Airport searches

[Ivan Seeking]

In principle I understand the need for full body scans and highly personal searches, but I think this has gone too far. What happened to chemical swab tests? Aren't these effective? I've had my stuff swabbed at least a dozen times [I was often carrying a lot of test equipment that demanded a closer look].

An interesting point was made about the polling of this issue. It doesn't mean anything to poll the general public. What matters is what frequent flyers think - the people being groped and exposed. It's no wonder that people who don't generally fly don't have a problem with this.

I have to agree with Bob Barr on this one [a scary thought in itself]. I want to see Michelle Obama and the kids go through this public humiliation.

[Ivan Seeking]

In a very real sense, I see this as a huge victory for terrorism. They have changed us. After living on the brink of nuclear annihilation for decades without sacrficing our rights, these two-bit thugs have scared us out of our right to privacy in the most personal sense.

When I see these searches, I feel ashamed and a little sick.

[Mathnomalous]

The problem is the TSA is a reactionary agency. Some guy packs explosives in his underwear and gets caught; now, the TSA has to check everyone's groin area, but the next guy is not likely to use the same method used by the first guy. Also, spending that much money to improve airport security is stupid; if you happen to catch someone at the checkpoint, it is too late already! You have missed the early planning stages, movement of money, communication between terror organizations, etc. All that security is just theatre.

Perhaps a service like Clear should be brought back for frequent flyers? I no longer have a problem with the backscatter x-ray machines; quick? painless? no junk touching? Good! The pat-downs are idiotic, though. Even more idiotic, incoming international travelers must go through a TSA checkpoint after deplaning and before exiting the airport... wth?

Relevant story: http://www.slate.com/id/2275721/

[Pengwuino]

Even more idiotic, incoming international travelers must go through a TSA checkpoint after deplaning and before exiting the airport... wth?


What if they brought a bomb onto the airplane and.... had second thoughts? Do you want them to just leave the thing in the trash can? :biggrin:

[Mathnomalous]

:rofl:

But seriously, that sounds like a waste of time. The person already flew, nothing happened, yet they still go through a security checkpoint just to leave the damn airport.

[Vanadium 50]

Even more idiotic, incoming international travelers must go through a TSA checkpoint after deplaning and before exiting the airport... wth?

Not true.

It is true that incoming international travelers have to go through a TSA checkpoint before boarding a domestic flight.

[Gokul43201]

I don't see what's particularly crazy about having incoming int'l passengers go through a security check before exiting the airport (irrespective of its truthiness).

[Mathnomalous]

It seems there was a recent change. At least my mother in-law mentioned she went through a security checkpoint before exiting the airport (no connecting flight).

Found these:

http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5413922/tsa_new_security_rules_for_international.html?cat= 17

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/guidance_international_flights.shtm

I don't see what's particularly crazy about having incoming int'l passengers go through a security check before exiting the airport (irrespective of its truthiness).

If it is a Customs/Immigration check, no problem. A TSA security check identical to a pre-boarding check is unnecessary. Likely, any explosives that got onto the plane were detonated; if the would-be terrorist had a change of heart, then the initial check failed.

[Ivan Seeking]

Btw, based on what I have seen, it wouldn't be that hard to hide explosives anally, as is often done with drugs. Is that next?

[Mathnomalous]

Btw, based on what I have seen, it wouldn't be that hard to hide explosives anally, as is often done with drugs. Is that next?

You bet!

Coming soon to an airport near you, rectal exams! Courtesy of the US Government! How is that for universal healthcare? :rofl:

[Ivan Seeking]

Or vaginally?

[Mathnomalous]

Or vaginally?

That might turn out to be a hairy situation... but, yeah, this is getting out of hand. And before I sign off, let me leave you with this:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-

They should just install a scanner on everyone's front door and get it over with.

[Proton Soup]

The problem is the TSA is a reactionary agency. Some guy packs explosives in his underwear and gets caught; now, the TSA has to check everyone's groin area, but the next guy is not likely to use the same method used by the first guy. Also, spending that much money to improve airport security is stupid; if you happen to catch someone at the checkpoint, it is too late already! You have missed the early planning stages, movement of money, communication between terror organizations, etc. All that security is just theatre.

Perhaps a service like Clear should be brought back for frequent flyers? I no longer have a problem with the backscatter x-ray machines; quick? painless? no junk touching? Good! The pat-downs are idiotic, though. Even more idiotic, incoming international travelers must go through a TSA checkpoint after deplaning and before exiting the airport... wth?

Relevant story: http://www.slate.com/id/2275721/

i have a hard time believing the images aren't being catalogued. after all, biometrics collection (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/security/video-nato-prepares-to-transfer-authority-in-afghanistan/5297/) is one of the biggies in afghanistan right now.

the gizmodo link from slate is certainly not a good sign.

http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans

[Proton Soup]

Or vaginally?

surgically remove fatty tissue from obese terrorist recruit. install explosives in sealed bags in the cavities. design to be detonated with externally applied pressure.

That might turn out to be a hairy situation... but, yeah, this is getting out of hand. And before I sign off, let me leave you with this:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-

They should just install a scanner on everyone's front door and get it over with.

disgusting. as far as i'm concerned, this makes these officials terrorists. i actually find myself siding with Ron Paul.

[Galteeth]

Not true.

It is true that incoming international travelers have to go through a TSA checkpoint before boarding a domestic flight.


Well, it happened to this guy who recorded everything.

http://www.youtube.com/user/NoBlasters#p/u/3/LkRPS0pSScQ

[BobG]

Even more idiotic, incoming international travelers must go through a TSA checkpoint after deplaning and before exiting the airport... wth?



Do incoming international travelers really exit the airport after deboarding or does the customs area empty out into the general gate area? There's a difference. In other words, the TSA checkpoint isn't to exit the airport; it's to enter the general boarding area.

That's a function of airport design. One way or another, passengers catching a connecting domestic flight will have to go through the security checkpoint.

In fact, that was the secret to the guy in Galteeth's recording. He was not catching a connecting flight, so the solution was eventually to escort him through the boarding area, all the way to the 'outside' of the airport's security area.

[D H]

In a very real sense, I see this as a huge victory for terrorism. They have changed us. After living on the brink of nuclear annihilation for decades without sacrficing our rights, these two-bit thugs have scared us out of our right to privacy in the most personal sense.
I agree that this is a victory for terrorism. I disagree that they have changed us. We have changed ourselves and our national psyche. All the terrorists have done is to take full advantage these changes. We, collectively, no longer know how to make tradeoffs. We have made security, stability, and political correctness the driving factors in formulating the direction in which society should move.

[lisab]

I agree that this is a victory for terrorism. I disagree that they have changed us. We have changed ourselves and our national psyche. All the terrorists have done is to take full advantage these changes. We, collectively, no longer know how to make tradeoffs. We have made security, stability, and political correctness the driving factors in formulating the direction in which society should move.

Regardless of how the change happened, I'm appalled by those who say, "It's worth is as long as we're safe, that's the important thing." Ugh, totally disgusting!

What if a woman is on her period and is wearing a pad? It would probably be detected using either the scan or these extremely intimate body searches. Would she have to demonstrate it's not an explosive?

[Greg Bernhardt]

I was scanned in Amsterdam a few days ago. It was no big deal. I got to see my image. Looks nothing like me. No defining characteristics at all. Just a beige human body outline that looks like the average human dimensions. The body pat is no big deal either. People are so dang sensitive. I've been patted down hundreds of times before for various entries, what is the big deal now.

[xxChrisxx]

Regardless of how the change happened, I'm appalled by those who say, "It's worth is as long as we're safe, that's the important thing."

Why? I can kind of gues the response so i'll ask my follow up question now.
Where do you draw the line between safety/security on a sliding scale (i'm assuming you aren't for letting anyone on a plane without any checks what so ever), and why?


I was scanned in Amsterdam a few days ago. It was no big deal. I got to see my image. Looks nothing like me. No defining characteristics at all. The body pat is no big deal either. People are so dang sensitive.

I've got to say, I agree. I don't see why people are prudish about this sort of thing. "Oh noez they can see my doodle." : / : / : /


EDIT: I'd just like to say something regarding this: Prudence is not the same as capitulation.

[mugaliens]

I don't see why people are prudish about this sort of thing.

Me neither. Anyone who has been to a backwoods hot springs either learns to adapt or flees in terror (I didn't flee in terror).

So the issue for many has nothing to do with being a prude.

...what is the big deal now.

I dunno. Perhaps repetitive, even multiple times daily exposure to backscatter x-ray radiation for pilots, flight attendants, frequent fliers and those who work the concessions beyond the security checkpoints?

I'll bet TSA employees are exempt from being scanned, possibly even as justified by "frequent exposure may cause..." clause. I'll also bet my security clearance (S, TS, etc.) background checks were more thorough than was theirs. So why am I a suspect until proven innocent while they get to bypass both scans and patdowns?

Hmm...

Meanwhile, many are standing firm on the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, particularly in light of the TSA's massive cost and dismal track record.

Metal scanners? Fine. Exposure to x-rays? Sorry, but no. Grope my junk? No way.

[Gokul43201]

What are your odds of being killed by terrorists on a flight? One in several million? For what other activities that involve similar risk levels do you use similar levels of precaution? (Hint: You are much more likely to be killed by a lightning strike or a dog.)

[xxChrisxx]

What are your odds of being killed by terrorists on a flight? One in several million? For what other activities that involve similar risk levels do you use similar levels of precaution? (Hint: You are much more likely to be killed by a lightning strike or a dog.)

So what is your acceptable risk (probability) for boarding a plane that will explode before it lands?

I assume you make this argument to show that the massive level of secuity is silly as the odds are so remote. Just think about that point for a second.

[Gokul43201]

I accept a nearly 1% lifetime chance of being accidentally poisoned (and dying from it) without any thought to it (though, to be fair, I eat a lot more often than I take a flight). I imagine there are probably a lot more along those lines that add up to a lifetime risk on the order of a few percent. I would therefore not worry about a lifetime risk that was significantly smaller, or about 1 in 1,000. If I expect to take 200 flights over a lifetime, that's a 1 in 200,000 risk per flight. This is probably around two orders of magnitude higher than the real risk from a terrorist attack.

[lisab]

So what is your acceptable risk (probability) for boarding a plane that will explode before it lands?

I assume you make this argument to show that the massive level of secuity is silly as the odds are so remote. Just think about that point for a second.

But for all the intrusive scanning and groping, are we really secure? It seems we're always a step behind the terrorists' tactics - we're very good about guarding against the last attack. After they take down planes with box cutters, we ban box cutters. After they try shoe bombs, we scan shoes. And now our underwear is getting scrutinized. I even read that they're paying extra close attention to toner cartridges that are coming out of Yemen now.

Problem is, the terrorists aren't dummies. They are adapting, no matter what we do they will make adjustments. Face it: we will be attacked again. Will it be a plane, or something we've never even considered? Based on their past attacks and attempted attacks, I think it will be the latter.

I'm not saying we should do nothing, but there is a line somewhere. Here, our government is advising me how to dress, and to not wear an underwire bra:

In addition, certain clothing and accessories can set off an alarm on the metal detector and slow you down. Avoid wearing clothing, jewelry or other accessories that contain metal when traveling through the security checkpoints:


Heavy jewelry (including pins, necklaces, bracelets, rings, watches, earrings, body piercings, cuff links, lanyards or bolo ties)
Clothing with metal buttons, snaps or studs
Metal hair barrettes or other hair decoration
Belt buckles
Under-wire bras
Hidden items such as body piercings may result in your being directed to additional screening for a pat-down inspection. If selected for additional screening, you may ask to remove your body piercing in private as an alternative to the pat-down search.
Take metal items such as keys, loose change, mobile phones, pagers, and personal data assistants (PDAs) out of your pockets.
Place heavy jewelry and other metal items in your carry-on baggage or in plastic bags if they are offered, until you clear security.
Pack all your coats and jackets in your baggage when possible. All coats and jackets must go through the X-ray machine for inspection. These include, but are not limited to, trench coats, heavy winter coats, suit jackets, sport coats and blazers. If you choose to wear an outer coat or jacket to the checkpoint, you will need to either place it in your carry-on or put it in the bin that is provided for you.


http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/index.shtm

Screw them, I'll wear whatever damn bra I want.

[Astronuc]

I was scanned in Amsterdam a few days ago. It was no big deal. I got to see my image. Looks nothing like me. No defining characteristics at all. Just a beige human body outline that looks like the average human dimensions. The body pat is no big deal either. People are so dang sensitive. I've been patted down hundreds of times before for various entries, what is the big deal now. I've had to go through that in some nuclear facilities and some airports. It's no big deal - it's just business.

I'm not too concerned about the scanning. Not much to look at. :biggrin:

[BobG]

I find the entire controversy over TSA checkpoints to be a positive development, even if rather ironic.

Our post 9/11 reactions have included several measures a lot worse than having to walk through a backscatter imaging device. Warrantless wiretaps, US citizens categorized as illegal enemy combatants and denied any legal way to challenge their status, torture of enemy detainees, etc.

And then outrage over one of the most trivial actions taken to protect against terrorists.

The pat down procedures are something a person should be upset about if it were applied to everyone.

The backscatter imaging device is a trivial inconvenience (10 seconds max?). The outrage over the imagers illustrates what's important to Americans. They seem perfectly willing to reveal details about their personal actions (wiretapping, e-mail surveillance, etc), willing to give out personal details of their life (facebook, credit & personal info for online purchases, etc), but don't want anyone to see their body.

I think that's an odd thing to be upset about, but if the outrage spreads to more important things, such as electronic surveillance, torture, and rights of US citizens suspected of associating with terrorists, then I think it's a good thing.

Maybe we'll finally find a long term accomadation between protecting our civil liberties and protection, seeing as how a war on terror defies defining any endpoint where we can claim the war is over and our rights can be restored to their normal peace time status.


Trivial, but interesting - of those that think the backscatter imaging devices may be dangerous to your health, how many understand the technology used by a metal detector? I'm not saying there's any reason to be concerned about the health risks of metal detectors (there's not), but how many people even have a clue how they work? (That percentage might be a bit higher on PF, but I would imagine it's very close to zero among the general population.)

[WhoWee]

In a very real sense, I see this as a huge victory for terrorism. They have changed us. After living on the brink of nuclear annihilation for decades without sacrficing our rights, these two-bit thugs have scared us out of our right to privacy in the most personal sense.

When I see these searches, I feel ashamed and a little sick.

I have to agree. I used to fly 2 or 3 times per week. Now I'll drive 400 miles to avoid the hassel - and it really doesn't take more time (to drive).

[FlexGunship]

http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter

If there is anyone not totally familiar with this case (the site is funny, but the YouTube videos are 100% dead serious), then he or she should really spend some time listening about reading about it.

Joking aside, I would elect this man into public office; he's brave enough not to buckle under TSA or police pressure and holds the Constitution as his defense. His arguments are so compelling that the TSA finally admits they cannot detain him or force him to undergo a search. The police and TSA agents escort him from the airport without submitting to the requested search.

This should be studied in every political science classroom in the nation right now.

[FlexGunship]

I've had to go through that in some nuclear facilities and some airports. It's no big deal - it's just business.

I'm not too concerned about the scanning. Not much to look at. :biggrin:

I think it's less an issue of the actual practice and more an issue of the compulsory invasion of privacy.

Anytime you move between states in the US (something protected in the Constitution as part of interstate trade) there is a non-zero chance that you will be FORCED to choose to either be photographed naked or sexually assaulted.

Yes, this is a very stark an un-pragmatic way to look at it, but this is the core of the issue. Before terrorist intervention interstate travel (and re-entering the country) didn't require these things. Because of terrorism, we have become a society of _______________. Fill in the blank; I can't decide what to put there.

[Pengwuino]

Lately I've seen a few articles popping up talking about how the Israeli's do airport security. I like their idea of profiling people the smart way (for example, an Israeli Arab that travels between Israel and Britain never gets a moment thought but anyone who frequents Syria and other countries that have issues with terrorists will be pulled aside for questioning). I wonder how hard it would be to implement something like that here. Sure, Israel has what, 1 or 2 international airports, but we have far more resources then they do and hopefully with their help, we could have that kinda security here. One article noted that while bombs were going off daily in Tel Aviv, not one hijacker ever made it on board in decades.

I think what is going on now is saying that the terrorists have done their job and done it well. The way Israel does it seems to say "we will actively defend our way of life and your message will never get across".

[xxChrisxx]

I'm not saying we should do nothing, but there is a line somewhere.

I'm not trying to be a pain in the arse I promise :), but that didn't answer my question. I asked in your opinion what is the line. Where do you draw the line?


Here, our government is advising me how to dress, and to not wear an underwire bra:
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/index.shtm
Screw them, I'll wear whatever damn bra I want.

Important part is bolded.

I would therefore not worry about a lifetime risk that was significantly smaller, or about 1 in 1,000. If I expect to take 200 flights over a lifetime, that's a 1 in 200,000 risk per flight. This is probably around two orders of magnitude higher than the real risk from a terrorist attack.

Interesting. I wonder if you'll take comfort that the odds are remote in that in the event it happens to you.



I'll add my own opinion on this. I prsonally belive the 'extra' security suffers massively from diminishing returns from a security vs inconveneince standpoint. Is the extra inconvenience worth the extra security?

As I've never been in a sticky situation i'd say no. Ask someone who's been in that situation they'd probably give a different answer.

[CRGreathouse]

I just went over some of the numbers relating to the x-ray doses from the scanners. It looks like it's not a big deal: at present travel rates I expect about 400 cancer deaths per century, where I might expect 4000 deaths from airplane hijacking and other related terrorism in the same period. (I leave the numbers intentionally vague; the models aren't good enough to support even one significant decimal place.)

So it's entirely an issue of privacy and cost.

[Andre]

Anyway, for what it is worth, the 911 disaster could have been prevented by the pilots. At some point, where it was clear that things on board were getting out of control, so should have the pilot(s) let the aircraft seem to be out of control. It requires just a little pushing and pulling the controls in unexpected ways to have all people on board, who are not strapped in, to lose all their interest in their environment, while tumbling all over the place. Sure there would have been panic and wounded but the take over of the aircraft could have been prevented that way.

I did discuss this with commercial collegues and wrote some letters. Most agreed, so I hope that this "last ditch" defence has gained some attention.

[Pengwuino]

On the other hand, this is providing some decent comedic relief.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40358601/ns/travel-news/

[turbo]

And if you have the body for it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/24/traveller-wears-bikini-th_n_788127.html

[Gokul43201]

Interesting. I wonder if you'll take comfort that the odds are remote in that in the event it happens to you.I don't follow. Either that's not grammatical or I'm having a long day already. In either case, could you rephrase?

[WhoWee]

And if you have the body for it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/24/traveller-wears-bikini-th_n_788127.html

Could this be an opportunity for toga's to make a comeback?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjSyQ3uAu3E&feature=related

The safety pins might be a problem though?

[mheslep]

Anyway, for what it is worth, the 911 disaster could have been prevented by the pilots. At some point, where it was clear that things on board were getting out of control, so should have the pilot(s) let the aircraft seem to be out of control. It requires just a little pushing and pulling the controls in unexpected ways to have all people on board, who are not strapped in, to lose all their interest in their environment, while tumbling all over the place. Sure there would have been panic and wounded but the take over of the aircraft could have been prevented that way.That no doubt would be of use now, in hindsight, with reinforced doors and the knowledge that the hostiles intend suicide versus catching a ride to Cuba at gun / knife point for some coin. I can't imagine any pre 911 crew trying violent aerial maneuvers.

[BobG]

I accept a nearly 1% lifetime chance of being accidentally poisoned (and dying from it) without any thought to it (though, to be fair, I eat a lot more often than I take a flight). I imagine there are probably a lot more along those lines that add up to a lifetime risk on the order of a few percent. I would therefore not worry about a lifetime risk that was significantly smaller, or about 1 in 1,000. If I expect to take 200 flights over a lifetime, that's a 1 in 200,000 risk per flight. This is probably around two orders of magnitude higher than the real risk from a terrorist attack.

Interesting. I wonder if you'll take comfort that the odds are remote in that in the event it happens to you.


I don't follow. Either that's not grammatical or I'm having a long day already. In either case, could you rephrase?

It's not quite grammatical, but the meaning is clear.

The odds of being crushed by a toilet bowl falling from a high shelf in the local Home Depot are fairly long. That's the sort of thing that could give a person a persecution complex. It could result in paranoid tendencies.

That's why some people are afraid of flying and drive cross country, instead. If you die in a plane crash, you'll feel like someone has it in for you because the odds against it happening are to slim for it to be mere coincidence. In a car crash, you'll be able to console yourself with the fact that this sort of thing happens to people all of the time. :rofl:

Of course, I guess if either happened to me, I wouldn't be laughing.

[xxChrisxx]

Its hard to use good grammar when I'm posting on a phone. I'll try again at work.

Edit: heh i've jinxed it. I get in and the network is down!

[Ivan Seeking]

I find the entire controversy over TSA checkpoints to be a positive development, even if rather ironic.

Our post 9/11 reactions have included several measures a lot worse than having to walk through a backscatter imaging device. Warrantless wiretaps, US citizens categorized as illegal enemy combatants and denied any legal way to challenge their status, torture of enemy detainees, etc.

And then outrage over one of the most trivial actions taken to protect against terrorists

As a point of clarification, if you recall, I was damned near going out of my mind when this stuff was happening. My position has been completely consistent. And this is offensive.

Just as a point of reference, for those who don't worry about this sort of thing, at what price would you put the right to privacy over convenience? If we could eliminate the need for this for $10 a head by using electronic sniffers, or swabs, would you pay the $10. Do you believe your right to privacy is worth $10? How about $20, or $100. I am honestly curious if you place any value at all on your right to privacy. Does it really matter so little to you?

Also, what level of risk justifies such personal invasions; anywhere that we find one chance in a million of something happening? At what point do you say the odds are too long to worry about it?

[Ivan Seeking]

If it takes rectal and vaginal probing to make sure we're as safe as possible, is that what we do?

[xxChrisxx]

Do you believe your right to privacy is worth $10? How about $20, or $100. I am honestly curious if you place any value at all on your right to privacy. Does it really matter so little to you?


This may seem a little obvious but. If you dont like it you dont have to fly. Then you wouldnt be scanned prodded or fondled at all.


Also, what level of risk justifies such personal invasions; anywhere that we find one chance in a million of something happening? At what point do you say the odds are too long to worry about it?

People keep saying this. Yet will not give a clear answer themselves. What is your risk v inconvenience threshold?

Also you need to justify why you think your idea of safety is any more valid than someone with more stringent criteria.

To be honest id make everyone fly totally naked, noone could smuggle anything, the prudes wouldnt fly, the queues would be shorter and if there are any sexy ladies then all the better.

Edit: yeah a finger up the bum stops the last hiding hole, so ill add that to my pre flight checks.

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree that this is a victory for terrorism. I disagree that they have changed us. We have changed ourselves and our national psyche. All the terrorists have done is to take full advantage these changes. We, collectively, no longer know how to make tradeoffs. We have made security, stability, and political correctness the driving factors in formulating the direction in which society should move.

I believe this is only true because people don't understand what they are sacrificing - that which every soldier is sworn to protect, to give his or her life if needed - our liberty. We cheer the soldier whose job it is to defend that which we thoughtlessly toss out with the garbage. What irony.

[xxChrisxx]

Cant have liberty if you are dead.

Everyone believes their own views are correct and justified. Yet there must be some compromise when you are using a service along with others whos views differ.

your complaints that its too intrusive are just as justified in people saying its not intrusive enough. So who do we go with? Are you more correct in saying ' you don't have to fly if you think its too dangerous' or the other people who say ' you don't have to fly if you find it too inconvenient'?


You could always become rich and buy your own personal plane, then you wouldn't have to jump through these hoops.

[ThomasT]

We're at war with Islamic extemists. That's Muslim fundamentalists. Not Orthodox Christians. Not Zen Buddhists. Not Jews. Not Roman Catholics. Not Protestants. We're at war with Islamic extremists. So, we should profile Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims are Arabic. So, it makes sense to profile and detain and search Arabic people.

I have absolutely no problem with this. This is not to say whether or not we're right or wrong in this. It's just the way things are. The survival of Western culture and people is at odds with that of middle eastern Islamic culture. One of them has to go in a global society. I'm hoping that it's middle eastern Islamic fundamentalism.

[BobG]

We're at war with Islamic extemists. That's Muslim fundamentalists. Not Orthodox Christians. Not Zen Buddhists. Not Jews. Not Roman Catholics. Not Protestants. We're at war with Islamic extremists. So, we should profile Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims are Arabic. So, it makes sense to profile and detain and search Arabic people.



This is not true. Of about 8 million Muslims in North America, there's about an even break down between Arab Americans, Afro Americans, South Asian Americans, and others.

American Muslim Demographics (http://www.allied-media.com/AM/)

Or, if you look at the religion of Arab Americans, about 24% are Muslim, while about 63% are Christian. The percentage of Muslims among recent immigrants would be higher, but the majority of Arab Americans were born here. At one time, about 90% of Arab Americans were Christian.

Arab American Demographics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_American)

[Greg Bernhardt]

The county with the most muslims is not in the middle east.

[BobG]

This is not true. Of about 8 million Muslims in North America, there's about an even break down between Arab Americans, Afro Americans, South Asian Americans, and others.

American Muslim Demographics (http://www.allied-media.com/AM/)

Or, if you look at the religion of Arab Americans, about 24% are Muslim, while about 63% are Christian. The percentage of Muslims among recent immigrants would be higher, but the majority of Arab Americans were born here. At one time, about 90% of Arab Americans were Christian.

Arab American Demographics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_American)

Actually, if you look at some of the other statistics in those links, you can gain a hint into why Muslim terrorism is a lot less likely in the US.

Whether Muslim or Arab American (or both), they have higher income levels and higher education levels than the average American. People born in the US, regardless of ancestry, are American citizens and affect American political processes. Currently, there's only two Muslim Congressmen and both were elected to office in the last four years.

In the US, there's a good reason for immigrants to buy into the system and become more interested in becoming integrated into society rather than maintaining close ties to their ancestor's country of origin.

The threat of terrorism from any US citizen is very low - even those with Arab ancestors.

[Gokul43201]

This may seem a little obvious but. If you dont like it you dont have to fly. Then you wouldnt be scanned prodded or fondled at all.Or you could protest what you think is an idiotic policy (not that I know it is). Something wrong with that? If you don't like warrantless wiretaps, you can avoid communication.

People keep saying this. Yet will not give a clear answer themselves. What is your risk v inconvenience threshold?I thought I gave a pretty clear answer. I will not put myself through the inconvenience of mitigating an r% risk when I routinely think nothing about mitigating the dangers of 1000r% events. If you think it is worth covering the low risk events while ignoring the high risk ones, then shouldn't you be the one that needs to justify such a position?

Also you need to justify why you think your idea of safety is any more valid than someone with more stringent criteria.I will merely ask the person with supposedly more stringent criteria why they are taking a flight at all, and what personal safety measures they have considered. You are orders of magnitude more likely to die by the airplane have an intended failure than at the hands of a terrorist on board, yet you think it is worth covering the one-in-a-million odds while ignoring the one-in-thousand odds events. I could therefore argue that my idea of safety is more valid than the more stringent person because I am at least being consistent.

Of course, if the stringent person also wears a helmet every time they are climbing stairs, carries a parachute in their carry-on luggage, avoids living in regions of extreme climatic and geologic activity, spends several thousands of dollars on non-standard automobile safety equipment (or avoids automobile travel entirely), never travels outdoors on a rainy day (odds of dying in a lightning strike are worse than 1-in-100,000), has considered a system for surviving asteroid impacts, ... and so on, then I wouldn't have anything to say to them, since they are being consistent in their safety measures, just with a different threshold than mine .

Nevertheless, while I recognize that taking the new air-safety measures does not raise my own safety by any sensible amount, I do recognize that it might (in the best case) provide some additional safety to valuable national/global institutions and against the degradation of large-scale behaviors (to me the significance of 9/11 was more that it helped depress economic activity and spread irrational fear and hatred, than that it killed some small number of people). While I don't personally think these measures provide much more large-scale safety than a host of other less intrusive practices could, that's just my unmeasured opinion.

Some numbers: http://www.livescience.com/environment/050106_odds_of_dying.html

your complaints that its too intrusive are just as justified in people saying its not intrusive enough. So who do we go with? Are you more correct in saying ' you don't have to fly if you think its too dangerous' or the other people who say ' you don't have to fly if you find it too inconvenient'?As pointed out above, flying in a world without terrorists is much more dangerous than flying in a world without accidental airplane failures. So, the people who get on a flight have already, perhaps unwittingly, accepted that it is going to be dangerous - way more dangerous than having a terrorist blow you up. From my own point of view though, living in a world without backscatter x-ray machines is more intrusive than living in a world without the Patriot Act, Income-based taxation, the National Security Surveillance Act, etc., so I personally don't consider this much of an inconvenience.

[xxChrisxx]

Gokul you are the only one who's given a probability of your acceptance. But what physical measures do you believe should be taken as a precaution?

There is also a lot of talk of probability, what governments and airlines and airports (or anyone) asses is risk. The political/PR fallout of a successful terrorist attack on a plane would be enormous. Although the probability is much smaller than an engine blowing up for example (A380 woot), the risk is far higher.

All this is a huge exercise in arse covering. In the even something does go wrong, everyone involved can say we've used every gadget and trick we have.

I still say everyone should be made to fly nude.

[turbo]

While everybody is getting scanned and patted down prior to boarding planes, that only addresses the risk of suicide bombers or hijackers. The next plane to crash could well at the hands of somebody who managed to get hold of a shoulder-fired missile (MANPADS). Shoot down a jumbo-jet with a full load of fuel, as it is taking off, and you'd have a spectacular crash. A terrorist's dream.

Very few cargo containers are ever inspected, so our ports are quite porous to compact weapons of that type.

[ThomasT]

This is not true. Of about 8 million Muslims in North America, there's about an even break down between Arab Americans, Afro Americans, South Asian Americans, and others.

American Muslim Demographics (http://www.allied-media.com/AM/)

Or, if you look at the religion of Arab Americans, about 24% are Muslim, while about 63% are Christian. The percentage of Muslims among recent immigrants would be higher, but the majority of Arab Americans were born here. At one time, about 90% of Arab Americans were Christian.

Arab American Demographics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_American)Ok, so simply profiling Arabic-looking people might not be the answer.

Anyway, somebody seems pissed off (enough to hijack planes and blow stuff up) about something. Who is it that's doing this stuff and why are they doing it? Is it just that some people suddenly decide to 'terrorize' others for no reason? Or is there some rationale underlying the behavior -- whether one agrees with the rationale or not? Is there a set of characteristics that can be identified, or 'profiled', so that airport security personnel aren't wasting time doing random strip searches on 8 year old kids or housewives from anywhere usa?

[ThomasT]

The next plane to crash could well at the hands of somebody who managed to get hold of a shoulder-fired missile (MANPADS). Shoot down a jumbo-jet with a full load of fuel, as it is taking off, and you'd have a spectacular crash. A terrorist's dream.

Very few cargo containers are ever inspected, so our ports are quite porous to compact weapons of that type.I'll bet that the terrorists are considering a coordinated attack of this sort. But who are "the terrorists", and why are they doing this stuff? Are they just crazy people who happen to be, mostly, Islamic and Arabic?

[NobodySpecial]

Anyway, somebody seems pissed off (enough to hijack planes and blow stuff up) about something. Who is it that's doing this stuff and why are they doing it?
So far truck bomb attacks on US buildings have come from foreigners that don't like US foreign policy in the middle east and lack the firepower to hit back at nuclear powered aircraft carriers AND white christian americans who don't like the federal government.
That's a pretty difficult cross section set of people to target.

Remember also that targeting is exactly what the terrorists want.

To make it slightly less contentions for Americans consider the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland.
The IRA want(ed) to make it too expensive and inconvenient for the British to remain in Northern Ireland, to do this they needed support both in the community and internationally.

Every time the UK reacted against the Irish community in Britain, with stop and searches, army on the streets, internment etc they convince aimless teenagers in Belfast that they ought to be part of the struggle and provoke supporters in Boston to put their hand in their pockets or pressure their congressman to be anti-British.

It's the same in the US, everytime some muslim person is pulled off a plane or subject to extra searches for 'looking a bit foreign' you build up a resentment among the population. Yes the muslim businessman isn't going to suddenly become a suicide bomber, but he might be more prepared to support a more extreme politician, or be less likely to report somebody as a suspect. Just ask any policeman how easy it was to police LA after the riots.

[ThomasT]

So far truck bomb attacks on US buildings have come from foreigners that don't like US foreign policy in the middle east and lack the firepower to hit back at nuclear powered aircraft carriers AND white christian americans who don't like the federal government.
That's a pretty difficult cross section set of people to target.

Remember also that targeting is exactly what the terrorists want.

To make it slightly less contentions for Americans consider the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland.
The IRA want(ed) to make it too expensive and inconvenient for the British to remain in Northern Ireland, to do this they needed support both in the community and internationally.

Every time the UK reacted against the Irish community in Britain, with stop and searches, army on the streets, internment etc they convince aimless teenagers in Belfast that they ought to be part of the struggle and provoke supporters in Boston to put their hand in their pockets or pressure their congressman to be anti-British.

It's the same in the US, everytime some muslim person is pulled off a plane or subject to extra searches for 'looking a bit foreign' you build up a resentment among the population. Yes the muslim businessman isn't going to suddenly become a suicide bomber, but he might be more prepared to support a more extreme politician, or be less likely to report somebody as a suspect. Just ask any policeman how easy it was to police LA after the riots.Point(s) taken. Maybe we should focus on developing the technology to 'scan' people without them knowing they're being scanned. Safety vs freedom. Comfort vs adventure. I think that most people would choose safety and comfort. So, you provide it without being too 'in their faces' about it.

[Mathnomalous]

Do incoming international travelers really exit the airport after deboarding or does the customs area empty out into the general gate area? There's a difference. In other words, the TSA checkpoint isn't to exit the airport; it's to enter the general boarding area.

That's a function of airport design. One way or another, passengers catching a connecting domestic flight will have to go through the security checkpoint.

In fact, that was the secret to the guy in Galteeth's recording. He was not catching a connecting flight, so the solution was eventually to escort him through the boarding area, all the way to the 'outside' of the airport's security area.

That makes more sense. I think you are correct.

Point(s) taken. Maybe we should focus on developing the technology to 'scan' people without them knowing they're being scanned. Safety vs freedom. Comfort vs adventure. I think that most people would choose safety and comfort. So, you provide it without being too 'in their faces' about it.

Warrantless wiretapping..? Why is it necessary to go deeper and deeper into people's lives? I'd think most people would choose reasonable balances along the "Safety - Freedom" and "Comfort - Adventure" ranges.

[Mathnomalous]

Here is another video showing a young woman seemingly being harassed by the TSA over some breast milk.

TSA guidelines for breast milk and other liquid medications:

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/children/formula.shtm

What I find curious is that any liquids, sprays, and other items the TSA says are not permitted on board are then placed in trashcans near the security checkpoints. :confused:

Even more curious, why have terrorists not tried to simply detonate explosives at or near airport security checkpoints?

[ThomasT]

Warrantless wiretapping..?That's not the sort of thing I meant to refer to. In fact, the massive increase in monitoring private phone conversations, etc. led to a massive increase in unconnected info. Very confusing.

What I was referring to was some sort of technology that would allow, say, non-confrontational airport 'scans'. Stealthy and subtle, but comprehensive and effective.

Why is it necessary to go deeper and deeper into people's lives?It isn't, generally.

I'd think most people would choose reasonable balances along the "Safety - Freedom" and "Comfort - Adventure" ranges.Well, that's what the thread is about. Currently, there doesn't seem to be any way to provide adequate security that isn't, at least somewhat, confrontational, intrusive, and generally uncomfortable for lots of 'innocent' people -- unless 'profiling' is done. But then, what will the 'profiling' be based on?

[Evo]

Here is another video showing a young woman seemingly being harassed by the TSA over some breast milk. There is no audio and someone's rant on youtube is not considered factual. Does she think the airport scanner will make the milk radio active?

I don't know what this woman's problem is, nowhere in your link does it say that breast milk will be excluded from x-ray scanning, it says that in order to bring an amount in excess of 3 ounces will require additional screening at the x-ray point, not instead of x-ray.

It appears she's wrong and they're right.

[NobodySpecial]

Point(s) taken. Maybe we should focus on developing the technology to 'scan' people without them knowing they're being scanned
There is, it's called intelligence and police work - or HUMINT if you are a three letter agency.

The problem is that if every TV show, every TSA agent and every cop treats anyone brown as a potential enemy then it becomes much harder to gather this intelligence.

For example if you want to stop gang behaviour in a housing project you need nice respectable members of $ETHNIC_GROUP to report activity to the police, inform them if they see anything, confront gangs and discourage their kids from joining gangs. You don't get this if the police solution is pull over every nice respectable middle-aged / middle-class member of $ETHNIC_GROUP and 'teach them a lesson'.

[Proton Soup]

Gokul you are the only one who's given a probability of your acceptance. But what physical measures do you believe should be taken as a precaution?

There is also a lot of talk of probability, what governments and airlines and airports (or anyone) asses is risk. The political/PR fallout of a successful terrorist attack on a plane would be enormous. Although the probability is much smaller than an engine blowing up for example (A380 woot), the risk is far higher.

All this is a huge exercise in arse covering. In the even something does go wrong, everyone involved can say we've used every gadget and trick we have.

I still say everyone should be made to fly nude.

and how are you going to stop someone with an implanted device?

and how are you going to stop every compromised ink cartridge? an incredible amount of unrelated cargo gets on the plane with you every trip.

and if you stop every possible attempt at hijacking or bombing a plane, how are you going to stop them from picking some other venue?

what are we really protecting here? citizens? or treasure?

[NobodySpecial]

Currently, there doesn't seem to be any way to provide adequate security that isn't, at least somewhat, confrontational, intrusive, and generally uncomfortable for lots of 'innocent' people
That's the point of the current airport security theatre - it's to convince people that lots is being done to protect them. It's like the may day parades of missiles through red square, it actually reduces military efficiency enormously - but it convinces the people that they are being defended - so long as they support the people in power.

The only things that have made air travel safer are locked cockpit doors and the change in behavior of passengers from; don't resist in case we get sued - to attack them before they kill us.

[ThomasT]

There is, it's called intelligence and police work - or HUMINT if you are a three letter agency.

The problem is that if every TV show, every TSA agent and every cop treats anyone brown as a potential enemy then it becomes much harder to gather this intelligence.

For example if you want to stop gang behaviour in a housing project you need nice respectable members of $ETHNIC_GROUP to report activity to the police, inform them if they see anything, confront gangs and discourage their kids from joining gangs. You don't get this if the police solution is pull over every nice respectable middle-aged / middle-class member of $ETHNIC_GROUP and 'teach them a lesson'.Of course I have to agree with you. But what I was getting at was hardware technology that might be used in certain situations like airport security checkpoints that would preclude the searches that people are complaining about. Afaik, this sort of technology doesn't exist except in the realm of science fiction. Very fuzzy.

Anyway, the airport searches are, and will continue to be, part of the program to minimize terrorist threats. We all know this going in, and afaik the agents are quite professional about it.

[NobodySpecial]

But what I was getting at was hardware technology that might be used in certain situations like airport security checkpoints that would preclude the searches that people are complaining about.
The problem with technology solutions (apart from all the obvious ones) is that you have to know what question they are answering.
The 911 hijackers used small knives - so the 'answer' is scanners to prevent people carrying small knives. Nevermind that the knives were smuggled onboard in a food cart, or that in the mind set of the time they could have just as easily used a bit of bent metal seat trim.

Then when technology is the answer - better technology must be a better answer. So we have explosive swab detectors, then person explosive sniffers, then somebody proposed a system which could detect a single molecule of explosive in an airport. Anyone see the problem?

Anyway, the airport searches are, and will continue to be, part of the program to minimize terrorist threats.
Possibly stopping people carrying loaded guns onboard might be worthwhile. Stopping half full 125ml tubes of toothpaste because the limit is 100ml is not only silly but it makes the whole security system look stupid, which does have a detrimental effect on security.

We all know this going in, and afaik the agents are quite professional about it.
No they aren't - they almost uniformly useless. They few good ones are handicapped by ridiculous rules ands procedures. Try the searches for getting into a government building in Isreal - or even Belfast in the bad old days.

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

...the people being groped and exposed...

Three ways to help I don't see a lot (though I haven't researched the subject much) :

I don't see why the security officers that do this are necessarily less capable than physicians. Surely a proper training should be possible where the examiners can be just as trustworthy as common medical staff.

Plus I don't see why sexes couldn't be separated. Men examined by men, women by women. That should solve at least part of the perceived problem.

And as for the visual scan, why can't the "observer" simply be in another room, and have a screen where all is seen would be below the neck? This examiner would never have to associate the body he sees with the person's face or identity. Anonymity of both parties would then be preserved.

And of course, airlines are a service like another, not a necessity. Flight staff need a safe place to work. No one should be forced to fly.

[Jasongreat]

Three ways to help I don't see a lot (though I haven't researched the subject much) :

I don't see why the security officers that do this are necessarily less capable than physicians. Surely a proper training should be possible where the examiners can be just as trustworthy as common medical staff.

Plus I don't see why sexes couldn't be separated. Men examined by men, women by women. That should solve at least part of the perceived problem.

And as for the visual scan, why can't the "observer" simply be in another room, and have a screen where all is seen would be below the neck? This examiner would never have to associate the body he sees with the person's face or identity. Anonymity of both parties would then be preserved.

And of course, airlines are a service like another, not a necessity. Flight staff need a safe place to work. No one should be forced to fly.

At least a physician could tell me if I had a hernia while he/she was doing the same type of groping as the TSA workers are involved in. There is no law enforcement agency in the US that does so intimate an inspection, until after ones arrest.

Men and women are already seperated, men examine men, and women examine women. The problem I think, most americans that have a problem with these searches have, is that there is a thing called the fourth ammendment which states we cant be searched without probable cause and then only upon a warrant being issued, it doesnt say we can be searched whenever the government feels it is the most expedient way. That ammendment has been abused quite a bit in the last couple decades though. It may be that people feel enough is enough and are finally standing up for their constitutional rights, I welcome that.

If they only search the body with the scanners, somebody could hide contraband in their updo. The problems I see with the scanners, is that it wont be the end of it. There have been people who have hid contraband in bodily orifices, the scanners cant pick that up, so eventually they are going to be asking us to bend over, spread our cheeks and cough. The other problem is that Chertoff is a major stockholder in the company supplying these machines which he started to institute in his time as DHS chief.

While it is true we dont have a constitutional right to fly, or to drive per se. We do have a constitutional right to travel unrestricted, and the USSC has said as much in quite a few different cases. Just because our mode of transportation is no longer a horse it doesnt mean that we have to put up with intrusions of perceived security/safety measures. I wonder how many of the people who have problems with these searches are for road side checkpoints to punish drinkers, imo, that is where the government gets the precedent for these actions now.

I used to fly quite a bit, the last time was about a year after 9/11. As soon as I got treated like a criminal, without being any probable cause I have never flown since. I drive wherever I go, usually putting about 50,000 miles on my truck a year. It costs more, pollutes more, and takes more time, but I still have all my rights, unless I come across a roadside checkpoint.

Just as DUI checkpoints havent stopped alcohol related accidents from happening, these scanners and pat downs arent going to stop the next terrorist attack, but they will allow the government to feel good as well as to go beyond their proper scope, setting precedent for their next intrusion, and will hurt the airlines bottom line when others decide they would rather not go through this process, will hurt the enviroment as more start to drive, and will cause more people to get hurt in accidents on the road since flying is far safer than driving.

I like Pen Jillete's idea of airline security, allow every law abiding citizen who chooses to, to carry a gun, after all it is a constitutional right. Then instead of us looking around worrying about who the terrorists are, they would be looking around worrying about whos going to take them out when they make their move, an idea I also feel would work to stop school shootings, ever notice how mass killings happen where there are no guns allowed, and usually end when the guns show up.

I am of the opinion that the terrorists are winning, every time we lose liberty because of their actions.

[lisab]

At least a physician could tell me if I had a hernia while he/she was doing the same type of groping as the TSA workers are involved in. There is no law enforcement agency in the US that does so intimate an inspection, until after ones arrest.

Men and women are already seperated, men examine men, and women examine women. The problem I think, most americans that have a problem with these searches have, is that there is a thing called the fourth ammendment which states we cant be searched without probable cause and then only upon a warrant being issued, it doesnt say we can be searched whenever the government feels it is the most expedient way. That ammendment has been abused quite a bit in the last couple decades though. It may be that people feel enough is enough and are finally standing up for their constitutional rights, I welcome that.

If they only search the body with the scanners, somebody could hide contraband in their updo. The problems I see with the scanners, is that it wont be the end of it. There have been people who have hid contraband in bodily orifices, the scanners cant pick that up, so eventually they are going to be asking us to bend over, spread our cheeks and cough. The other problem is that Chertoff is a major stockholder in the company supplying these machines which he started to institute in his time as DHS chief.

While it is true we dont have a constitutional right to fly, or to drive per se. We do have a constitutional right to travel unrestricted, and the USSC has said as much in quite a few different cases. Just because our mode of transportation is no longer a horse it doesnt mean that we have to put up with intrusions of perceived security/safety measures. I wonder how many of the people who have problems with these searches are for road side checkpoints to punish drinkers, imo, that is where the government gets the precedent for these actions now.

I used to fly quite a bit, the last time was about a year after 9/11. As soon as I got treated like a criminal, without being any probable cause I have never flown since. I drive wherever I go, usually putting about 50,000 miles on my truck a year. It costs more, pollutes more, and takes more time, but I still have all my rights, unless I come across a roadside checkpoint.

Just as DUI checkpoints havent stopped alcohol related accidents from happening, these scanners and pat downs arent going to stop the next terrorist attack, but they will allow the government to feel good as well as to go beyond their proper scope, setting precedent for their next intrusion, and will hurt the airlines bottom line when others decide they would rather not go through this process, will hurt the enviroment as more start to drive, and will cause more people to get hurt in accidents on the road since flying is far safer than driving.

I like Pen Jillete's idea of airline security, allow every law abiding citizen who chooses to, to carry a gun, after all it is a constitutional right. Then instead of us looking around worrying about who the terrorists are, they would be looking around worrying about whos going to take them out when they make their move, an idea I also feel would work to stop school shootings, ever notice how mass killings happen where there are no guns allowed, and usually end when the guns show up.

I am of the opinion that the terrorists are winning, every time we lose liberty because of their actions.

Good post.

[Proton Soup]

Three ways to help I don't see a lot (though I haven't researched the subject much) :

I don't see why the security officers that do this are necessarily less capable than physicians. Surely a proper training should be possible where the examiners can be just as trustworthy as common medical staff.


there's plenty of evidence that they are less capable, tho. remember the guy that got arrested for attacking one of his co-workers for making fun of his small penis on scan? say what you want about the guy that got arrested. co-workers (a number of the staff at that location apparently) can't even be professional with each other.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/tsa-worker-arrested-jokes-fight-size-genitalia/

co-workers made fun of him on a daily basis

TSA workers have shown that they can't be professional in front of the people they're searching, stripping and sexually harassing a woman. then making comments about their lack of professional behavior behind the scenes.

http://gizmodo.com/5692583/woman-suing-federal-government-after-tsa-screener-exposed-her-breasts-to-entire-airport

"One male TSA employee expressed to the plaintiff that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that 'he would just have to watch the video.'

on the plus side, i guess they will no longer be molesting kids

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-11-17-tsa-pat-downs-children_N.htm

that proved to be a bad idea rather quickly

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=26798164
http://vimeo.com/16865565

[JaredJames]

Out of curiousity, let's say that they ban this technology. Six months down the line a bomber gets on an aircraft and blows it up taking all 400 passengers with him. Through investigation they find the bomb was strapped to the guys chest and could have been detected via the full body scans.

How many people would then complain to (and possibly sue) the government for failing to instal these scanners (or some other similarly worded complaint)? How many people would be mad because we had the means to prevent the disaster but didn't use it?

People want protection but for some reason they don't want to be 'put out' in order to get it.

I believe in the UK, the people viewing the scans are isolated from the public. They don't get the chance to match images to the individual.

I've seen this a few times, where people complain about some new technology or system and it ends up being removed. Then when something occurs which could have been avoided by having said technology they are up in arms over it not being used and seem to forget why this is the case (I'm trying to find the link to the case I'm thinking of).
I'm not saying this is a reason for every new piece of technology to be implemented, but if people don't want something such as the full body scanners to happen for whatever reason, they need to be prepared to accept that if an incident occurs which they could have prevented then they have no right to be annoyed or sue in retaliation to personal injury / loss.

[NobodySpecial]

let's say that they ban this technology. Six months down the line a bomber gets on an aircraft and blows it up taking all 400 passengers with him. Through investigation they find the bomb was strapped to the guys chest and could have been detected via the full body scans.
What if the bomb could have been prevented by us banning muslims from flying, or putting them all in internment camps for the duration of the war on terror, or just a traditional final solution?

What if the next bomb is put on a food cart by a minimum wage illegal immigrant worker after the airline cut costs because of the reduced number of people flying?

What if the next bomb is a truck full of fertilizer in front of the TSA office by another McVeigh who was annoyed at being groped.

What if the next crash is a mid air collision caused by cuts in ATC to pay for the TSA?

[OmCheeto]

...what is the big deal now.

I believe it was predicted that this day would come:

"The United States is a free country, a strong country, a prosperous country," Schuitt said. "Many veterans gave their lives so we would have the right to focus our attention and energies on the DVD release of Joe Dirt, the latest web-browsing cell phones, and how-low-can-you-go hip-hugging jeans. It is a sign of our collective strength as a nation that we genuinely give a **** about the latest developments in the Cruise-Cruz romance. When Mariah Carey's latest breakdown is once again treated as front-page news, that is the day the healing will have truly begun."
From the Onion.
Written shortly after 9/11.
"A Shattered Nation Longs To Care About Stupid Bull**** Again"
October 3, 2001


TSA boycott.... (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/11/25/2010-11-25_tsa_boycott_doesnt_hinder_thanksgiving_day_trav el_but_winter_storms_in_northwest.html?r=news)
But besides a few protestors (one man was seen at the Salt Lake City airport in a Speedo-style bathing suit and others carried signs denouncing the TSA), the lines moved smoothly and travel was no more or less hectic than previous Thanksgivings.

"I would go so far as to say that National Opt-Out Day was a big bust," said Genevieve Shaw Brown, a spokeswoman for the travel company Travelocity.

ie, when you get down to it, the only people that seem to really care are those that want to be on TV or U-Tube. And the rest of us follow the story because aside from the USS Washington heading for Korea, it's a really slow news day.

[Gokul43201]

I believe in the UK, the people viewing the scans are isolated from the public. They don't get the chance to match images to the individual.This is true for the US system as well.

I've seen this a few times, where people complain about some new technology or system and it ends up being removed. Then when something occurs which could have been avoided by having said technology they are up in arms over it not being used and seem to forget why this is the case (I'm trying to find the link to the case I'm thinking of).But do you know that it is the same group of people that complained both times? After all, if 50% complained the first time and the other 50% complained the second time, it would still look like either way there was a lot of complaining going on, but no single person would have expressed contradictory views.

[JaredJames]

....

I fully understand the other possible ways of the event occurring. I very specifically worded the question for that reason.

The purpose of the question is simple:

If you don't wish to have a measure in place to prevent event X happening and as such you end up getting the measure scrapped, and then sometime in the future event X happens, do you accept that those people forfeit their right to complain that [insert authority] didn't do everything in their power to prevent X?

In response to you Gokul, I'm not sure on that matter. However as per the point of my post above, no person in such an event is going to just sit down and accept what's happened. They aren't just going to sit back and accept the situation as a "casualty of war" and something that was worth happening just so they could be happy in the knowledge they aren't being scanned anymore.

[NobodySpecial]

do you accept that those people forfeit their right to complain that [insert authority] didn't do everything in their power to prevent X?
Yes if the same people accept the blame when a different event happens because the investment was made in pointless theatre rather than inteligence.

[JaredJames]

Yes if the same people accept the blame when a different event happens because the investment was made in pointless theatre rather than inteligence.

I'm not talking about accepting blame for the actual incident. I'm talking about forfeiting your right to complain/sue.

I've highlighted in bold because I believe it should be those in support of the technology to blame, not the same ones as in my example (the opposing group if you like). If this is what you meant then just ignore this comment.

Regardless, I agree with you on that however I will add a caveat; you would have to prove beyond doubt that it was this specific technology being used which removed funding from the intelligence services for this particular circumstance. You'd have to prove that no other project/investment was to blame.

Again, this is why I worded it so specifically. It would be extremely unlikely that such an event, so perfectly outlined as I showed it would happen but I was simply using it to prove a point.

EDIT: I'm also going to add that your use of "pointless theatre" is a bit leading and assumes the technology as useless from the start, which is an unproven statement.

[Gokul43201]

However as per the point of my post above, no person in such an event is going to just sit down and accept what's happened.I think you'd be surprised. I personally know at least one person who would.

[Proton Soup]

I'm not talking about accepting blame for the actual incident. I'm talking about forfeiting your right to complain/sue.

I've highlighted in bold because I believe it should be those in support of the technology to blame, not the same ones as in my example (the opposing group if you like). If this is what you meant then just ignore this comment.

Regardless, I agree with you on that however I will add a caveat; you would have to prove beyond doubt that it was this specific technology being used which removed funding from the intelligence services for this particular circumstance. You'd have to prove that no other project/investment was to blame.

Again, this is why I worded it so specifically. It would be extremely unlikely that such an event, so perfectly outlined as I showed it would happen but I was simply using it to prove a point.

EDIT: I'm also going to add that your use of "pointless theatre" is a bit leading and assumes the technology as useless from the start, which is an unproven statement.

i find your theatre a bit pointless, too. so what if 400 people die in a plane bombing without this tech? that still doesn't mean it was cost-effective.

if this tech is driven by people's fears, then maybe we should also consider if those fears are driven by the media and are out of proportion to the actual threat. the threat you outline of complain/sue may also be out of proportion to the actual costs. and if congress can sign away people's right to privacy of their persons, what's to stop them from signing away your right to sue? (complaining may be a little harder to legislate away).

[JaredJames]

i find your theatre a bit pointless, too. so what if 400 people die in a plane bombing without this tech? that still doesn't mean it was cost-effective.

Right, so we've determined there's obviously a number of deaths to overall cost ratio that's acceptable. What exactly do you consider a 'good' number of deaths to prove the system is cost effective?

I'm also concerned that you clearly believe that the deaths of 400 innocent people is worth it, just so the average person travelling once or twice a year on holiday doesn't have to be subjected to this imaging technique.

As far as I'm concerned, if the system stops only one bomb getting through and no other events occur in the manner this machine defends against (no one manages to get a bomb through it on their person), it's done its job. Whether actively removing a threat or simply acting as a deterrent.

Note: I'm not commenting on the effectiveness of this system. For the purpose of discussion I'm assuming it works and my comments are based on this assumption.

[Proton Soup]

As far as I'm concerned, if the system stops only one bomb getting through and no other events occur in the manner this machine defends against (no one manages to get a bomb through it on their person), it's done its job. Whether actively removing a threat or simply acting as a deterrent.


i don't find this at all rational. what i hear you saying is safety at any cost. i have to assume that you would be all for this if only one life is saved.

and what i don't see you considering is that after you've spent all this money on equipment and personnel, possibly violating the rights of thousands, maybe millions of people in the process, is that the threat may simply shift to another strategy, leaving you no safer overall than you were before. suppose the threat shifts to pedestrian traffic? what means are you willing to resort to then?

[JaredJames]

i don't find this at all rational. what i hear you saying is safety at any cost. i have to assume that you would be all for this if only one life is saved.

Correct. But then I value life and if we have the ability to prevent a disaster such as this, why shouldn't we do it? We are putting people in a situation where they have no control over what goes on. Therefore there is a responsibility to ensure the safety of the passengers.
and what i don't see you considering is that after you've spent all this money on equipment and personnel, possibly violating the rights of thousands, maybe millions of people in the process, is that the threat may simply shift to another strategy, leaving you no safer overall than you were before.

Incorrect. Each time you remove an opportunity, you make it more difficult for a threat to get through to the target. You decrease the chances of the event happening (in this case blowing up / hijacking an aircraft), increasing overall safety. Based on what you've put above, having no security what-so-ever would be equally as safe as current security measures. This is simply untrue.
For every avenue of opportunity you remove, the safer you get. Ultimate safety would involve removing all possible ways for the threat to occur.
suppose the threat shifts to pedestrian traffic? what means are you willing to resort to then?

I don't understand what you are referring to with "pedestrian traffic", can you clarify?

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

At least a physician could tell me if I had a hernia while he/she was doing the same type of groping as the TSA workers are involved in. There is no law enforcement agency in the US that does so intimate an inspection, until after ones arrest.

No need to train enforcers to diagnose. That's extra training = extra salary = extra costs on ticket. I'm talking about training the agents to do things professionally and to have their jobs depend on it.

Men and women are already seperated, men examine men, and women examine women. The problem I think, most americans that have a problem with these searches have, is that there is a thing called the fourth ammendment which states we cant be searched without probable cause and then only upon a warrant being issued, it doesnt say we can be searched whenever the government feels it is the most expedient way. That ammendment has been abused quite a bit in the last couple decades though. It may be that people feel enough is enough and are finally standing up for their constitutional rights, I welcome that.

Well I'm neither an American, nor a lawyer, but if one chose to have a condition where an invitee must be searched before entering his house, that seems fair to me, strange maybe, but within his rights. I see airplanes like houses, they are not public property.

...allow every law abiding citizen who chooses to, to carry a gun, after all it is a constitutional right...

Well, surely not beyond the gate.

[JaredJames]

Well I'm neither an American, nor a lawyer, but if one chose to have a condition where an invitee must be searched before entering his house, that seems fair to me, strange maybe, but within his rights. I see airplanes like houses, they are not public property.

Like I said above, once on an aircraft you have absolutely no control. Nowhere to run / hide. If someone has a weapon and/or bomb there's little you can do about it within the aircraft environment.
I see it as a duty of the airport authorities to ensure the safety of the passengers and do everything in their power to make sure situations such as hijacking cannot take place. If it means searching people then so be it.
Would you rather sit on an aircraft knowing that no one has been checked and could be carrying anything? Or would you prefer to know that people have been checked and that they present as small a danger to you as possible?

And I agree, this isn't some government area, these are private aircraft and airports (at least in the UK) and if they want people searched before entering then it's no different to people being searched on entering a night club.

[xxChrisxx]

For all those people moaning about their rights. As mentioned above flights are conditional. They agree to let you on, after you agree to jump through whatever hoops they want.

Like I said before, you can buy your own plane and not have the hassle of searches before boarding.

So your rights aren't in anyway touched by this. Noones forcing you to be searched becuase you don't have to board a charter or plublic flight, and noones stopping you flying becuase there is always the option of going private with your own lovely jet.

[NobodySpecial]

So your rights aren't in anyway touched by this. Noones forcing you to be searched becuase you don't have to board a charter flight, and noones stopping you flying becuase there is always the option of going private.
And wiretaps aren't a problem because nobody is forcing you to use a phone, and searches aren't a privacy issue because no one forces you to buy a house, or a car - or wear clothes.

[JaredJames]

And wiretaps aren't a problem because nobody is forcing you to use a phone, and searches aren't a privacy issue because no one forces you to buy a house, or a car - or wear clothes.

Wiretaps - done without your knowledge are infringing on privacy. Apples and oranges. Wiretaps without your consent isn't the same as flying with your consent.

Searches for buying a house? If you are responding to the "search before entering" issue, then you are well within your rights to have every person entering your house searched. If you don't want to be searched, you don't enter the house. You choose to enter the house.

Clothes, not sure what they're doing here or what point you're trying to make here.

It all comes down to flying being a voluntary act and you are entering a private building, and private transport. If they want to check you aren't a threat to their business / assets you don't get a say in it.

[Ivan Seeking]

It all comes down to flying being a voluntary act

Fine in theory, but tell that to my customers, of Joe Flyer's employer.

[JaredJames]

Fine in theory, but tell that to my customers, of Joe Flyer's employer.

No one can force you to fly. If you choose to have a job that requires you to fly to visit employers / customers than you accept the fact you are going to have to submit to security checks to do so.

If you don't like it, don't have a job that requires you to fly.

You can argue this all you like, "there are no other jobs" or "I'll lose my job if I don't", but so long as you make the choice to keep the job you accept these searches at security.

As I see it, it comes down to whether or not a person has made a choice. If you have no say in something then yes, you are being forced into it and giving up rights. If you do get a say in it then you have decided to agree to the terms (whether it is going through security checks or otherwise).

You also didn't add this bit to the quote: "and you are entering a private building, and private transport". I find this to be the important aspect. You are using someone elses property, every person they allow to enter is a risk to them. They want to ensure that risk is as low as possible. I don't see a problem with a private company / person requiring those using their facilities are checked to ensure they won't endanger their property/assets.

[WhoWee]

Fine in theory, but tell that to my customers, of Joe Flyer's employer.

I agree - especially if you fly several times per week. I googled to confirm and the first airline club started in the 1930's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_lounge

There should be something that can be done for frequent business travellers to avoid the repeated scans or pat-downs.
http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/seat-2B/2008/02/19/Guide-to-Airline-Clubs/

[JaredJames]

I agree - especially if you fly several times per week. I googled to confirm and the first airline club started in the 1930's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_lounge

There should be something that can be done for frequent business travellers to avoid the repeated scans or pat-downs.
http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/seat-2B/2008/02/19/Guide-to-Airline-Clubs/

And then encourage a terrorist to fly continuously and become a frequent flyer so that they can benefit from slacker security checks?

VIP's in Britain used to benefit from this type of system. They could be taken through the terminal and bypass security/check in and go straight to a private departure lounge so they wouldn't be hounded by fans and the like. But after 9/11, that all stopped and they now have to check in and go through security like everyone else.

[WhoWee]

And then encourage a terrorist to fly continuously and become a frequent flyer so that they can benefit from slacker security checks?

VIP's in Britain used to benefit from this type of system. They could be taken through the terminal and bypass security/check in and go straight to a private departure lounge so they wouldn't be hounded by fans and the like. But after 9/11, that all stopped and they now have to check in and go through security like everyone else.

Perhaps limit the benefits to corporate accounts? It's been my experience that pleasure travelers don't frequent airline clubs unless on vacation with family.

I don't think this is reasonable, jarednjames.
"If you don't like it, don't have a job that requires you to fly.

You can argue this all you like, "there are no other jobs" or "I'll lose my job if I don't", but so long as you make the choice to keep the job you accept these searches at security."

Chances are, a job that requires you to fly every week more than likely offers higher than average compensation. If you have a family and travel constantly, chances are you would prefer not to - but do it because of the benefits for your family.

[Jasongreat]

Dr Lots-o'watts;3004829]
Well I'm neither an American, nor a lawyer, but if one chose to have a condition where an invitee must be searched before entering his house, that seems fair to me, strange maybe, but within his rights. I see airplanes like houses, they are not public property.

But this is not a case of the owners setting up their own security in their own house, this is a case of a third party setting up a security checkpoint in front of everyones house. I would be completely behind each individual airline setting up there own security, that way I would think that there would be differing options. If one airline went too far, people could choose a competitior. Carrying your analogy of an airline as being a house a little further, could it not be said that the customer would have the same right to protect himself as the renter does in a rental? Once they rent a room/apartment it is the renters castle and they can defend it with deadly force if neccessary to protect their life. Once we rent a seat on the airplane, isnt it our perogative to protect our life while in that seat as well? In the US, we dont have a right to be protected by law enforcement, why should we then be forced to rely on law enforcement for out protection?


Well, surely not beyond the gate.

Well, surely I do mean beyond the gate. If guns could of been carried on the planes at the time of 9/11, I doubt box cutters would have had the same impact. Air marshalls are allowed to carry guns on board planes, if it is not entirely unsafe for them to do so, why then is it entirely unsafe for us to do so? Before 9/11 it was a widely held belief that terrorists would only hijack a plane, land it somewhere, and demand ransom. As soon as passengers, of the united 93(?) flight, learnt that terrorists were intent on flying the planes into buildings to cause large losses of life, passengers decided to give their lives, to protect the large numbers of lives the terrorists were intent on taking. They did so unarmed, and they did pay with their lives. Imagine if they were armed, would they all have needed to die in order to accomplish the same thing? It is not out of the realm of possibilities that a few may have died in the fire fight, the plane might have even had a few holes shot in it, but the majority of passengers would likely have been saved.

[JaredJames]

Perhaps limit the benefits to corporate accounts? It's been my experience that pleasure travelers don't frequent airline clubs unless on vacation with family.

And a terrorist couldn't have a job (false company perhaps) and make it seem legit?
I don't think this is reasonable, jarednjames.
"If you don't like it, don't have a job that requires you to fly.

You can argue this all you like, "there are no other jobs" or "I'll lose my job if I don't", but so long as you make the choice to keep the job you accept these searches at security."

Chances are, a job that requires you to fly every week more than likely offers higher than average compensation. If you have a family and travel constantly, chances are you would prefer not to - but do it because of the benefits for your family.

It's still your choice to do that. No one elses. If you want the benefits of such a job you have to accept the security checks.

[JaredJames]

....

Guns on aircraft? You're joking. Those aircraft wouldn't be allowed to land in virtually any country outside the USA.

Guns on aircraft are dangerous, you puncture the skin you're in a bit of trouble. You don't want a bunch of people on board with the capability to do that.

An armed citized <> a trained air marshal. They don't even compare.

And how much does it cost to have individual airline security?

You are not renting an aircraft. It isn't the same thing.

So far as Flight 93 passengers being saved goes, not so sure about this. Not an expert on the crash so can't say one way or another.

[xxChrisxx]

And wiretaps aren't a problem because nobody is forcing you to use a phone, and searches aren't a privacy issue because no one forces you to buy a house, or a car - or wear clothes.

Bit of a strawman there bud, but very nice try.

A wiretap is generally without concent or knowledge. A closer comparison would be someone telling you 'this call may be monitored'.

A random search IS protected against. This isn't random, you are agreeing to some measures when you buy the ticket. You can't complain if you agree to the search. So again a closer comparison is a search before entering a night club. You can choose to so for the search and enter, or refuse and not enter.


Just because most can't afford the hassle free alternative, doesn't mean there isn't one.

[NobodySpecial]

A wiretap is generally without concent or knowledge. A closer comparison would be someone telling you 'this call may be monitored'.
Suppose all cell phone providers put a line in their contracts saying 'all calls may be monitored' - well you are always free to start your own phone company.

This isn't random, you are agreeing to some measures when you buy the ticket. You can't complain if you agree to the search.
You agree to buying a house - suppose your local/state/federal government make it a condition of providing utilities/fire/police service/or road access - that you allow searches without a warrant? It's your choice to live in a house.

It's the same reason that things like regulations at work are compulsory - if you were allowed to opt-out of OSHA protection, or maternity leave etc then rejecting these would become a standard part of every contract. After all you have a choice to work there

[xxChrisxx]

Suppose all cell phone providers put a line in their contracts saying 'all calls may be monitored' - well you are always free to start your own phone company.


You agree to buying a house - suppose your local/state/federal government make it a condition of providing utilities/fire/police service/or road access - that you allow searches without a warrant? It's your choice to live in a house.

It's the same reason that things like regulations at work are compulsory - if you were allowed to opt-out of OSHA protection, or maternity leave etc then rejecting these would become a standard part of every contract. After all you have a choice to work there

I normally hate it when people point it out, but the above looks like a game of 'what's my fallacy'.

[JaredJames]

NobodySpecial, do you not understand the difference between a private sector and a public sector?

Private area - I have the right to request everyone is searched before entering. Failure to comply simply means refusal of entry (e.g. a nightclub).

Public area - You can't just randomly be searched (e.g. Trafalgar Square).

EDIT: I also agree with Chris' above post.

[Mathnomalous]

There is no audio and someone's rant on youtube is not considered factual. Does she think the airport scanner will make the milk radio active?

I don't know what this woman's problem is, nowhere in your link does it say that breast milk will be excluded from x-ray scanning, it says that in order to bring an amount in excess of 3 ounces will require additional screening at the x-ray point, not instead of x-ray.

It appears she's wrong and they're right.

The video was released by the TSA. It seemed to me she complied with all TSA security checkpoint guidelines; she went through the scanner without complaints, she was patted-down, she waited patiently for over 40 mins, and generally she seemed to behave in a collected manner. But, you are correct that the TSA's guidelines do not mention alternate procedures but additional procedures.

Still, I will take advantage of any opportunity that presents itself to discredit the TSA. Yes, I am biased against that organization. Here is more video proof (hopefully CNN is considered a legitimate source):

TSA Terrorize A Disabled 4 Year Old Boy By Removing His Leg Braces, Then Forcing Him To Walk:
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=13217&title=tsa-terrorize-a-disabled-4-year-old-boy-by-removing-his-leg-braces--then-forcing-him-to-walk

[Proton Soup]

Correct. But then I value life and if we have the ability to prevent a disaster such as this, why shouldn't we do it? We are putting people in a situation where they have no control over what goes on. Therefore there is a responsibility to ensure the safety of the passengers.

and are you going to argue somewhere else that no one is forcing them to fly, so there is no point of arguing their rights? they can't both have control and not have control.

Incorrect. Each time you remove an opportunity, you make it more difficult for a threat to get through to the target. You decrease the chances of the event happening (in this case blowing up / hijacking an aircraft), increasing overall safety. Based on what you've put above, having no security what-so-ever would be equally as safe as current security measures. This is simply untrue.
For every avenue of opportunity you remove, the safer you get. Ultimate safety would involve removing all possible ways for the threat to occur.


this is simply untrue. you do not have infinite resources. the money will be better spent somewhere else if you're only saving one life. it may sound wrong to you to put a price tag on lives, but the fact is that by not doing so, you are devaluing the lives of others. for example, that money may be better spent providing better police protection to crime-ridden neighborhoods.

I don't understand what you are referring to with "pedestrian traffic", can you clarify?

very simple. why are we fixated on acts of terrorism on airplanes? what's to stop a terrorist from walking into a crowd of people entering a subway during rush hour? or, gosh, at the airport?! he doesn't even have to make it past the scanners to kill a bunch of people.

this is really about protecting treasure, isn't it? because airplanes are expensive? or maybe it's to enrich people invested in scanners?

[JaredJames]

and are you going to argue somewhere else that no one is forcing them to fly, so there is no point of arguing their rights? they can't both have control and not have control.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. (Think I'm having a dumb day today).
this is simply untrue. you do not have infinite resources. the money will be better spent somewhere else if you're only saving one life. it may sound wrong to you to put a price tag on lives, but the fact is that by not doing so, you are devaluing the lives of others. for example, that money may be better spent providing better police protection to crime-ridden neighborhoods.

Your statement said that by removing one avenue for a possible terrorist attack, they simply move to another. Therefore you are no safer than you were before you removed said avenue.
So, from that I took you to be implying that no matter how much security we put in place we get no safer. In other words it appears you are saying that an airport with no security is equally as safe as an aiport with security. This is not true.

The more security we put in place the safer we get, by making it more difficult for attacks to occur.

Again, I'm not arguing this point wrt the scanners but security in general. EDIT: I'll add that I'm discussing airports/aircraft and their related threats only here. I'm working on the basis that the money is going to airport security in one way or another, but we have to decide how it's spent - which way will be more effective.
very simple. why are we fixated on acts of terrorism on airplanes? what's to stop a terrorist from walking into a crowd of people entering a subway during rush hour?

We've had that, and I can safely say I see no differences between security before and security now. (7/7 bombings)

I don't see how you can improve security in these areas. There is simply too many people for it to be effective. However, even Heathrow (I believe pretty much the busiest passenger wise in the world) wouldn't be that affected by these scanners. They don't slow things up as much as a full body pat-down.

I'd also add that leaving a public place is possible. You see something you don't like you have a chance to get away (circumstances dependent of course). In an aircraft this simply isn't an option.
this is really about protecting treasure, isn't it? because airplanes are expensive? or maybe it's to enrich people invested in scanners?

I'm more for protecting the lives of those on the aircraft. They have absolutely no control on board. In a public area you do have at least some control over what you do / where you go, how you react to people acting suspiciously.

[Office_Shredder]

what's to stop a terrorist from walking into a crowd of people entering a subway during rush hour? or, gosh, at the airport?! he doesn't even have to make it past the scanners to kill a bunch of people.

If nothing is stopping them from doing this, but they don't do it, what's the problem? It makes more sense to focus on targets that are being targeted

[Proton Soup]

If nothing is stopping them from doing this, but they don't do it, what's the problem? It makes more sense to focus on targets that are being targeted

you mean like buildings? the trade towers were specifically targeted initially (unsuccessfully) on the ground. the 9-11 hijackings were simply a means to an end to destroy the towers. hijackings seem unlikely now, given the new cockpit doors. if anything, they should frisk pilots instead of passengers.

the targets seem to be high profile items. the trade towers were an international symbol of american empire. blowing up planes may be a bit passe now. even the recent toner cartridges were addressed to synagogues.

[Proton Soup]

I'm more for protecting the lives of those on the aircraft. They have absolutely no control on board. In a public area you do have at least some control over what you do / where you go, how you react to people acting suspiciously.

no, you only have an illusion of control.

[Al68]

At least there's a silver lining here: TSA airport rules prompt new fashion - bikini's and underwear at airports (http://www.examiner.com/pop-culture-in-hartford/new-tsa-airport-fashion-woman-bikini-at-lax-and-man-underwear-at-ny)

[JaredJames]

no, you only have an illusion of control.

Ah, so I can't leave the train station anytime I want? I can't move from one end of the platform to the other? I can't move away from the suspicious bloke looking rather nervous?

In a public place such as a train station, I have an element of control over what happens. On an aircraft, I can do none of the above.

[WhoWee]

Ah, so I can't leave the train station anytime I want? I can't move from one end of the platform to the other? I can't move away from the suspicious bloke looking rather nervous?

In a public place such as a train station, I have an element of control over what happens. On an aircraft, I can do none of the above.

Do you know that was post number 666:devil: for you - just saying.o:)

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

...Once we rent a seat on the airplane, isnt it our perogative to protect our life while in that seat as well? In the US, we dont have a right to be protected by law enforcement, why should we then be forced to rely on law enforcement for out protection?

Not exactly the same. In an aircraft, the crew (= landlord) is constantly present and it's them who have the final say, because their life is also at risk if you fight against an attacker. Putting a bullet hole in an apartment wall won't risk blowing a fuel tank and make everyone fall from very high. The ground law enforcement protects the in-flight crew, and the crew protects you.

I think if guns had been allowed on 9/11, the evildoers would have been prepared for it and the ending would have been similar.

[Proton Soup]

Ah, so I can't leave the train station anytime I want? I can't move from one end of the platform to the other? I can't move away from the suspicious bloke looking rather nervous?

In a public place such as a train station, I have an element of control over what happens. On an aircraft, I can do none of the above.

you're assuming he would look nervous in the scenario you think you could escape from. but all he has to do is arrive in a hurried state like any other passenger and then detonate. he doesn't have to sit and stew in his anxiety for hours like yourself. your feeling of control is just an illusion, tho. all that being on the plane adds is a time delay to the random event of being killed by a terrorist.

the only difference between the two is the claustrophobic anxiety you experience from being on the plane. so, it's not a safety concern, it's a matter of how the situation makes you feel. and if you can be dismissive of how some people feel about being violated by the new security procedures, then it's just as easy to dismiss your anxiety about feeling helpless on a plane. so, if the new procedures are dropped, you can simply not fly if it makes you uncomfortable.

[mugaliens]

Yes, this is a very stark an un-pragmatic way to look at it, but this is the core of the issue. Before terrorist intervention interstate travel (and re-entering the country) didn't require these things. Because of terrorism, we have become a society of _______________. Fill in the blank; I can't decide what to put there.

"Quivering, blithering over-reactive, empire-building power-mongers, governmentally speaking"

Just a guess...

[BobG]

For all those people moaning about their rights. As mentioned above flights are conditional. They agree to let you on, after you agree to jump through whatever hoops they want.

Like I said before, you can buy your own plane and not have the hassle of searches before boarding.

So your rights aren't in anyway touched by this. Noones forcing you to be searched becuase you don't have to board a charter or plublic flight, and noones stopping you flying becuase there is always the option of going private with your own lovely jet.

No one can force you to fly. If you choose to have a job that requires you to fly to visit employers / customers than you accept the fact you are going to have to submit to security checks to do so.

If you don't like it, don't have a job that requires you to fly.


I don't buy the argument that modern travel is a privilege, not a right.

Air travel has become so intertwined into modern commerce that you can't consider it a private enterprise even if the particular airport you're using is privately owned. It's become similar to the role rivers used to play in travel and commerce, and, in the case of rivers, travel and commerce trumped personal property rights. In other words, a property owner may own the property on both sides of the river, but he doesn't own the water, the river or the river bed (rivers tend to fluctuate in their beds if they're not constrained by massive levee systems).

One key indicator that air travel can't be considered a private enterprise in the traditional sense - a privately owned airport couldn't opt to eliminate security checks for passengers. The security checks are mandatory for all commercial air transport - it's not an option that all airport owners and airline owners just happened to agree upon.

Just because a form of transportation or a form of communication is a recent development not envisioned by the authors of the Constitution doesn't mean that people don't have a right to use those modern developments. One of the phrases that bug me the most is "Driving is a privilege, not a right". Driving is a right; however the skills necessary to do it safely warrant some infringements on people's rights - so in that sense, it's not quite a right as unlimited as the right to free speech (we let people say what they want even if they don't know how to spell).

Likewise, people have an implied right to fly; but it, too, warrants some limitations on those rights in some situations just because of the nature of the technology.

Whether you're talking about metal detectors, baggage X-ray machines, backscatter imagers, or pat downs, you're infringing on people's rights to be free of random searches. The debate is about whether the infringements are reasonable compared to the threat. The less intrusive the infringement, the smaller the risk needed to make the infringement reasonable.

In other words, whether the measures are reasonable or not is a topic worthy of debate, where as, the idea that travelers have no right to modern travel dismisses the topic entirely on false grounds - it's not a free market choice that consumers can pick and choose between (the private companies involved don't have a choice about the safety measures either).

[JaredJames]

I'm sorry bob, I don't buy any arguments regarding things being a persons "right", flying, driving or otherwise.

Driving and flying alike are both heavily dependent on each persons own financial circumstances. If you can afford it, you can do it. If you can't, then you simply aren't able to.

I don't want a debate on this, but I felt if you wanted to put your view on the matter it would be fair for me to put an opposing one in place.

[trautlein]

I don't have a huge problem with it, but I feel like if we allow the government to keep infringing on the edge of our rights, sooner or later they'll start taking away from the rights that actually matter, and nobody will think twice to stop them. That's why I'm not comfortable with the TSA's new protocol.

[xxChrisxx]

I don't buy the argument that modern travel is a privilege, not a right.
It's a service being provided for a fee with conditions. If you don't like those conditions, then you can complain about them all you want but it certainly doesn't violate your rights as there is an alternative available.


Whether you're talking about metal detectors, baggage X-ray machines, backscatter imagers, or pat downs, you're infringing on people's rights to be free of random searches.
It's hardly random if you've consented to security measures when you buy a ticket. Small print is lovely isn't it.


The security checks are mandatory for all commercial air transport
Buy a private jet, no security checks for boarding them.

[WhoWee]

you mean like buildings? the trade towers were specifically targeted initially (unsuccessfully) on the ground. the 9-11 hijackings were simply a means to an end to destroy the towers. hijackings seem unlikely now, given the new cockpit doors. if anything, they should frisk pilots instead of passengers.

the targets seem to be high profile items. the trade towers were an international symbol of american empire. blowing up planes may be a bit passe now. even the recent toner cartridges were addressed to synagogues.

An airplane doesn't need to target a building to cause mass casualties. The Christmas bomber last year intended to explode the airliner over a populated section of Detroit. We can't re-locate airports to remote locations away from population centers - or even re-route air traffic away from people in general.

I'm also concerned about the vulnerability of large crowds - remember the Olympic bombing in Atlanta and the recent plot in Oregon? I shudder to think how many fuel trucks are on the highway at any given time. They are both portable and lethal in the wrong hands.

Hopefully airliners aren't permitted to fly over stadiums?

[Proton Soup]

An airplane doesn't need to target a building to cause mass casualties. The Christmas bomber last year intended to explode the airliner over a populated section of Detroit. We can't re-locate airports to remote locations away from population centers - or even re-route air traffic away from people in general.

I'm also concerned about the vulnerability of large crowds - remember the Olympic bombing in Atlanta and the recent plot in Oregon? I shudder to think how many fuel trucks are on the highway at any given time. They are both portable and lethal in the wrong hands.

Hopefully airliners aren't permitted to fly over stadiums?

i think you overestimate the targeting capability of a guy sitting in coach. the chance of hitting a target as small as a stadium would be ridiculously low.

airliners drop out of the sky often enough, and the only time i can remember one taking out large numbers of people on the ground is 9-11 with hijackers actually steering the plane.

[WhoWee]

i think you overestimate the targeting capability of a guy sitting in coach. the chance of hitting a target as small as a stadium would be ridiculously low.

airliners drop out of the sky often enough, and the only time i can remember one taking out large numbers of people on the ground is 9-11 with hijackers actually steering the plane.

I don't think targeting would be a big concern if an aircraft exploded above a stadium. Also, I was thinking about stadium or race track locations near airports.

[Al68]

It's a service being provided for a fee with conditions.This is false. The "conditions" being imposed are not part of any service agreement, they are not imposed as a condition by either party to the agreement. The "conditions" are interference by a third party (government).

That doesn't mean the interference is unjustified, but it does mean that it cannot be justified as a "condition" imposed by an agreement between the parties, because it isn't.

[JaredJames]

The conditions are there regardless of who puts them there and if signed they become binding.

On rental agreements (at least in the UK), the government imposes certain restrictions/conditions which must be in the terms of the contract - they are to protect lanlords / renters in various situations.

On signing the contract, both parties agree to adhere to these conditions, even though neither party put them there.

I'd also add that you agree to submit to security checks. Who performs these checks is irrelevant.

[Al68]

The conditions are there regardless of who puts them there and if signed they become binding.

On rental agreements (at least in the UK), the government imposes certain restrictions/conditions which must be in the terms of the contract - they are to protect lanlords / renters in various situations.

On signing the contract, both parties agree to adhere to these conditions, even though neither party put them there.Exactly, and in the case of those rental agreements, one could not logically justify such "restrictions/conditions" on the basis that they were voluntarily and mutually chosen by the parties to the contract.

[JaredJames]

You still agree to them. If you don't like them you don't have to sign.

You are agreeing with the airline to submit to security checks. I don't see why who performs them is relevant.

You go to a nightclub and they require security checks on entrance, you agree to submit to these checks to get in. The security checks are performed by security officers working for an outside agency, not the club. They are simply there to perform the checks.

[Al68]

You still agree to them. If you don't like them you don't have to sign.You agree to them under duress imposed by a third party. The duress imposed by the third party cannot be justified by the subsequent agreement to the terms imposed by the duress. That's just faulty logic.

The restrictions in this case, as well as for flying, must be justified in another way or not at all.You are agreeing with the airline to submit to security checks. I don't see why who performs them is relevant.I wasn't referring to conditions agreed to by the parties. I was referring to restrictions imposed by government.You go to a nightclub and they require security checks on entrance, you agree to submit to these checks to get in. The security checks are performed by security officers working for an outside agency, not the club. They are simply there to perform the checks.Exactly. And if those security checks were mandated by government, they would have to be justified by government.

Can't we just cut the crap? There is no reason to pretend to not understand the difference between private agreements and the government using force to imposed their will against citizens.

[xxChrisxx]

There is no reason to pretend to not understand the difference between private agreements and the government using force to imposed their will against citizens.

'Force' and 'duress' imply there is simply no other option, when in fact you have two options a: go on a private plane not a commercial flight b: don't fly. It's not anyones fault including the US govt that you can't afford the hassle free alternative.

Poor? Sorry you'll have to jump through hoops. Don't like it, become rich. simples.

[CRGreathouse]

'Force' and 'duress' imply there is simply no other option, when in fact you have two options a: go on a private plane not a commercial flight b: don't fly. It's not anyones fault including the US govt that you can't afford the hassle free alternative.

Poor? Sorry you'll have to jump through hoops. Don't like it, become rich. simples.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

[FlexGunship]

Bad laws and rules have loopholes or downright silly repercussions. The new TSA invasive search rules are bad rules.

Bend them, twist them, and make everyone feel awkward.

"I'd like to skip the backscatter and be patted down."
"Okay."
"In private."
"Sure."
"And I'm a little sexually confused lately, so, it should probably be a woman..."
"Uhh..."
"...and a man."
"Sir..."
"And maybe they could hug a little?"
"I seriously doubt..."
"Do you have any dogs that could help?"

At some point, they'll just give up because of all of the nonsense. Or, at least I hope they do.

[Office_Shredder]

I completely forgot about the rule that requires TSA agents to stand there and listen to you until you finish giving instructions on how your search should be performed

[FlexGunship]

I completely forgot about the rule that requires TSA agents to stand there and listen to you until you finish giving instructions on how your search should be performed

Actually, they can't touch you without permission. So, yes, they are forced to listen to you. There is an excellent precedent for this. (Citation: http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter)

Until you explicitly give them permission to touch your genitals, it's still considered sexual assault. You are allowed to specify the gender of the person performing the pat down and you are allowed to request it be done in private.

What's the alternative? The police can only arrest you at the direction of the TSA.

[WhoWee]

Actually, they can't touch you without permission. So, yes, they are forced to listen to you. There is an excellent precedent for this. (Citation: http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter)

Until you explicitly give them permission to touch your genitals, it's still considered sexual assault. You are allowed to specify the gender of the person performing the pat down and you are allowed to request it be done in private.

What's the alternative? The police can only arrest you at the direction of the TSA.

Personally, I'm not willing to test any of their limits - I have a "stay off 60 minutes" rule.:smile:

[BobG]

I completely forgot about the rule that requires TSA agents to stand there and listen to you until you finish giving instructions on how your search should be performed

You mean this rule?

Think before you speak. Belligerent behavior, inappropriate jokes and threats will not be tolerated. They will result in delays and possibly missing your flight. Local law enforcement may be called as necessary.

How to make your security screening as pleasant an experience as possible (http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/screening_experience.shtm)

[BobG]

Actually, they can't touch you without permission. So, yes, they are forced to listen to you. There is an excellent precedent for this. (Citation: http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter)

Until you explicitly give them permission to touch your genitals, it's still considered sexual assault. You are allowed to specify the gender of the person performing the pat down and you are allowed to request it be done in private.

What's the alternative? The police can only arrest you at the direction of the TSA.

This is the incident that was mentioned in posts #8 and #16.

It's a different kind of problem. The person wasn't boarding a flight. The only reason he had to undergo any security check is because the international gates and the accompanying immigration checkpoints exited out into the general boarding area.

In other words, his was a problem of how to get from the departure gate to the airport exit without going through the general boarding area. In his case, security officers gave him a personal escort through the boarding area to the 'outside' part of the airport. It also might be worth noting that it took him 2.5 hours to get from the airplane's gate to the outside of the airport. That might seem a good trade-off to some.

That won't help you if you're arriving at the airport intending to get on a flight.

[FlexGunship]

In other words, his was a problem of how to get from the departure gate to the airport exit without going through the general boarding area. In his case, security officers gave him a personal escort through the boarding area to the 'outside' part of the airport. It also might be worth noting that it took him 2.5 hours to get from the airplane's gate to the outside of the airport. That might seem a good trade-off to some.


The only difference between the two forms of screening is that in one case you could miss a flight, and in the other you couldn't. The guidelines are the same.
2.5 hours is a good first try. Hopefully, as a society, we can get the time down to a few minutes. The script will be routine, and everyone will know their parts.


Can't solve the problem all at once. But this is a good start.

EDIT: Sorry, I should be clear in my stance. The TSA compulsory sexual assault rules are a violation of human decency in my opinion. Prior to terrorist activity, I could fly on an inter-state plane without being photographed naked or subjected to having my "junk" touched. Now, as a direct result of terrorist activity, we are terrorizing each other. I, for one, see this as a problem that needs to be solved.

[Al68]

'Force' and 'duress' imply there is simply no other option....No they don't. They mean that force or duress is being used to limit choices.

[NobodySpecial]

In other words, his was a problem of how to get from the departure gate to the airport exit without going through the general boarding area.
In this case presumably cock-up rather than conspiracy, but it does raise an interesting point. What do you do with a US citizen, on US soil, trying to enter his own country who refuses to go through the check - send him back to where he came from ?

It also might be worth noting that it took him 2.5 hours to get from the airplane's gate to the outside of the airport. That might seem a good trade-off to some.
In the sense that it would have been quicker for Rosa Parks to just sit at the back of the bus, or Gandhi to have stayed as a rich lawyer.

[JaredJames]

Under the definition of duress within contract law, this is the only section I feel applies here:
Lack of reasonable alternative (but to accept the other party's terms). If there is an available legal remedy, an available market substitute (in the form of funds, goods, or services), or any other sources of funds this element is not met.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress#The_elements_of_economic_duress

However, it depends what you consider reasonable. To me, driving is a reasonable alternative for shorter trips, but anything over 500 miles and it's not reasonable. But then I'd also weigh in the cost of the trip. If it costs the same or less to drive than to fly, regardless of distance I'd consider it fairly reasonable. So it's a matter of preference for this one and what a court would see as reasonable.

So given it's a case of do it or don't fly, for international flights I can completely understand the 'duress' aspect. But for internal flights I'm not so sure, especially for a country like Britain where driving anywhere isn't that bad.

I'd also add here that it's no different to a number of other situations, such as the nightclub example people keep mentioning. With the nightclubs it is a case of be searched or bugger off. Now given every club I can go to involves this pat down pre-entry procedure, there is no reasonable alternative and yet no one complains about it.

As I've said in other threads, it seems like Americans have double standards. You are happy to accept searches for clubs and not make noise about them but the moment it's something regarding the government it's the worst thing ever and must be stopped.
From my perspective, being searched before boarding a private aircraft is no different to being searched before entering a private club. The only difference between the two is who does the searching. Perhaps you would prefer if the airport had it's own security, privately funded by ticket price increases, that you agree to on the ticket between you and the airline, who searched you instead?

[JaredJames]

In this case presumably cock-up rather than conspiracy, but it does raise an interesting point. What do you do with a US citizen, on US soil, trying to enter his own country who refuses to go through the check - send him back to where he came from ?

As I understand it, you can't prevent a US citizen entering the country.

[WhoWee]

In this case presumably cock-up rather than conspiracy, but it does raise an interesting point. What do you do with a US citizen, on US soil, trying to enter his own country who refuses to go through the check - send him back to where he came from ?


In the sense that it would have been quicker for Rosa Parks to just sit at the back of the bus, or Gandhi to have stayed as a rich lawyer.

Seems a little dramatic - aren't passengers expected to arrive 2 hours early...some might consider it reasonable to spend as much time leaving?

[FlexGunship]

Seems a little dramatic - aren't passengers expected to arrive 2 hours early...some might consider it reasonable to spend as much time leaving?

Yeah, it didn't used to be like that. But now it is. There is a direct causal link between terrorist activity and U.S. citizen acting terrorized.

Not to be cliche, but "they won."

[JaredJames]

Well in all fairness, their goal seems to be wiping out anyone who doesn't subscribe to their religious beliefs. So in that respect, they haven't won.

The question is, would you rather sit on an aircraft knowing nothing changed after 9/11 and that knives and the like could be on board with a passenger so easily? Or would you prefer to know that everything possible is being done to ensure your safety?

It's slack security that allows things like this to occur in the first place.

[Al68]

Under the definition of duress within contract law, this is the only section I feel applies here:...

However, it depends what you consider reasonable. To me, driving is a reasonable alternative for shorter trips, but anything over 500 miles and it's not reasonable.That definition does not even remotely apply here. I wasn't referring to anyone accepting the "terms of the other party to a contract". We were talking about "terms" imposed by force by a third party (government).

By that standard, I could use force against my neighbor to prevent him from driving to work, or wearing a blue shirt, since he has other reasonable options.

The use of force by government must be justified. The fact that the recipient of the force "had other options" does not negate the need to justify the use of force. This is not that hard to understand.

[WhoWee]

Well in all fairness, their goal seems to be wiping out anyone who doesn't subscribe to their religious beliefs. So in that respect, they haven't won.

The question is, would you rather sit on an aircraft knowing nothing changed after 9/11 and that knives and the like could be on board with a passenger so easily? Or would you prefer to know that everything possible is being done to ensure your safety?

It's slack security that allows things like this to occur in the first place.

Careful - it sound like you might know who "they" are - somebody with a religious motive(???) couldn't this lead to profiling (that is actually having a focused plan).

[FlexGunship]

Well in all fairness, their goal seems to be wiping out anyone who doesn't subscribe to their religious beliefs. So in that respect, they haven't won.

Disagree. Their goal was to terrorize individuals into submission. Their global goal is, of course, conversion of religion. This is the same difference between the goal of a strafing run and a war. You can't say the strafing run wasn't a victory just because the war isn't over.

The question is, would you rather sit on an aircraft knowing nothing changed after 9/11 and that knives and the like could be on board with a passenger so easily? Or would you prefer to know that everything possible is being done to ensure your safety?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSQTz1bccL4
http://thestir.cafemom.com/baby/113023/tsa_targets_breastfeeding_mother
http://www.businessinsider.com/tsa-security-horror-stories-2010-11#an-8-year-old-boy-removes-his-shirt-1
http://www.businessinsider.com/tsa-security-horror-stories-2010-11#cancer-survivor-leaves-humiliated-covered-in-own-urine-2
http://www.businessinsider.com/tsa-security-horror-stories-2010-11#a-3-year-old-girl-frightened-by-tsa-pat-down-8

THIS IS WRONG. End of statement. It is abuse, humiliation, and sometimes worse! There is a middle ground. There is a place between here and no security.

The idea that we so casually dismiss a "few victims" is disgusting, frankly. This is exactly why we have a government: to protect us from this type of abuse of power.

[FlexGunship]

Careful - it sound like you might know who "they" are - somebody with a religious motive(???) couldn't this lead to profiling (that is actually having a focused plan).

Profiling is quickly becoming a necessary evil. It amounts to religious and racial prejudice, but frankly, it's better than no plan at all. That's an opinion that I haven't held until recently.

[WhoWee]

Profiling is quickly becoming a necessary evil. It amounts to religious and racial prejudice, but frankly, it's better than no plan at all. That's an opinion that I haven't held until recently.

I don't know how to avoid profiling? If you want to pretend that the process doesn't profile and fits a PC definition - fine. But in reality, the training process has to teach personnel what to look for - whatever that means.

[FlexGunship]

I don't know how to avoid profiling? If you want to pretend that the process doesn't profile and fits a PC definition - fine. But in reality, the training process has to teach personnel what to look for - whatever that means.

I agree.

I don't know of any "scared 3 year old girl" bombers. Or any "crying rape victim" hijackers. I've never read a story about "attractive underage girls" building dirty bombs. And, I don't think I've heard about any "elderly bladder cancer survivors forced to strip and then covered in their own urine" blowing up any religious buildings.

If you're not outraged, then you don't know enough! (http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/11/20/tsa-pat-down-leaves-bladder-cancer-survivor-covered-in-urine/)

[JaredJames]

Profiling is a necessary evil.

It's like in the UK where they want to reduce knife crime by performing random searches.

Now it's known the type of person likely to be carrying, but because of not wanting to target specific groups they have to search all groups equally. So now you end up with pensioners being searched for knives. What a load of BS.
If we know it's teenagers in hooded jackets, hanging around dark corners who are likely to be carrying then you target them. But thanks to the PC brigade we're stuck with random searches on everyone.

So if we know the profile of a person likely to be a terrorist, is it wrong to focus attention on them?

[talk2glenn]

You are happy to accept searches for clubs and not make noise about them but the moment it's something regarding the government it's the worst thing ever and must be stopped.

According to the Supreme Court, a club is private, and an airport is public. An individual can opt out of entering a club, if he disagrees with the admissions policies. The state, however, cannot legally conduct searches of everyone entering the same property, because it is private - the property owner, and not the government, gets to determine who can and cannot under, subject to the law but given constitutional protections (4th amendment, in this case).

An individual can also opt out of entering an airport, if he disagrees with the admissions policies. And because airports are public property, the state (as the property owner) can set the admissions requirements, up to and including searches.

It's not quite this cut and dry, of course. Even on public property, we suffer only diminished constitutional protection. On public school grounds, for example, the state can restrict free speech up to a point, but not ban in outright. Specifically, the test on school ground is whether or not the speech interferes with the process of educating. Similarly, at airports, your rights are diminished, but not eliminated. The state may conduct searches and seizures as reasonable and necessary, given technology, to discover and seize weapons and provide for the safety of passengers and aircraft. It remains an open question as to whether the courts would uphold the so-called "enhanced pat downs" or the body scanners. My guess is that the scanners are lawful, but the enhanced patdown procedure -as it currently stands - may be too vague and broadly enforced (randomly at some airports, apparently - not just to those who fail less invasive screenings) to pass muster.

[JaredJames]

Aircraft are private vehicles.

So on this basis, if the owners of the aircraft all turned around and said you must submit to a search by TSA (whatever their requirements) before you get on their aircraft, would you accept these terms?

[FlexGunship]

Aircraft are private vehicles.

So on this basis, if the owners of the aircraft all turned around and said you must submit to a search by TSA (whatever their requirements) before you get on their aircraft, would you accept these terms?

I would actually feel better about this for one very specific reason: choice.

Surely, if it were up to the discretion of airlines to decide which security measures best serve their customers, then free market forces would take over. There would be a competitive push to create the MOST secure airline with the LEAST invasive security measures. There would be actual competition to serve the customer best.

Instead, we have a federally mandated operation which means it will never get better. There will never be competition. No one with a "better idea" will make any more money. The door is shut on the idea-train.

EDIT: I should add that this would probably lead to new and more free expression of civil liberties. Liberties that many people are uncomfortable with. If a pilot (or flight attendant) gets to decide who is searched, I think you would find that a very freaking practical guideline would start to be enforced automatically. Don't like how picky they are, fly a different airline!

[JaredJames]

You misread my post.

The TSA would still be there, doing what they do now. However, instead of you being 'forced' by the government, the aircraft owners would insist you had them or don't fly. The owners wouldn't dictate what measures took place. Nothing would change, only who was demanding the security checks.

[FlexGunship]

You misread my post.

The TSA would still be there, doing what they do now. However, instead of you being 'forced' by the government, the aircraft owners would insist you had them or don't fly. The owners wouldn't dictate what measures took place. Nothing would change, only who was demanding the security checks.

I understood. I was supporting your idea. The aircraft owners would then decide who goes through the random security checks instead of indiscriminately selecting random people.

[FlexGunship]

How about an anonymous voting system? Before getting on the plane, everyone gets to anonymously vote for the people that want to have searched.

I'm not seriously suggesting it... but I won't how many 3 year old girls would get selected.

[JaredJames]

I understood. I was supporting your idea.

You then have a private company demanding you are checked before entering a private vehicle.

So can you explain what the difference is? There's no change in choice. You either have the checks and fly or don't have them and remain where you are.

[CRGreathouse]

Surely, if it were up to the discretion of airlines to decide which security measures best serve their customers, then free market forces would take over. There would be a competitive push to create the MOST secure airline with the LEAST invasive security measures. There would be actual competition to serve the customer best.

That was an unexpected burst of reason in this otherwise emotionally-charged thread. Thanks for that.

[JaredJames]

How about an anonymous voting system? Before getting on the plane, everyone gets to anonymously vote for the people that want to have searched.

I'm not seriously suggesting it... but I won't how many 3 year old girls would get selected.

The problem with that is you may get a terrorist using a child to get devices through. I know it's far fetched, but you're leaving avenues open.

This is where this differs from my knife example.

[FlexGunship]

So can you explain what the difference is? There's no change in choice. You either have the checks and fly or don't have them and remain where you are.

YES! Aircraft owners that want more customers will STOP SEARCHING ELDERLY MEN AND YOUNG CHILDREN! People will choose that airline more often because it has a BETTER security policy.

[FlexGunship]

That was an unexpected burst of reason in this otherwise emotionally-charged thread. Thanks for that.

Happy to help!

[JaredJames]

That was an unexpected burst of reason in this otherwise emotionally-charged thread. Thanks for that.

But the TSA would still do the checks, there would be no change at all, except that the airlines demanded it not the government.

So really, please explain the difference.

[JaredJames]

YES! Aircraft owners that want more customers will STOP SEARCHING ELDERLY MEN AND YOUNG CHILDREN! People will choose that airline more often because it has a BETTER security policy.

Re-read my post. There would be no difference with the checks. It would be identical to how it is at the moment.

[FlexGunship]

But the TSA would still do the checks, there would be no change at all, except that the airlines demanded it not the government.

So really, please explain the difference.

Right now, the TSA is a government operation. Operating by federal rules. They are not allowed to profile (a federal guideline) or be selective in their searches.

A pilot, or an aircraft owner, who has a personal vested interest in the safety and security of the plane AND in the satisfaction of his or her customers is less likely to perform "random" searches and more likely to target individuals who could possibly pose a threat.

Even is the TSA carries out the pat-down or the search, the people being patted-down or searched has changed significantly. No airline would voluntarily adopt the TSA's selection policy unless it was forced.

[FlexGunship]

Re-read my post. There would be no difference with the checks. It would be identical to how it is at the moment.

Have you been to an airport? They don't perform this check on every single person flying. They do it randomly. On my last flight out I was backscattered, on the return flight I was not.

Not everyone goes through the enhanced interrogation... er... enhanced security.

EDIT: If a pilot were allowed to choose who to search as opposed to a federal employee, the selected gourp would be fundamentally different.

[JaredJames]

OK Flex, without you changing anything I write let's try this again.

What if the airlines demanded the security checks, a private company requesting it before boarding a private aircraft, under exactly the same terms as exist right now?

I don't want to know what they may/may not do. I want to know if you'd feel differently about a private company demanding the current checks as opposed to the government.

That's it.

[CRGreathouse]

Right now, the TSA is a government operation. Operating by federal rules. They are not allowed to profile (a federal guideline) or be selective in their searches.

A pilot, or an aircraft owner, who has a personal vested interest in the safety and security of the plane AND in the satisfaction of his or her customers is less likely to perform "random" searches and more likely to target individuals who could possibly pose a threat.

Even is the TSA carries out the pat-down or the search, the people being patted-down or searched has changed significantly. No airline would voluntarily adopt the TSA's selection policy unless it was forced.

It's not clear what the best way is. There is at least some evidence [1] that profiling isn't helpful, or not very helpful. But that's the beauty of a market-based mechanism. We don't need to know, offhand, what the best approach is -- we let individual companies decide.

[1] Press, William H. "Strong profiling is not mathematically optimal for discovering rare malfeasors".

(Please read the first page of the paper before drawing conclusions about it based on the title; many news agencies reported on this news without apparently having read beyond the title.)

[FlexGunship]

OK Flex, without you changing anything I write let's try this again.

What if the airlines demanded the security checks, a private company requesting it before boarding a private aircraft, under exactly the same terms as exist right now?

I don't want to know what they may/may not do. I want to know if you'd feel differently about a private company demanding the current checks as opposed to the government.

That's it.

Well, then clarify. Is the private company selecting the individuals being screened in your example. Or is it the government?

[JaredJames]

Well, then clarify. Is the private company selecting the individuals being screened in your example. Or is it the government?

Wow, really?

The checks would be exactly the same as they are now. The TSA conducts them, the terms would be identical to what they are now, including all procedures.

However, the airline would be demanding them, not the government. The TSA simply becomes the external authority put in place to run the job.

For all it matters, replace the TSA with a private company employed by the airline. But they must follow identical procedures to the TSA.

[FlexGunship]

Wow, really?

The checks would be exactly the same as they are now. The TSA conducts them, the terms would be identical to what they are now, including all procedures.

However, the airline would be demanding them, not the government. The TSA simply becomes the external authority put in place to run the job.

You're using weasel words to avoid the question. You've posed two scenarios and intentionally left out all of the important details. Then, when I ask for clarification you act like I'm the one who doesn't "get it."

You have repeatedly covered the nature of "the checks." We are passed that. I understand that "the check" will be absolutely identical in every way shape and form to the one currently performed by the TSA. Let's put that issue aside. We are both totally clear on that.


Who selects the individuals that are subjected to "the check"?
Do I have the option of flying a different airline with a different selection policy?


You are very carefully setting up a straw man, and every time I try to dismantle it be getting clarification you act astonished.

[FlexGunship]

For all it matters, replace the TSA with a private company employed by the airline. But they must follow identical procedures to the TSA.

You edited this in after I responded, so I will address it separately.

There would be no difference then. I would choose an alternate airline.

EDIT: Also, you should change the phrase "must follow identical" to "choose to follow identical."

[Al68]

You then have a private company demanding you are checked before entering a private vehicle.

So can you explain what the difference is? There's no change in choice. You either have the checks and fly or don't have them and remain where you are.Nonsense. That's like saying that my disallowing someone else to drive my car is equivalent to government preventing them from driving my, or anyone elses, car.

Can you seriously not understand the difference between parties to an agreement mutually determining its terms, and a third party dictating them by using force? Come on now.

[Al68]

The checks would be exactly the same as they are now. The TSA conducts them, the terms would be identical to what they are now, including all procedures.

However, the airline would be demanding them, not the government.Why would every airline coincidentally and independently choose the exact same checks as government would demand, in the absence of government force? Pure baloney.

Even if they did, it's obviously very different. Equating them is like equating a woman's choice to have a baby with making abortion illegal, because the choice made is identical regardless of who made it.

[JaredJames]

Who selects the individuals that are subjected to "the check"?

That's irrelevant. The selection criterion would be the same. So the same people would be selected.
Do I have the option of flying a different airline with a different selection policy?

No, all airlines simply demand the checks. The TSA (or equivelant private company) would be performing all checks under the same criterion/procedures in the same manner they are conducted now.

Think of it like this. Everything would be identical to what it is now whilst flying, except instead of the government saying "you must go through security", the airline does. You as a customer would see absolutely no difference. But you would have the knowledge that a private company is demanding the checks to get on their aircraft as opposed to the government.
You are very carefully setting up a straw man, and every time I try to dismantle it be getting clarification you act astonished.

I'm not trying to set anything up. I'm trying to work out if you see a difference between the government doing something and a private company doing exactly the same thing.

[JaredJames]

Why would every airline coincidentally and independently choose the exact same checks as government would demand, in the absence of government force? Pure baloney.

Even if they did, it very different. Equating them is like equating a woman's choice to have a baby with making abortion illegal.

I know it would never happen, but I'm trying to establish a level here.

That level would be: do you see a difference between the government requiring security checks (as they are now) or a private company requiring the exact same checks.

[Al68]

I'm trying to work out if you see a difference between the government doing something and a private company doing exactly the same thing.The difference is obvious to everyone, including you, I'm certain. Can you explain the difference between the government making abortion illegal, and every woman coincidentally choosing to have her baby?

[JaredJames]

Can you seriously not understand the difference between parties to an agreement mutually determining its terms, and a third party dictating them by using force? Come on now.

The outcome is the same though. If you don't accept the checks, whether privately or through the government you don't fly.

You see the condtions, you either agree to them or you don't. Who puts them there doesn't come into it. If you don't like them, you don't agree to them and you don't fly.

Even if it was private, you can't negotiate with the airline as to what checks you go through.

[JaredJames]

The difference is obvious to everyone, including you, I'm certain. Can you explain the difference between the government making abortion illegal, and every woman coincidentally choosing to have her baby?

You don't have a say once something is made illegal. It's not the same thing.

When you choose to fly, you choose to accept the security checks.

[BobG]

I'd also add here that it's no different to a number of other situations, such as the nightclub example people keep mentioning. With the nightclubs it is a case of be searched or bugger off. Now given every club I can go to involves this pat down pre-entry procedure, there is no reasonable alternative and yet no one complains about it.

As I've said in other threads, it seems like Americans have double standards. You are happy to accept searches for clubs and not make noise about them but the moment it's something regarding the government it's the worst thing ever and must be stopped.


OK, I don't go to many night clubs, but I've never been searched to enter the very few bars or clubs I've been to since 9/11 (more than 0, but less than 10, I'm pretty sure). We may be living in drastically different environments. Maybe someone that actually frequents American night clubs could give a better assessment.

[Al68]

The outcome is the same though. If you don't accept the checks, whether privately or through the government you don't fly.

You see the condtions, you either agree to them or you don't. Who puts them there doesn't come into it. If you don't like them, you don't agree to them and you don't fly.

Even if it was private, you can't negotiate with the airline as to what checks you go through.I can only assume you are merely pretending not to understand such an obvious and relevant difference.

Plus you are claiming that the outcome would be the same, when the odds against that are astronomical.

[Al68]

You don't have a say once something is made illegal. It's not the same thing.

When you choose to fly, you choose to accept the security checks.Weren't we talking about government making it illegal to fly without the checks?

If you can't understand the difference by now, I would suggest a little research on basic principles of liberty and government.

[BobG]

I know it would never happen, but I'm trying to establish a level here.

That level would be: do you see a difference between the government requiring security checks (as they are now) or a private company requiring the exact same checks.

You mean something similar to cell phone companies all using the same practices regarding cell phone contracts, early cancellation, any disputes resolved through an arbiter chosen by the cell phone company, etc.

It could happen.

But I think there's a court case pending on cell phone companies requiring customers to waive their right to class action lawsuits in order to get a cell phone.

[FlexGunship]

You don't have a say once something is made illegal. It's not the same thing.

I think we can all agree that your scenario is silly. If it were a privately controlled operation, the requirements would not be the same everywhere. I would choose the best option and, over time, the market would decide which security measures were most successful.

However, even if you put this aside, the difference stands: a search agreed to between the airline and the customer is fundamentally different than one imposed from the outside by a federal agency.

EDIT: Here's an alternative to federally mandated searches: a law that says a hijacked airplane or bomb on an airplane is grounds for your company to be disbanded permanently.

You don't think Delta would find a way to prevent that while also keeping their customer's happier than their competitors?

[FlexGunship]

You mean something similar to cell phone companies all using the same practices regarding cell phone contracts, early cancellation, any disputes resolved through an arbiter chosen by the cell phone company, etc.

Tracphone.

The free market always gives you an option because it is profitable to offer the option.

Sorry to nitpick details, Bob. I know that wasn't the point you were trying to convey.

[Monique]

The problem with that is you may get a terrorist using a child to get devices through. I know it's far fetched, but you're leaving avenues open.

This is where this differs from my knife example.

Considering this document: Child Soldiers Global Report (http://www.childsoldiersglobalreport.org/files/country_pdfs/FINAL_2008_Global_Report.pdf), or this: Pakistan: Taliban buying children for suicide attacks (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-07/world/pakistan.child.bombers_1_baitullah-mehsud-taliban-leader-taliban-officials?_s=PM:WORLD), I wouldn't call it far fetched.

[turbo]

Considering this document: Child Soldiers Global Report (http://www.childsoldiersglobalreport.org/files/country_pdfs/FINAL_2008_Global_Report.pdf), or this: Pakistan: Taliban buying children for suicide attacks (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-07/world/pakistan.child.bombers_1_baitullah-mehsud-taliban-leader-taliban-officials?_s=PM:WORLD), I wouldn't call it far fetched.It's not far-fetched. When I was consulting and flying at least weekly, I once found myself in line in front of a young couple with an infant in a carrier. They did a complex dance pretending to have to juggle the infant, their belongings, etc and ultimately tried to pass the infant and carrier around the metal-detector. I stopped and watched as I collected my stuff from the X-ray tray, because something was up. The security detail got them to take the baby out of the carrier, fold down the handle, and pass the carrier through the X-ray machine. That's when things got tense and the people got escorted away. A few minutes later, they boarded the plane normally. They were either air-marshals or worked for an outfit that was testing airport security. There was a real gun or a good mock-up in that baby carrier. That happened outbound out of Bangor, Maine, on Delta. Pretty good test of a rural airport.

[JaredJames]

I know what I'm saying sounds ridiculous, but I'm trying to gauge what people will and won't accept. Hence all the ridiculous scenarios.

I know full well what the differences are between public and private.

But unless I can get a clear understanding of what "the opposition" wants then I don't think there's much point in a debate. Or at least nothing useful can come from it.

Flex, thank you for your answer. I know what I'm working to now and will base it from there.

[FlexGunship]

Flex, thank you for your answer. I know what I'm working to now and will base it from there.

You're welcome Jared. I apologize if I got short with you. I get frustrated when I have a difficult time making my point understood. It's not personal; all in the name of open and free discourse.

[Ivan Seeking]

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7009/tsaj.jpg (http://img406.imageshack.us/i/tsaj.jpg/)

[WhoWee]

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7009/tsaj.jpg (http://img406.imageshack.us/i/tsaj.jpg/)

It's good to see the Government running a bare bones program?:tongue:

[Galteeth]

Article: No Proof TSA scanners are safe

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/20/aol-investigation-no-proof-tsa-scanners-are-safe/

Any radiation or health experts care to weigh in?

[NobodySpecial]

Article: No Proof TSA scanners are safe
There's no proof that anything is safe

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/20/aol-investigation-no-proof-tsa-scanners-are-safe/
It's full of asides, like the FDA having no rights to check non-medical x-rays, so what?
The FDA don't check the exposure levels from cosmic rays on your flight either - and thats a lot higher dose.

[Galteeth]

There's no proof that anything is safe


It's full of asides, like the FDA having no rights to check non-medical x-rays, so what?
The FDA don't check the exposure levels from cosmic rays on your flight either - and thats a lot higher dose.

Yes, I was aware that you can't "prove" something is safe in the strict sense of the word. I was interested to hear from experts on the criticisms in the article. I don't have any expertise, and thus can't really judge the claims. It was interesting, however, that there is apparently some confusion or miscommunication about who is responsible for ensuring the machines are working properly.

[NobodySpecial]

Think it's already in this thread but a good analysis by U Arizona physics prof
http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/bodyscan.html

Paper at http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/RPD-Final-Form.pdf

[Galteeth]

Think it's already in this thread but a good analysis by U Arizona physics prof
http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/bodyscan.html

Paper at http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/RPD-Final-Form.pdf

Very interesting, thanks!

From the paper:

"The
NS 43.17 standard requires the exposure terminate before an effective dose of 0.25 mSv
is reached if the scanning mechanism were to fail. This means the fail0safe mechanism
must detect the fault and shut off the beam within a period of about 15 msecs. If this
system also malfunctions (and failure of fail0safe mechanisms are not unknown), there
may be a significant delay (of the order of tens of seconds) before the operators noticed
something was wrong, especially given the fact that the screener viewing the image is in
a remote location. Under these conditions the passenger could receive a high localized
dose of a few sievert. High doses are associated with deterministic effects including skin
erythema "

Any more info on the implications of this?

[Proton Soup]

Think it's already in this thread but a good analysis by U Arizona physics prof
http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/bodyscan.html

Paper at http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/RPD-Final-Form.pdf

so what's with the vehicle scanners? i didn't think these things were penetrating dense materials like metals. different frequency or higher dose?

the stats are interesting, too. makes this all seem very poorly thought out.

[Galteeth]

so what's with the vehicle scanners? i didn't think these things were penetrating dense materials like metals. different frequency or higher dose?

the stats are interesting, too. makes this all seem very poorly thought out.

Sadly, I think the thought process might have gone something like "I'm Michael Chertoff, and I would like to use my influence to make money for my security company."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html

[mugaliens]

Sadly, I think the thought process might have gone something like "I'm Michael Chertoff, and I would like to use my influence to make money for my security company."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html

Fear-mongering has become a substantially profitable marketing tool, sadly, at taxpayer expense.

[vish_al210]

Why would I ever wanna come too the US... Well if the policy is to brush off scum of the earth like me from entering the Gates of Heaven...(whatever) .. They won!! I aint coming to US for a long time.. Happy??? There are more beautiful places to see in my own country.... And yes I dont fancy a job in US either coz I dont like the way the foreign work population is treated..(a very generalised comment, please do not take that personally) So yeah!! They Won!! ;)

If they finally decide to deport me, who is paying my bills and losses...???

[Proton Soup]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/tsa-pays-breast-exposure-suit

JANUARY 13--The woman who sued the Transportation Security Administration after her breasts were exposed during a frisking at a Texas airport will receive a “nominal” payment from the government as part of a legal settlement, The Smoking Gun has learned.

nominal? what'd they do, look up how much a photomodel gets for a gig? guess there won't be much incentive gained from this.

[mugaliens]

nominal? what'd they do, look up how much a photomodel gets for a gig? guess there won't be much incentive gained from this.

Oh, gosh! One wonders if the going rate might soon be based on one's cup size.

We guys are at a serious advantage, here!

Well, perhaps. Perhaps not. There are, of course, other considerations...

Still, how much did she win? I'm going to have to go through the scanners more often!

Why would I ever wanna come too the US...

Hi, Vish. Having visited 33 countries, and having lived in 7, I call the US home. Yes, we have some issues, but we seem to have a few less issues most. Not all, mind you, as there are some countries out there which I really admire! However, I have relatives, here, so for what it's worth, this is my home.

Besides, Colorado is a really cool place to live!

[Proton Soup]

Oh, gosh! One wonders if the going rate might soon be based on one's cup size.

We guys are at a serious advantage, here!

Well, perhaps. Perhaps not. There are, of course, other considerations...

Still, how much did she win? I'm going to have to go through the scanners more often!

that's just it, we don't know. and i'm guessing FOIA won't help. about all that we can surmise is that the amount is not punitive, despite the "Defendant and its employees negligent, careless and reckless disregard". (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/tsa-exposure-suit?page=3)