Airport Searches: Too Far or Necessary?

[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

 

[Proton Soup]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. (Think I'm having a dumb day today).

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

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

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

Again, I'm not arguing this point wrt the scanners but security in general. EDIT: I'll add that I'm discussing airports/aircraft and their related threats only here. I'm working on the basis that the money is going to airport security in one way or another, but we have to decide how it's spent - which way will be more effective.

very simple. why are we fixated on acts of terrorism on airplanes? what's to stop a terrorist from walking into a crowd of people entering a subway during rush hour?

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

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

I'd also add that leaving a public place is possible. You see something you don't like you have a chance to get away (circumstances dependent of course). In an aircraft this simply isn't an option.

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

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

 

[Office_Shredder]

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

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

 

[Proton Soup]

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

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

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

 

[Proton Soup]

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

no, you only have an illusion of control.

 

[Al68]

At least there's a silver lining here: http://www.examiner.com/pop-culture...-woman-bikini-at-lax-and-man-underwear-at-ny"

 

[JaredJames]

no, you only have an illusion of control.

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

Do you know that was post number 666 for you - just saying.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

...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?

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

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

 

[Proton Soup]

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

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

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

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

 

[mugaliens]

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

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

Just a guess...

 

[BobG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

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

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

 

[trautlein]

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

 

[xxChrisxx]

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

It's a service being provided for a fee with conditions. If you don't like those conditions, then you can complain about them all you want but it certainly doesn't violate your rights as there is an alternative available.

Whether you're talking about metal detectors, baggage X-ray machines, backscatter imagers, or pat downs, you're infringing on people's rights to be free of random searches.

It's hardly random if you've consented to security measures when you buy a ticket. Small print is lovely isn't it.

The security checks are mandatory for all commercial air transport

Buy a private jet, no security checks for boarding them.

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

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

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

Hopefully airliners aren't permitted to fly over stadiums?

 

[Proton Soup]

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

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

Hopefully airliners aren't permitted to fly over stadiums?

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

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

 

[Al68]

It's a service being provided for a fee with conditions.

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

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

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

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