News Airport Searches: Too Far or Necessary?

[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/