didn't say such a thing, those who wish to spread this story are reduced to quoting each spinning snippets (and providing their own summary of what the snippets mean) rather than quoting her directly.

I notice you didn't even bother to provide a link to the right-wing blog that you got this story from. If your aim is to spread misinformation that's a good strategy. By leaving that information out, you momentarily delay people from realizing that your slur on Napolitano is baseless.

Once I located one of the blogs which were spreading this story, it was easy to track it back to the propaganda outlet from which it originated (Brent Bozell's CNS News). But some people (especially people already inclined to believe bad things about the Obama administration) may be lazy enough not to check your claim out before passing it on themselves. That's how this kind of misinformation spreads, and how people such as you become so badly misinformed.

 

[Nova Land]

Search everyone.................................but not the Muslims. Hmmmmm. I know I'm just a painter but I don't think that is the right criteria.

And thus it becomes a joke, a complete farce. Everyone searched -- except those most likely to be bombers, Muslims hiding under their garb.

Ah! Another example of someone gullible enough to believe Napolitano said muslim women would be exempt even though no quote from Napolitano saying any such thing was provided.

Fortunately, her viewpoint is not the prevailing one, as they said yesterday there would be no religious exceptions.

No, her viewpoint is the prevailing one. She never said muslim women would be exempt, and they are not.

If you believe Napolitano ever said muslim women should be exempt from body searches while non-muslim women should not be, please provide a transcript of her saying that. I think you'll find there is no such statement -- and that you were rather gullible to believe there was.

 

[Nova Land]

Security expert Bruce Schneier has for years been calling the enhanced security at US airports "security theatre". All it does is give people the impression that things are more secure...

Among the failings (culled from a recent blog post of Bruce's titled TSA Backscatter X-ray Backlash):

• ...
• Muslim women wearing hijabs are given exceptions to the pat-downs

Schneier may be a security expert. But the blog post you cite is not based on any personal expertise he may or may not possess; it is a collection of links to things other people have claimed.

I do not see any link in there to a reliable source saying that muslim women wearing hijabs are given exceptions to pat-downs.

There is a link to a right-wing site which claims muslim women will be exempt from searches. They, in turn, are basing that claim on a CNS item (them again!). In the CNS item, CNS reports that CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) is advising muslim women to tell TSA officers the officers may only pat down their heads and necks. Thing is, CAIR doesn't set TSA policy.

Here's the passage from Schneier's blog post. Is this what you're referring to?

Neither does this story, which says that the TSA will only touch Muslim women in the head and neck area.

If Schneier's claim is that muslim women were given exemptions, he needs to provide evidence to support that. So far he hasn't.

If your claim is that Schneier is a reliable source on this question, you need to provide evidence to support that. The blog post you linked to is strong evidence he isn't.

 

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward
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.

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.

+100

Normally I find claims to speak for the majority presumptous, but in this case it seems justified.

 

[mhaze]

Schneier may be a security expert. But the blog post you cite is not based on any personal expertise he may or may not possess; it is a collection of links to things other people have claimed.

I do not see any link in there to a reliable source saying that muslim women wearing hijabs are given exceptions to pat-downs.
.....If Schneier's claim is that muslim women were given exemptions, he needs to provide evidence to support that. So far he hasn't....If your claim is that Schneier is a reliable source on this question, you need to provide evidence to support that. The blog post you linked to is strong evidence he isn't.

I need to provide evidence, Schneier needs to provide evidence, strong evidence...?

Nope. You need to provide evidence that I ever even raised the question about muslim women exemptions. Let me know when you've strong evidence on this matter.

But since you've raised the subject, muslim women have been documented going through airport scanners in Canada with no xray, porno-scan or pat down and with just their man handling papers and doin the talking. And since you've raised the question, I believe that the muslim organization, CAIR, has been attempting to get exemptions for muslim women in the US.

So your search for evidence among right wings sources apparently did not extend to CAIR. Please provide strong evidence to the contrary, if you can.

In the meantime, strong evidence exists that you've simply got your topics and posters confused.

 

[varwoche]

You need to provide evidence that I ever even raised the question about muslim women exemptions. Let me know when you've strong evidence on this matter.

Huh? NL's post wasn't even addressed to you.

In the meantime, strong evidence exists that you've simply got your topics and posters confused.

Unreal.

 

[mhaze]

Huh? NL's post wasn't even addressed to you.

Unreal.

Yes, it is unreal. NL complains about "right wing sources", but he ignores the fact that they are only reporting and commenting on CAIR's press releases. So let's go to the source, shall we?

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=26681&&name=n&&currPage=1

Oh, and I have no idea if Scheier is or is not a "right wing source". He's simply a well known expert on security including airport procedures.

Now, what does CAIR tell it's muslims?

This seems to be the part which is relevant:

Special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab:

• ....
• Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.
• You may ask to be taken to a private room for the pat-down procedure.
• Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.

One of the links which NL disputed or disparted citing it to be a "right wing souce".

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30028
CAIR said Muslims who object to full-body scans for religious reasons should know their rights if they are required to undergo a pat-down, including asking for the procedure to be done in a private place. In addition, CAIR offered a “special recommendation” for Muslim women who wear a hijab, telling them they should tell the TSA officer that they may be searched only around the head and neck.
“Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.”


I'm not seeing any difference between the "right wing source" and the actual phrasing on the CAIR website....

Part of the confusion may be from the link having been to the Canadian Free Press article about US TSA procedures. Perhaps the Canadian views are a bit jaundiced due to the fact that muslims are being given a pass through airport security in Canada...

http://www.chandlerswatch.com/2010/...-getting-a-security-pass-at-canadas-airports/

 

[elbe]

Random TSA related comment: I was watching Fox and Friends this morning when they posed the following question (from memory) during a "coming up after the break": Would paying the TSA agents more solve this problem?

 

[Ziggurat]

Random TSA related comment: I was watching Fox and Friends this morning when they posed the following question (from memory) during a "coming up after the break": Would paying the TSA agents more solve this problem?

The idea that paying higher salaries increases employee quality doesn't always work. It's predicated on the notion that competition for higher-paying jobs will lead to the employer having better candidates to choose from, candidates who are talented enough to get other, better jobs than the low salary one previously offered but who will compete for the higher salary one.

The problem is that this also requires that the employer will actually do a good job at selecting the best applicants from the application pool. But if that's NOT the case, if the employer doesn't know how to (or doesn't care to) screen for quality effectively, then the only thing that raising the salary will do is inflate the applicant pool in toto. That means more bad applicants AND more good applicants. But if you get more new bad applicants than new good applicants, and you're picking essentially randomly (or worse), then employee quality could actually go down in response to a salary increase.

So, does the TSA know what it's doing when it makes hiring decisions? I don't know. But I wouldn't assume it does.

Plus, of course, these policy decisions that the public is displeased with seem to be coming from the top, and raising employee salary is more likely to KEEP the current crop of managers in place than to refresh it.

 

[funk de fino]

Porno scanned and grope raped? Too funny. This thread is hilarious.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wrestling meets?

If you find the groping that goes on in wrestling to be overly invasive, then don't wrestle. But 1) you can't stop that stuff from happening, because if you did, it wouldn't be wrestling, 2) it's not much of an imposition to not wrestle, and 3) if you do wrestle but suddenly change your mind about being groped, the worst that will happen is that you forfeit the match.

But that's not applicable here. Being groped is not intrinsic to flying. Hell, it's not even intrinsic to providing airport security (and there's little evidence that it's even effective). And not flying IS a rather large imposition in the modern world. And if you change your mind about being groped, well, you're facing an $11,000 fine.

The fact that you don't have a problem with the groping doesn't mean nobody else can reasonably have a problem with it. Your parallels simply aren't comparable.

 

[mhaze]

Porno scanned and grope raped? Too funny. This thread is hilarious.

I'm glad we are only discussing the real world of Security Theater.

Because, like, you couldn't make this stuff up.

 

[OMGturt1es]

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

This.

If full body scanners breach the fourth amendment, what doesn't? As ashamed and modest as I am of my body, I have to admit that the act of walking through a scanner is quite efficient, and it seems to be quite effective. I can't think of a better way to search folk for contraband. The cost/benefit ratio seems pretty good.

 

[Region Rat]

This.

If full body scanners breach the fourth amendment, what doesn't? As ashamed and modest as I am of my body, I have to admit that the act of walking through a scanner is quite efficient, and it seems to be quite effective. I can't think of a better way to search folk for contraband. The cost/benefit ratio seems pretty good.

What is the established purpose of the scanners? To prevent weapons from being taken on planes. OK. Now, what about other things that you might not want the government seeing, but are not weapons? Oh, you say, you shouldn't have those things on you anyway, right? What if the cops put a scanner in the middle of the sidewalk on 5th avenue, and required everyone to walk through it to see if you had contraband on you. Would that be a violation of your 4th amendment rights? After all, you shouldn't have contraband on you anyway, right? Why shouldn't the government be able to pat you down? I feel safe saying it would be a violation of the constitution. Now, you ask, what in the world does this have to do with airports. The scanners serve a real purpose in airports. What if I was going to visit some old friends and wanted to bring a bud or two along. Is TSA going to let the bud go, since its obviously not a weapon, or will they confiscate it and arrest me? They have established that the purpose of the search is for security. If I go to court, will I get off because of an illegal search? If not, you should be scared of the precedence that was set.

 

[elbe]

The idea that paying higher salaries increases employee quality doesn't always work.

Honestly, I thought the only way that question would work is if paying them more caused them not to do what they were told to. If part of their job duty is what people have a problem with then how much they get paid seems irrelevant.

It just seemed like such an absurd question I couldn't help but share.