$10K fine for not going through TSA screening?

[Phrost]

It's a total stranger. It's a groin. You'll survive it. Can't be that damn much fun for them . either.

Given your username it's entirely understandable why you wouldn't notice a dangerously slippery slope.

Has government ever retreated from slow but progressive incursions into civil liberties once they're established as "necessary" for "security"?

 

[Soapy Sam]

It's one helluva drive from Glasgow to Uralsk...
I agree the whole business is undignified and probably has no useful effect on security.
But for those of us who have to fly, frankly it's not that big an issue.

 

[trusetheeker]

Just wanted to add another tale to the thread. This guy seems to have taken a more practical approach than the "don't touch my junk" guy.

http://jalopnik.com/5692480/a-tsa-success-story

(The comments section is uncensored for language.)

I wonder if the letter from the UCSF doctors will prod the TSA into further research on the health impacts of these things.

Selling and operating these scanners is someone's bread and butter. Any research will (strangely) confirm the safety of these devices and no-one will ever be proved to be harmed by one.

They'll use the same tactics honed and perfected by the vaccination industry over decades to deny any link to any health issues that arise.

 

[Phrost]

I don't have a source on this, but apparently the person in charge of purchasing the machines for the TSA now sits on the board of directors of the company selling them.

 

[WildCat]

It's one helluva drive from Glasgow to Uralsk...

No TSA in those places.

 

[Segnosaur]

What I don't understand is how doing this to a small percentage of randomly selected passengers will do it

The only reason everyone isn't getting the backscatter/pat down is because there aren't enough machines available now to screen everyone this way.

Even if its only a percentage of people getting searched, there may still be a benefit (especially in cases where a plot involves multiple hijackers).

For example, consider United 93 on 9/11. There were 4 hijackers and 37 passengers. Lets say (for example) they plan to do an advanced screening on 10% of the passengers so 4 people get an x-ray/pat down. Even though only a small fraction have gotten the advanced screening, the chance of catching at least one hijacker is around 50%.

Of course, this is making the assumption that such advanced security measures actually work. Other people have pointed out that there are many measures to get around things like the x-ray machines.

 

[brodski]

Has government ever retreated from slow but progressive incursions into civil liberties once they're established as "necessary" for "security"?

Off the top of my head UK citizens are no longer issued with, or required to carry ID cards as they were in the past for "security reasons", I'm sure there are other examples.

 

[rwguinn]

It's one helluva drive from Glasgow to Uralsk...
I agree the whole business is undignified and probably has no useful effect on security.
But for those of us who have to fly, frankly it's not that big an issue.

It's a helluva drive from Weatherford, TX, to Seattle Wa (2000 miles, each way). I just did that-in 2 weeks.
Luckily, there a Rocky Mountain National Park, Yellowstone National Park, Great Salt Lake, Bryce Canyon, Grand Canyon, Meteor Crater, Petrified Forest/Painted Desert, and other diversions to and from...
Flying is for when you don't have time.
And The incursion into "Big Brother Knows Best" that we are experiencing is disturbing, at the very least...
The Bush administration went too far, and the Obama Administration has taken the ******** to even higher standards of paranoia...

 

[Dr. Keith]

For example, consider United 93 on 9/11. There were 4 hijackers and 37 passengers.

There will never be another successful hijacking. The passenger on flight 93 proved that.

The current screening is not about hijacking, it is about explosives.

 

[Nursefoxfire]

Selling and operating these scanners is someone's bread and butter. Any research will (strangely) confirm the safety of these devices and no-one will ever be proved to be harmed by one.

They'll use the same tactics honed and perfected by the vaccination industry over decades to deny any link to any health issues that arise.

The what now?

 

[Phrost]

There will never be another successful hijacking. The passenger on flight 93 proved that.

The current screening is not about hijacking, it is about explosives.

Which can be inserted into one's rectum and smuggled on-board, evading both the backscatter x-ray and fondling approaches.

 

[dirtywick]

It's stuff like this that makes me not want to travel. When airport employees aren't simply being unfriendly they're being rude, it's very expensive from the ticket to any food, and then you have to pay additional fees when you get there to bring any type of luggage. It's not that simple though because when you're not doing any of those things you're waiting, often while standing. It's a full day of unpleasantness.

And now with this guy they won't even let you leave the *********** place without hassling you.

 

[fuelair]

Suit yourself, I'll be driving. I have no need to go through that for the illusion of security.

Exactly right.

 

[Travis]

I think the opposition to the scans and pat downs is stupid.

Really, really stupid.

I have no problem with it. It's a cost vs benefit thing. Is the scan harmful? No. So no problem. Is the pat down harmful? No. So no problem.

Are we really so stupid as to make a huge issue out of this? If we are then maybe we don't deserve air travel in the first place. Remember we have no right to air travel. That's a luxury.

 

[tesscaline]

I think the opposition to the scans and pat downs is stupid.

Really, really stupid.

I have no problem with it. It's a cost vs benefit thing. Is the scan harmful? No. So no problem. Is the pat down harmful? No. So no problem.

Are we really so stupid as to make a huge issue out of this? If we are then maybe we don't deserve air travel in the first place. Remember we have no right to air travel. That's a luxury.

And I think that the non-opposition of these scans and pat downs is stupid.

Harm is subjective.

To someone who's been sexually assaulted, a pat down of their genitals against their will from a complete stranger may very well be harmful. The one time I got a "pat down" in an airport (their metal detector wand thing was malfunctioning, and the walk through had been way too sensitive so the underwire in my bra set it off), it was drastically less invasive than what is being proposed here, it was done by a woman, and it was still traumatic.

Heck, the idea of complete strangers seeing me basically naked (if you haven't seen unaltered versions of those scans, you don't realize just how detailed they truly are) against my will, is just as much of a personal invasion as some up-skirt jerk with a mirror taped to the top of his shoe.

These are, to me, very much assaults. Sexual assaults.

I should be forced to suffer flashback triggers for PTSD just to fly to see my grandparents for xmas? Really? What on earth gives the government the right to invade my person that way? Just because I dare attempt to get on a plane?

Anyone who thinks this sort of searching is "reasonable" is seriously juicing the piglet.

 

[corbin]

It doesn't really matter whether the procedures are harmful or not. The point is that people should have the right to choose whether or not they want this to be done. Invasions of privacy should not be a condition of travel.

This is just another example of government stepping into a situation where it doesn't belong - leave it up to the airlines. Airline customers can decide for themselves where to draw the line between security and privacy... there is absolutely no reason to limit people's choices in a situation like this.

Also, if anybody else did what the TSA was doing they would be arrested. I am not allowed to take naked pictures of people or aggressively frisk them when they have done nothing wrong and neither should the government.

Are we really so stupid as to make a huge issue out of this? If we are then maybe we don't deserve air travel in the first place. Remember we have no right to air travel. That's a luxury.

We don't have a "right" in the same way that we don't have a right to anything else requiring another person's labor...

We should, however, not be coerced into not traveling, which is effectively what these procedures do for a lot of people.

Are you seriously suggesting that government should be able to limit your ability to freely travel? I guess anything is permissible in the name of security.

 

[Aepervius]

It's one helluva drive from Glasgow to Uralsk...
I agree the whole business is undignified and probably has no useful effect on security.
But for those of us who have to fly, frankly it's not that big an issue.

Indeed it is a helluvia ride, so the US is simply starting to warm the idea to take an express ride to there with the "terrorism and Child Porn" express, which incidentally increasingly allow them to ignore that sloppy document you call constitution.

And yes it is a big issue at least for me.

 

[Aepervius]

And I think that the non-opposition of these scans and pat downs is stupid.

Harm is subjective.

To someone who's been sexually assaulted, a pat down of their genitals against their will from a complete stranger may very well be harmful. The one time I got a "pat down" in an airport (their metal detector wand thing was malfunctioning, and the walk through had been way too sensitive so the underwire in my bra set it off), it was drastically less invasive than what is being proposed here, it was done by a woman, and it was still traumatic.

Heck, the idea of complete strangers seeing me basically naked (if you haven't seen unaltered versions of those scans, you don't realize just how detailed they truly are) against my will, is just as much of a personal invasion as some up-skirt jerk with a mirror taped to the top of his shoe.

These are, to me, very much assaults. Sexual assaults.

I should be forced to suffer flashback triggers for PTSD just to fly to see my grandparents for xmas? Really? What on earth gives the government the right to invade my person that way? Just because I dare attempt to get on a plane?

Anyone who thinks this sort of searching is "reasonable" is seriously juicing the piglet.

This is exactly the same reason I don't want enhanced pat down and would feel *COHERCED* into the back scattering machine, to have my naked picture eventually saved and used (don't tell me it did not happen). And I still did not get an answer from any body, if due to software error, calibration error, human error, those could those machine become potentially unsafe, or is it impossible.

 

[Sledge]

This is just another example of government stepping into a situation where it doesn't belong

Really? I'm not following the logic on this. I'd have thought preventing terrorists seizing aircraft and crashing them into buildings would be a fairly important thing for a government to do.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I have to agree that this is a perfect area for the government to step into. The threat of a plane going down over a population center definitely falls within my idea of "General Welfare and Defense" to put it in American standards. Still, I think the backscatter machines and the pat downs are going to far. A safety measure should increase actual saftey significantly to be worth the invasiveness of it. Metal detectors and luggage scanners are a very mild interference. Backscatter machines and quick pat downs are doing very little for actual safety in terms of stopping explosives and are too intimate in my opinion. Personally I don't mind a pat down and would not throw a fit about it happening to me. Or even the naked picture of my flabby form. However I am not thinking about merely my comfort level. I know many people will be very uncomfortable with this.

Anecdotally, my experience with pat downs at metal concerts is that it stops most alcohol being smuggled in but very few weapons. Thankfully I have not been witness to a weapon actually being used, only bragged about being snuck in.