Airport Searches: Too Far or Necessary?

[WhoWee]

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

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

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

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

 

[FlexGunship]

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

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

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

http://thestir.cafemom.com/baby/113023/tsa_targets_breastfeeding_mother
http://www.businessinsider.com/tsa-...2010-11#an-8-year-old-boy-removes-his-shirt-1
http://www.businessinsider.com/tsa-...ivor-leaves-humiliated-covered-in-own-urine-2
http://www.businessinsider.com/tsa-...-3-year-old-girl-frightened-by-tsa-pat-down-8

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

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

 

[FlexGunship]

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

 

[FlexGunship]

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

I agree.

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

If you're not outraged, then you don't know enough! (http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/201...ves-bladder-cancer-survivor-covered-in-urine/)

 

[JaredJames]

Profiling is a necessary evil.

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

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

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

 

[talk2glenn]

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

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

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

Aircraft are private vehicles.

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

 

[FlexGunship]

Aircraft are private vehicles.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

You misread my post.

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

 

[FlexGunship]

You misread my post.

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

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

 

[FlexGunship]

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

I understood. I was supporting your idea.

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

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

 

[CRGreathouse]

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

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

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

This is where this differs from my knife example.

 

[FlexGunship]

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

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

 

[FlexGunship]

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

Happy to help!

 

[JaredJames]

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

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

So really, please explain the difference.

 

[JaredJames]

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

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

 

[FlexGunship]

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

So really, please explain the difference.

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

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

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

 

[FlexGunship]

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

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

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

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

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

That's it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[FlexGunship]

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

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

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

That's it.

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

Wow, really?

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

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

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

 

[FlexGunship]

Wow, really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[FlexGunship]

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

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

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

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

 

[Al68]

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

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

Nonsense. That's like saying that my disallowing someone else to drive my car is equivalent to government preventing them from driving my, or anyone elses, car.

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

 

[Al68]

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

However, the airline would be demanding them, not the government.

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

That's irrelevant. The selection criterion would be the same. So the same people would be selected.

Do I have the option of flying a different airline with a different selection policy?

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

Think of it like this. Everything would be identical to what it is now whilst flying, except instead of the government saying "you must go through security", the airline does. You as a customer would see absolutely no difference. But you would have the knowledge that a private company is demanding the checks to get on their aircraft as opposed to the government.

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

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

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

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

 

[Al68]

I'm trying to work out if you see a difference between the government doing something and a private company doing exactly the same thing.

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

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

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

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

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

 

[BobG]

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

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

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