Airport Searches: Too Far or Necessary?

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary: 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/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
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
xxChrisxx said:
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?
 
  • #39
Andre said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Gokul43201 said:
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.

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

Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #41
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!
 
Last edited:
  • #42
BobG said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #43
If it takes rectal and vaginal probing to make sure we're as safe as possible, is that what we do?
 
  • #44
Ivan Seeking said:
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 don't like it you don't have to fly. Then you wouldn't 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, no one could smuggle anything, the prudes wouldn't 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.
 
  • #45
D H said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
ThomasT said:
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

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
 
Last edited:
  • #50
BobG said:
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

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

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.
 
  • #51
xxChrisxx said:
This may seem a little obvious but. If you don't like it you don't have to fly. Then you wouldn't 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

xxChrisxx said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
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.
 
  • #53
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.
 
  • #54
BobG said:
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

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
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?
 
  • #55
turbo-1 said:
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?
 
  • #56
ThomasT said:
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.
 
  • #57
NobodySpecial said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
BobG said:
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.

ThomasT said:
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.
 
  • #59
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
Mathnomalous said:
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.

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

Mathnomalous said:
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?
 
  • #61
Mathnomalous said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #62
ThomasT said:
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'.
 
  • #63
xxChrisxx said:
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?
 
  • #64
ThomasT said:
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.
 
  • #65
NobodySpecial said:
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.
 
  • #66
ThomasT said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Ivan Seeking said:
...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.
 
  • #68
Dr Lots-o'watts said:
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 can't be searched without probable cause and then only upon a warrant being issued, it doesn't 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 won't be the end of it. There have been people who have hid contraband in bodily orifices, the scanners can't 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 don't 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 doesn't 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 haven't 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 environment 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.
 
  • #69
Jasongreat said:
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 can't be searched without probable cause and then only upon a warrant being issued, it doesn't 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 won't be the end of it. There have been people who have hid contraband in bodily orifices, the scanners can't 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 don't 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 doesn't 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 haven't 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 environment 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.
 
  • #70
Dr Lots-o'watts said:
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-su...creener-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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<h2>1. Are airport searches a violation of privacy?</h2><p>Airport searches are not a violation of privacy as they are conducted for the safety and security of all passengers. These searches are necessary to prevent potential threats and keep everyone safe.</p><h2>2. How do airport searches work?</h2><p>Airport searches typically involve a combination of metal detectors, full-body scanners, and physical pat-downs. These methods are used to detect any prohibited items or weapons that may be hidden on a person's body or in their luggage.</p><h2>3. Are airport searches effective in preventing security threats?</h2><p>Airport searches have been proven to be effective in preventing security threats. They act as a deterrent for potential attackers and help to identify any dangerous items that may be brought onto a plane.</p><h2>4. Can I refuse an airport search?</h2><p>Passengers have the right to refuse an airport search, but this may result in them being denied entry onto their flight. If a passenger refuses a search, they may also be subject to further questioning and potential delays.</p><h2>5. How can airport searches be improved?</h2><p>Airport searches are constantly evolving and being improved upon. Some potential improvements include the use of advanced technology, such as facial recognition software, to speed up the process and reduce physical contact, as well as increased training for security personnel to ensure that searches are conducted efficiently and respectfully.</p>

1. Are airport searches a violation of privacy?

Airport searches are not a violation of privacy as they are conducted for the safety and security of all passengers. These searches are necessary to prevent potential threats and keep everyone safe.

2. How do airport searches work?

Airport searches typically involve a combination of metal detectors, full-body scanners, and physical pat-downs. These methods are used to detect any prohibited items or weapons that may be hidden on a person's body or in their luggage.

3. Are airport searches effective in preventing security threats?

Airport searches have been proven to be effective in preventing security threats. They act as a deterrent for potential attackers and help to identify any dangerous items that may be brought onto a plane.

4. Can I refuse an airport search?

Passengers have the right to refuse an airport search, but this may result in them being denied entry onto their flight. If a passenger refuses a search, they may also be subject to further questioning and potential delays.

5. How can airport searches be improved?

Airport searches are constantly evolving and being improved upon. Some potential improvements include the use of advanced technology, such as facial recognition software, to speed up the process and reduce physical contact, as well as increased training for security personnel to ensure that searches are conducted efficiently and respectfully.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
127
Views
16K
  • General Discussion
29
Replies
1K
Views
84K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
5K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top