I have no reference why TSA policies are wrong

[Drachasor]

This is getting tedious. I've posted several links on that, granted there are several threads and they may have been in other threads.

And you can read extensively about simulated runs through these security and of simulated aircraft attacks. Granted, and for good reason, often the results are classified.

Why don't you just google it and come back with your conclusion?

Nothing in this thread. I just double-checked. I've seen posts on how the TSA is a lot less effective than a private firm (which is presumably far more expensive), but from what I read that was before scanners were implemented.

My quick google search didn't reveal any such studies.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you were going to sneak a bomb or gas or whatever onto a plane, and they added a big new security measure, would you just do what you were going to do initially before you knew about it?

Sure, why not? This wouldn't have caught the underwear bomber, it wouldn't have caught that liquid explosive plot in England, it can't catch anything hidden in body cavities (which terrorists have already done) and it does nothing to improve security on luggage or freight (the most recent attempt).

It makes perfect sense that anything big and fancy would cause a lull at the very least.

A permanent increase in the intrusiveness of government, and all we get is a lull? Thanks, but no thanks.

When I asked about studies, I meant more about simulated attacks and the like which test the security.

Whatever you meant, the question remains: where are the studies that demonstrate its efficacy?

If there's not something proving that they don't increase security, then you can't flat-out say that they don't.

If there's nothing to prove that they do increase security, you can't say they do.

 

[Drachasor]

Sure, why not? This wouldn't have caught the underwear bomber, it wouldn't have caught that liquid explosive plot in England, it can't catch anything hidden in body cavities (which terrorists have already done) and it does nothing to improve security on luggage or freight (the most recent attempt).

Just because it isn't a magic bullet against everything in airports doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile. There's never going to be one piece of technology that does all that. It's certainly increases the potential to notice things, however -- if it didn't, then there'd hardly be anything to complain about.

It's certainly a powerful tool that can be used well in the future. An underwear bomber could certainly be caught just by having them do a 360 in the scanner.

 

[mhaze]

Just because it isn't a magic bullet against everything in airports doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile. There's never going to be one piece of technology that does all that. It's certainly increases the potential to notice things, however -- if it didn't, then there'd hardly be anything to complain about.

It's certainly a powerful tool that can be used well in the future. An underwear bomber could certainly be caught just by having them do a 360 in the scanner.

I'm not sure anyone is saying that backscatter and/or milliwave radar used for personnel scanning doesn't have a place somewhere.

At issue is the policy to scan and/or grope everybody.

 

[Drachasor]

I'm not sure anyone is saying that backscatter and/or milliwave radar used for personnel scanning doesn't have a place somewhere.

At issue is the policy to scan and/or grope everybody.

What's your counter-proposal?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't doubt for a minute that Obama (or any president) would never stop the security measures for just that reason. No matter if the measures would have stopped the attack or not, his political career would be over.

I predict that his career will end precisely because of this security theatre. The American people are clearly not being fooled by this as far too many were by all of Obama's fraudulent “stimulus” and “bailout” scams. People—voters—are being directly affected by this policy, in a manner that they clearly do not like, whomever the Republican candidate is that is up against Obama in 2012 should be able to get a lot of mileage out of reminding the voters which administration was responsible for them being sexually-molested at airports.

Very poor reason to unconstitutionally search me, in my opinion. My bet is that the terrorist groups are enjoying the heck out of the spectacle.

Indeed, this is the very best victory for which the terrorists could have hoped. More than any number of individual Americans they could have killed, by any means that they could come by, they have managed to get us so scared of them that we've allowed our government to undermine some of the very most basic and vital principles upon which this nation was supposed to be based.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Again, are there studies that show the scanners don't increase security?

Irrelevant.

They are a violation of the individual's rights, under the Fourth Amendment, to be secure in their persons. If the case is to be made that they should be allowed at all, then the burden of proof is entirely on those who advocate them to prove that they are sufficiently effective and necessary as to justify the violation of individual privacy and security.

 

[Drachasor]

Irrelevant.

They are a violation of the individual's rights, under the Fourth Amendment, to be secure in their persons. If the case is to be made that they should be allowed at all, then the burden of proof is entirely on those who advocate them to prove that they are sufficiently effective and necessary as to justify the violation of individual privacy and security.

Just because some people don't like it doesn't make it a violation of the 4th amendment.

 

[Piggy]

As far as I'm concerned, you can take an actual photo of my naked body in full detail and pin it up in the TSA breakroom if you want, just put me on the [] plane.

 

[dc1971]

That it upsets people (including TSA agents who don't like doing this stuff) and wastes resources while providing little to no actual security benefit, and it can be circumvented by terrorists using methods that have already been employed.

Plus, of course, stories like this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news/

If they "don't like doing this stuff" why are they not taking a stand and saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?

Come to think of it, since you're so sure that they "don't like doing this stuff" why are you not taking a stand Zig? Hmmmm??

 

[dc1971]

Just because some people don't like it doesn't make it a violation of the 4th amendment.

You sure about that?

 

[Ziggurat]

If they "don't like doing this stuff" why are they not taking a stand and saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?

What, you've never done anything in your job that you didn't want to do? If so, that makes you unusual.

They're not taking a stand because they'd rather still have a job doing stuff they don't like than not have a job. Quite simple, really. How did this possibility not occur to you?

Come to think of it, since you're so sure that they "don't like doing this stuff" why are you not taking a stand Zig? Hmmmm??

And what sort of stand are you expecting me to make here? Please, elaborate.

 

[dc1971]

What's your counter-proposal?

Why should there be a counter-proposal? Look at what level of security we had in our airports 2 to 3 years ago or even last year... were there any major problems then? Besides the underwear bomber?

So if you want to call it a counter-proposal why do we not use the same security measure we have been using? Or is this another chance to hail police officers and public authority figures in high regard and produce more television shows glorifying cops?

 

[dc1971]

What, you've never done anything in your job that you didn't want to do? If so, that makes you unusual.

They're not taking a stand because they'd rather still have a job doing stuff they don't like than not have a job. Quite simple, really. How did this possibility not occur to you?



And what sort of stand are you expecting me to make here? Please, elaborate.

And that is the problem. People being so scared of losing their jobs! It's all about money, isn't it? AMERICA... AMERICA... GOD SHED HIS GRACE ON THEE... OH SORRY, MONEY/DOLLAR BILL/ECONOMY/CAPITALISM SHED YOUR GRACE ON THEE!!

Maybe instead of sitting back and laughing at people complaining about the body scanners, maybe you could take this issue seriously?? Hmmmm?

 

[dc1971]

No, just some weirdos who have issues. I bet I fly more than you. I dont mind security measures. I bet if Obama stopped it and there was an attack you lot would be apopolectic.

Gee, I seem to remember that Obama is president right now and these new security measures were put in place during the Obama administration. So I'm guessing he's planning on stopping his own doing??

 

[Drachasor]

You sure about that?

Yes. Some people don't like getting looked at on the street. Some people might not like the Police noticing things in plain site. Some people don't like security at sporting events. Not liking something is not the basis for an amendment violation.

Why should there be a counter-proposal? Look at what level of security we had in our airports 2 to 3 years ago or even last year... were there any major problems then? Besides the underwear bomber?

So your argument is "were there any major problems besides the major problems?" That's kind of silly. In any case, people are clever and adapt. Security measures need to try to keep ahead of this, so of course they should change.

And that is the problem. People being so scared of losing their jobs! It's all about money, isn't it? AMERICA... AMERICA... GOD SHED HIS GRACE ON THEE... OH SORRY, MONEY/DOLLAR BILL/ECONOMY/CAPITALISM SHED YOUR GRACE ON THEE!!

Maybe instead of sitting back and laughing at people complaining about the body scanners, maybe you could take this issue seriously?? Hmmmm?

Given the bad economy and the difficulty getting a job, it makes sense they'd be concerned about maintaining a decent standard of living, taking care of their families, etc.

And you didn't answer his question. Maybe I should turn it around. What do you intend on doing?

 

[rwguinn]

And that is the problem. People being so scared of losing their jobs! It's all about money, isn't it? AMERICA... AMERICA... GOD SHED HIS GRACE ON THEE... OH SORRY, MONEY/DOLLAR BILL/ECONOMY/CAPITALISM SHED YOUR GRACE ON THEE!!

Maybe instead of sitting back and laughing at people complaining about the body scanners, maybe you could take this issue seriously?? Hmmmm?

You tried to find a job lately?
I know folks with BS/MS degrees and 30+ years experience who have been looking for over 2 years...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Just because some people don't like it doesn't make it a violation of the 4th amendment.

No, but being an unreasonable search or seizure, carried out without a warrant or even probable cause, does make it a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

 

[Drachasor]

No, but being an unreasonable search or seizure, carried out without a warrant or even probable cause, does make it a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

"Definition of "search"

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.

In Katz, the Supreme Court ruled that a search had occurred when the government wiretapped a telephone booth.[20] The Court's reasoning was that 1) the defendant expected that his phonebooth conversation would not be broadcast to the wider world and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.

This is a threshold question in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, since the Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. If no search or seizure has occurred, the court ends its analysis."

From what I understand, generally society doesn't find this sort of thing unreasonable at airports. A small number of people do, but that's it.

 

[Region Rat]

You tried to find a job lately?
I know folks with BS/MS degrees and 30+ years experience who have been looking for over 2 years...

I fly for work often, and have done so for the same company for 22 years now. It is highly unlikely that I could do the job they are paying me for if I did not travel. It is also highly unlikely that they would look kindly and compassionately upon me if I informed them that I do not choose to fly anymore. With 2 kids in college, and the market the way it is, now is not the time for me to make any type of stand. Especially since any hunt for a new job would most likely involve travel, since I work in the Middle Of Nowhere, USA.

Or maybe I should just take a stand and possibly get fired, and learn how to paint duck decoys for a living in my garage. Let me ask my wife what she thinks.