$10K fine for not going through TSA screening?

[Jeff Corey]

If I say I don't want patted down, but I'm willing to strip off right there... will I get a medal for cooperating, or a jail sentence for being nekkid in an airport and carrying a concealed weapon of mass seduction?

An old friend of mine, Saloonface (Ain't so such thing as a ex-Marine!) expressed similar sentiments once. "I'll fly buck nekkid if everybody else will."

 

[bokonon]

after 9 years and only two attempts that probably wouldn't have even brought a plane down if successful, it's time to call it quits on privacy violations.

I agree with this. America should just grow a pair, and accept that life comes with risks. Mile per mile, you're safer when flying than when taking the bus or the family auto, but you can still get a plane with mechanical problems, a pilot who should have gotten more sleep, a flock of geese in the wrong place at the wrong time, or a terrorist who managed to slip through security.

Everything SHOULDN'T have changed on 9/11. We lost 4 planes, a few buildings, and a few thousand people. 50,000 people still die every year on America's highways. We assume that risk without turning our lives upside down. I say the proper action to take in response to 9/11 was to secure the cockpit -- period. All the rest has just been theater, which inconveniences more than it ensafens. While I think it's funny that it's only when the Puritan nerve was touched that significant numbers of people started to push back, since this is what I've been saying for 9 years, I guess I can get on board.

 

[fuelair]

Doubtful that anyone setting off a bomb in line is going to kill hundreds.

Likely that anyone setting off a bomb on a plane is going to kill everyone on board.

There are thousands of soft targets, where dozens can be killed with a bomb.

The fact that we don't have bombs going off on buses argues strongly that it's unlikely we'd have bombs going off on domestic commercial flights.

I think the reaction is way out of proportion to the threat, and would prefer to be able to take a chance on a "no screening whatsoever" plane flight, just as I would if I took the subway or the city bus.

That said, I think it's laughable that people are getting their knickers in a knot over the thought of someone peeking through their knickers or giving them a grope. Puritans...

This also^^^ Plus, a bomb that does not make whatever the person is carrying look way out of place is not going to kill hundreds of people in a normal airport or most abnormal ones.

 

[fuelair]

What really ticks me off is the cavalier attitude of the TSA. I told him I was uncomfortable with the intimate contact, and he told me "Hey, if I have to juice your pig to make the skies safer, I'll juice your pig till your head spins".

It's not actually a cavalier attitude, it's the attitude of old time southern prison camp/farm guards. Yours had it word perfect. Low life scum for the most part.

 

[fuelair]

Notice I did not call them Nazi's.

 

[fuelair]

But I did think it - just thought the phrasing was more old time southern.

 

[daenku32]

Food for thought: what if TSA was a private company, and that airport was a private entity.

Who would you complain to? Amazingly I predict, that high speed rail would suddenly gain a lot of support.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Food for thought: what if TSA was a private company, and that airport was a private entity.

Who would you complain to? Amazingly I predict, that high speed rail would suddenly gain a lot of support.

They're not?

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Food for thought: what if TSA was a private company, and that airport was a private entity.

Who would you complain to? Amazingly I predict, that high speed rail would suddenly gain a lot of support.

Actually, some other private non-groping airport would likely get a lot of support. Would be bad for the groping industry if the free market were allowed to decide these things.

As for Travis objecting to the word "grope", read about the "enhanced" pat-down and describe how "grope" is being used improperly. I somehow doubt this was done to you on your way into a courtroom.

Still waiting for someone to explain how this is making us any safer.. Then I'd like to hear why this shouldn't also be done for the subway, buses, amusement parks, food courts, and music concerts.

If the fear is that a plane will be hijacked and used as a weapon, as unlikely as passengers are to allow that post-9/11, why not just make the cockpit door too thick to break down? Problem solved, no? With hijacking out of the equation isn't it intellectually inconsistent not to also advocate nude photographing/groping anyone getting on a bus or entering Disney World? Does Donald Duck still have to get scanned even though he's not wearing pants?

 

[nescafe]

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...

 

[corbin]

Well then why have any security at all? If there's no threat then what is the point?

I didn't say there was no threat. I said that the liklihood of any given American dying from a crashing plane is so low its negligible. And it obviously is...

Nobodies freedom has been limited by this. If you choose to not fly because you are insane and think a perfectly legitimate pat down is a "grope" or a, lol, "sexual assault" then you are limiting your own freedom.

Their ability to choose whether they want the added security [theater] is removed. This is a limitation of freedom.

Personally, I am not really offended by the frisking but I can understand why others are. Its not a simple pat down - they run their hands along the entire length of your leg from ankle to groin...

As I said before, however, this has issues other than being personally offensive for some people. It violates the 4th amendment, is an example of government overstepping its power into a private sphere, and is coercive to the individual.

This is already done. That's why we have building codes for dams and skyscrapers. That's why we have an FDA and EPA.

And I think the FDA is ineffective and unnecessary, but that's a different argument. Being a statist, I'm sure you have no problem with a third party called government setting up expensive bureaucracies that help their friends, just as long as you are told its for your benefit.

And you were not forced to go to an airport and try and fly on an airliner.

See post 71. Lookie there, I even linked it for you...

It's limiting your ease of travel but the government has no obligation to allow you on flying death machines.

Again, why can't the decision be mine to make?

Why is it okay for you for my ability to travel be removed or at least be dependent upon my willingness to sacrifice privacy?

Actually no. Your ability to travel via the convenience of a car was impinged but not your ability to "travel." That said outlawing cars is not going to happen. Cars, unlike airplanes, are not uniquely dangerous in a catastrophic way.

So its okay to limit my freedom because planes kill more people than cars in a situation that has a .0000000000000000001% chance of happening?

You would be much better off saying we can't use cars anymore... thousands of people die in car crashes every year.

"The annual risk of being killed in a plane crash for the average American is about 1 in 11 million. On that basis, the risk looks pretty small. Compare that, for example, to the annual risk of being killed in a motor vehicle crash for the average American, which is about 1 in 5,000."

And blowing up a plane with plastic explosives strapped to your crotch does not?

That's my risk to take, just like all the other hundreds of risks that we all take daily, i.e. walking in the city with potential murderers, driving, etc.

You really think that the security the private airlines would provide would be better? Wow. That's wishful thinking.

Why wouldn't it? Airlines with inadequate security would go out of business really quick.

So when somebody does blow up a bunch of planes you won't make a fuss out of how there were no security precautions to prevent it?

Who said there wouldn't be security precautions? I'm arguing against government mandated, potentially hazardous security precautions - not security precautions in general.

 

[Wildy]

Those phrases are not appropriate for what's going on unless you think your doctor is "sexually molesting" you to when you get checked for testicular cancer.

Except that when you go to the doctor to get checked for testicular cancer you know that he's going to feel your nuts.

Well, they apparently shouldn't. The types of pat downs they give in airports now are identical to what I have go through every time I go to court.

I don't believe that. Do you know if they make women with prosthetic breasts remove them and show them to the security officers?

Because here the constitution doesn't apply. Don't try to fly and this "assault" doesn't happen....unless you get checked for breast cancer.

Again, when you go and get checked for breast cancer you definitely know what you're going to get. It's not as if you go to the doctor and get randomly selected for a breast cancer screening.

Well then why have any security at all? If there's no threat then what is the point?

I don't think people don't want any security. It seems that people don't like the whole "security theatre" that these screenings are part of.

Nobodies freedom has been limited by this. If you choose to not fly because you are insane and think a perfectly legitimate pat down is a "grope" or a, lol, "sexual assault" then you are limiting your own freedom.

Well apparently the old pat downs didn't involve strangers grabbing your balls.

It is still a choice in the same way your company could have given you the choice to crawl through two miles of muck to get your job. You didn't have to do it but you did if you wanted your job.

That depends on the job though.

Why are we continuing to read sex into this?

Because we're sexual beings?

 

[Wildy]

By the way I found this account of such a pat down while looking for something related to the discussion.

Do you think that is really necessary in the name of "safety"?

And Travis, is the above similar to the searches that you go through when you go to court?

 

[Emet]

New York, Orlando join anti-TSA rebellion, TSA mounts PR effort
By Jon Stokes | Last updated a day ago

New York and Orlando aren't taking the TSA scanner/pat-down controversy lying down. Instead, officials in both places are fighting back. In Orlando, the Sanford airport is reportedly planning to take advantage of a little-known clause that allows airports to opt-out of TSA protection and instead use a federally approved private screening company.
(...)

Further north, in New York, Democratic city council officials are plotting to ban the TSA's nude scanners entirely, Wired reports. No airport or other facility would be allowed to operate a backscatter scanner inside New York city limits.

"We're not opting out of screening altogether," Greenfield told Wired's Threat Level blog. "We're simply banning one type of screening that hasn't proven effective."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-tsa-rebellion-while-tsa-mounts-pr-effort.ars

 

[Region Rat]

When they pat you down, they use gloves, and they put the gloves in a device that scans them for residue of explosives.

This brings up an interesting thought. What would be the point of discovering if someone had explosive residue on them, just from a pat down? If their bags are going through the normal checks and nothing is found, what would they do?

I fly on business regularly, and the only thing I carry through security is my briefcase, which is a soft sided case. For a long time, I used my briefcase for a range bag, because it has lots of pockets and compartments where I could stow my guns, ammo, and accessories for a trip to the range. I collect my used brass and throw them in the bottom of the case. Sometimes 3-400 rounds. I'm sure that some gunpowder residue has ended up in the case. I can smell it. Never really thought about it before, but never been stopped. Either they don't check, or gunpowder doesn't bother them.

 

[rwguinn]

What is interesting, and telling, about the procedure:
Pilots are no longer subject to the screening-

Pilots flying for U.S. carriers and traveling in uniform will immediately start going through "expedited" screening after having two forms of identification checked against a secure database, said TSA administrator John Pistole in a statement

The only reasonable explanations for this exception for pilots and not Flight Attendants is political pressure, or that wimmin are more fun to look at nekkid and/or fondle.
They perform on the same flights, have the same background checks, and are in uniform, and have important safety duties on board.
The requirement is made even more ridiculous in light of the ruling...

 

[Jeff Corey]

What is interesting, and telling, about the procedure:
Pilots are no longer subject to the screening-

The only reasonable explanations for this exception for pilots and not Flight Attendants is political pressure, or that wimmin are more fun to look at nekkid and/or fondle.
They perform on the same flights, have the same background checks, and are in uniform, and have important safety duties on board.
The requirement is made even more ridiculous in light of the ruling...

The pilots apparently have a stronger union.

 

[WildCat]

The pilots apparently have a stronger union.

Do gay flight attendants get a pat down from the opposite sex? What if the TSA agent is gay, are they allowed to pat down same sex?

 

[rwguinn]

The pilots apparently have a stronger union.

Which is exactly what makes the exemption so arbitrary-and what makes the stated purpose of the new rules so laughable.

 

[applecorped]

Which is exactly what makes the exemption so arbitrary-and what makes the stated purpose of the new rules so laughable.

Kinda like health care.