I have no reference why TSA policies are wrong

[OneShotKi11]

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.

I would say the big difference is Public streets vs private companies. Private companies are allowed to have these extra security measures if they deem it fit. You dont have to fly. Just like you dont have to go to the club that does full body pat downs.

 

[Drachasor]

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.

Eh, why would they confiscate your alcohol? Your problem there isn't the scanner, it would be the ridiculous confiscation of something.

While I understand the arguments that the TSA apparently leaves a lot to be desired in terms of their work efficacy and that's certainly something that should be solved (but perhaps the scanners make them better at their job...has anyone posted any research on this? Is there any?). I don't think freaking out over the scanners themselves make a lot of sense. I find it fairly reasonable given the hijacking of planes on 9/11, how many people fly on planes, and how fragile flying things are to take extra precautions to make sure nothing bad happens.

*Sigh* People love making doomsday scenarios that are little better than conspiracy theories. The scanners aren't going to destroy your rights and are at worst a mild and reasonable invasion of privacy. It's not part of some ridiculous slippery-slope that will end in democracy disappearing and all of us living in a police state.

 

[Ziggurat]

I would say the big difference is Public streets vs private companies. Private companies are allowed to have these extra security measures if they deem it fit.

As a constitutional issue, it would be quite different if individual airlines were implementing stricter security procedures on their own. That would be analogous to what you suggest. This, however, is not: it's more akin to the feds putting scanners in front of every club, whether or not the club owner wants it.

You dont have to fly.

Depends on how you want to define "have to". For many people, it's a requirement of their job. That puts it in a rather different category than going out to a club.

 

[Ziggurat]

While I understand the arguments that the TSA apparently leaves a lot to be desired in terms of their work efficacy and that's certainly something that should be solved (but perhaps the scanners make them better at their job...has anyone posted any research on this? Is there any?). I don't think freaking out over the scanners themselves make a lot of sense. I find it fairly reasonable given the hijacking of planes on 9/11, how many people fly on planes, and how fragile flying things are to take extra precautions to make sure nothing bad happens.

But this doesn't actually do that. It's security theater. It provides very little additional security, but seems rather to be an attempt to make up for security failures elsewhere that continue to go uncorrected.

This isn't the end of the world, but it's not nothing either.

 

[OneShotKi11]

As a constitutional issue, it would be quite different if individual airlines were implementing stricter security procedures on their own. That would be analogous to what you suggest. This, however, is not: it's more akin to the feds putting scanners in front of every club, whether or not the club owner wants it.



Depends on how you want to define "have to". For many people, it's a requirement of their job. That puts it in a rather different category than going out to a club.

Still doesnt bother me that the fed is forcing scanners into private business.
As for the job analogy. Then its part of your job to walk through these scanners.

I just cant seem to understand anyones complaints on the issue.

 

[Drachasor]

But this doesn't actually do that. It's security theater. It provides very little additional security, but seems rather to be an attempt to make up for security failures elsewhere that continue to go uncorrected.

This isn't the end of the world, but it's not nothing either.

From what I understand, it has a lot of potential in increasing security. Are there actual studies that show it doesn't improve TSA security at all?

 

[Region Rat]

I would say the big difference is Public streets vs private companies. Private companies are allowed to have these extra security measures if they deem it fit. You dont have to fly. Just like you dont have to go to the club that does full body pat downs.

The problem is that these are government mandated checks performed by government employees (in the majority of airports).

 

[mhaze]

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.

I agree with this as a real problem.....tsp does not have law enforcement authority.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6588893&postcount=89

 

[Ziggurat]

I just cant seem to understand anyones complaints on the issue.

Then given how many people are complaining, the fact that you don't just disagree but don't even understand suggests rather strongly that the problem is with you.

 

[funk de fino]

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

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

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.

 

[mhaze]

Then given how many people are complaining, the fact that you don't just disagree but don't even understand suggests rather strongly that the problem is with you.

Yet another way to look at why the TSA behavior with these new "enhanced security procedures" is way wrong is the Nanny State issue.

Do we want the last bit of risk supposedly eliminated by federal government regulation various areas of our life?

Out of our food, toys, sports, cars, travel?

"Security Theater" implies that yes, the public does want not only this but they like and want a security theater where actual security may be less capable of being a deliverable product.

 

[mhaze]

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.

Bet all you want. I have no problem with people obsessing with losing, Vegas is built on losers.

And one of the general complaints is "security theater", which doesn't actually increase security at all. What you've noted is the problem for which security theater was invented (the idea that Government has to "do something"), not the solution.

 

[Region Rat]

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.

I fly often enough, and I do mind the security measures, because they do nothing to stop a determined attack. The airport I fly out of is sandwiched between 2 interstate highways. The runways run perpendicular to the highways, so planes take off and land over the roads. The airport is in a populated area. A determined terrorist with an RPG can sit on the shoulder of the road, outside of all airport security, and shoot at a plane before it gains any elevation, crashing it into a shopping center. Why haven't they done this? Probably for the same reason they're not sending shoe or underwear bombers on planes anymore. They've got the American government scared of the political ramifications of another attack, and has them jumping through hoops. 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. 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.

 

[Blue Mountain]

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.

You're in Scotland. When you fly, do you have to go through a scanner that shows an anonymous person (who probably has less education than you) what you look like naked? Or barring that, have some guy patting you down in such a way that if he wasn't a member of a government agency he could be charged with sexual assault and risk being put on a sex offender's list?

And all in the name of making it look like you're more secure, all the while ignoring the real threats?

 

[Beerina]

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.

Let's be honest, shall we? That answer was loaded with meaningless weasel words. It could cover:

A. Intrusively copping a feel up the crotch and under the boobs of the most devout, covered Muslim woman

or

B. Skipping Muslim women completely





If they skip Muslim women, then the entire point of the search becomes meaningless as the Middle East has shown no problem recruiting women as suicide bombers. Therefore it should be stopped.

 

[Drachasor]

And one of the general complaints is "security theater", which doesn't actually increase security at all. What you've noted is the problem for which security theater was invented (the idea that Government has to "do something"), not the solution.

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

 

[Noztradamus]

~~~Skipping Muslim women

Mental image I never expected to have

 

[Region Rat]

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

Where are the reports showing what has been caught by the scanners?

If all the argument for the scanners is "Since we put the scanners in place, they aren't trying anymore, so it's working", it doesn't prove much to me.

I've been buying anti-bear spray and spraying my yard with it for years. Haven't seen a bear since.

 

[Drachasor]

Where are the reports showing what has been caught by the scanners?

If all the argument for the scanners is "Since we put the scanners in place, they aren't trying anymore, so it's working", it doesn't prove much to me.

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

When I asked about studies, I meant more about simulated attacks and the like which test the security. If there's not something proving that they don't increase security, then you can't flat-out say that they don't.

 

[mhaze]

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

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?