News Airport Searches: Too Far or Necessary?

[Gokul43201]

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

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

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?

 

[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.

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 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.

 

[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 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.

 

[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-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

 

[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

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/11/25/2010-11-25_tsa_boycott_doesnt_hinder_thanksgiving_day_travel_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 traveling 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 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.

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 necessary to protect their life. Once we rent a seat on the airplane, isn't it our perogative to protect our life while in that seat as well? In the US, we don't 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, learned 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