Airport Searches: Too Far or Necessary?

[Al68]

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.

I can only assume you are merely pretending not to understand such an obvious and relevant difference.

Plus you are claiming that the outcome would be the same, when the odds against that are astronomical.

 

[Al68]

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.

Weren't we talking about government making it illegal to fly without the checks?

If you can't understand the difference by now, I would suggest a little research on basic principles of liberty and government.

 

[BobG]

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.

You mean something similar to cell phone companies all using the same practices regarding cell phone contracts, early cancellation, any disputes resolved through an arbiter chosen by the cell phone company, etc.

It could happen.

But I think there's a court case pending on cell phone companies requiring customers to waive their right to class action lawsuits in order to get a cell phone.

 

[FlexGunship]

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

I think we can all agree that your scenario is silly. If it were a privately controlled operation, the requirements would not be the same everywhere. I would choose the best option and, over time, the market would decide which security measures were most successful.

However, even if you put this aside, the difference stands: a search agreed to between the airline and the customer is fundamentally different than one imposed from the outside by a federal agency.

EDIT: Here's an alternative to federally mandated searches: a law that says a hijacked airplane or bomb on an airplane is grounds for your company to be disbanded permanently.

You don't think Delta would find a way to prevent that while also keeping their customer's happier than their competitors?

 

[FlexGunship]

You mean something similar to cell phone companies all using the same practices regarding cell phone contracts, early cancellation, any disputes resolved through an arbiter chosen by the cell phone company, etc.

Tracphone.

The free market always gives you an option because it is profitable to offer the option.

Sorry to nitpick details, Bob. I know that wasn't the point you were trying to convey.

 

[Monique]

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.

Considering this document: http://www.childsoldiersglobalreport.org/files/country_pdfs/FINAL_2008_Global_Report.pdf" , I wouldn't call it far fetched.

 

[turbo]

Considering this document: http://www.childsoldiersglobalreport.org/files/country_pdfs/FINAL_2008_Global_Report.pdf" , I wouldn't call it far fetched.

It's not far-fetched. When I was consulting and flying at least weekly, I once found myself in line in front of a young couple with an infant in a carrier. They did a complex dance pretending to have to juggle the infant, their belongings, etc and ultimately tried to pass the infant and carrier around the metal-detector. I stopped and watched as I collected my stuff from the X-ray tray, because something was up. The security detail got them to take the baby out of the carrier, fold down the handle, and pass the carrier through the X-ray machine. That's when things got tense and the people got escorted away. A few minutes later, they boarded the plane normally. They were either air-marshals or worked for an outfit that was testing airport security. There was a real gun or a good mock-up in that baby carrier. That happened outbound out of Bangor, Maine, on Delta. Pretty good test of a rural airport.

 

[JaredJames]

I know what I'm saying sounds ridiculous, but I'm trying to gauge what people will and won't accept. Hence all the ridiculous scenarios.

I know full well what the differences are between public and private.

But unless I can get a clear understanding of what "the opposition" wants then I don't think there's much point in a debate. Or at least nothing useful can come from it.

Flex, thank you for your answer. I know what I'm working to now and will base it from there.

 

[FlexGunship]

Flex, thank you for your answer. I know what I'm working to now and will base it from there.

You're welcome Jared. I apologize if I got short with you. I get frustrated when I have a difficult time making my point understood. It's not personal; all in the name of open and free discourse.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7009/tsaj.jpg

 

[WhoWee]

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7009/tsaj.jpg

It's good to see the Government running a bare bones program?:tongue:

 

[Galteeth]

Article: No Proof TSA scanners are safe

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/20/aol-investigation-no-proof-tsa-scanners-are-safe/

Any radiation or health experts care to weigh in?

 

[NobodySpecial]

Article: No Proof TSA scanners are safe

There's no proof that anything is safe

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/20/aol-investigation-no-proof-tsa-scanners-are-safe/

It's full of asides, like the FDA having no rights to check non-medical x-rays, so what?
The FDA don't check the exposure levels from cosmic rays on your flight either - and that's a lot higher dose.

 

[Galteeth]

There's no proof that anything is safe


It's full of asides, like the FDA having no rights to check non-medical x-rays, so what?
The FDA don't check the exposure levels from cosmic rays on your flight either - and that's a lot higher dose.

Yes, I was aware that you can't "prove" something is safe in the strict sense of the word. I was interested to hear from experts on the criticisms in the article. I don't have any expertise, and thus can't really judge the claims. It was interesting, however, that there is apparently some confusion or miscommunication about who is responsible for ensuring the machines are working properly.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Think it's already in this thread but a good analysis by U Arizona physics prof
http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/bodyscan.html

Paper at http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/RPD-Final-Form.pdf

 

[Galteeth]

Think it's already in this thread but a good analysis by U Arizona physics prof
http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/bodyscan.html

Paper at http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/RPD-Final-Form.pdf

Very interesting, thanks!

From the paper:

"The
NS 43.17 standard requires the exposure terminate before an effective dose of 0.25 mSv
is reached if the scanning mechanism were to fail. This means the fail0safe mechanism
must detect the fault and shut off the beam within a period of about 15 msecs. If this
system also malfunctions (and failure of fail0safe mechanisms are not unknown), there
may be a significant delay (of the order of tens of seconds) before the operators noticed
something was wrong, especially given the fact that the screener viewing the image is in
a remote location. Under these conditions the passenger could receive a high localized
dose of a few sievert. High doses are associated with deterministic effects including skin
erythema "

Any more info on the implications of this?

 

[Proton Soup]

Think it's already in this thread but a good analysis by U Arizona physics prof
http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/bodyscan.html

Paper at http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/RPD-Final-Form.pdf

so what's with the vehicle scanners? i didn't think these things were penetrating dense materials like metals. different frequency or higher dose?

the stats are interesting, too. makes this all seem very poorly thought out.

 

[Galteeth]

so what's with the vehicle scanners? i didn't think these things were penetrating dense materials like metals. different frequency or higher dose?

the stats are interesting, too. makes this all seem very poorly thought out.

Sadly, I think the thought process might have gone something like "I'm Michael Chertoff, and I would like to use my influence to make money for my security company."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html

 

[mugaliens]

Sadly, I think the thought process might have gone something like "I'm Michael Chertoff, and I would like to use my influence to make money for my security company."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html

Fear-mongering has become a substantially profitable marketing tool, sadly, at taxpayer expense.

 

[vish_al210]

Why would I ever want to come too the US... Well if the policy is to brush off scum of the Earth like me from entering the Gates of Heaven...(whatever) .. They won! I aint coming to US for a long time.. Happy? There are more beautiful places to see in my own country... And yes I don't fancy a job in US either coz I don't like the way the foreign work population is treated..(a very generalised comment, please do not take that personally) So yeah! They Won! ;)

If they finally decide to deport me, who is paying my bills and losses...?

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/tsa-pays-breast-exposure-suit

JANUARY 13--The woman who sued the Transportation Security Administration after her breasts were exposed during a frisking at a Texas airport will receive a “nominal” payment from the government as part of a legal settlement, The Smoking Gun has learned.

nominal? what'd they do, look up how much a photomodel gets for a gig? guess there won't be much incentive gained from this.

 

[mugaliens]

nominal? what'd they do, look up how much a photomodel gets for a gig? guess there won't be much incentive gained from this.

Oh, gosh! One wonders if the going rate might soon be based on one's cup size.

We guys are at a serious advantage, here!

Well, perhaps. Perhaps not. There are, of course, other considerations...

Still, how much did she win? I'm going to have to go through the scanners more often!

Why would I ever want to come too the US...

Hi, Vish. Having visited 33 countries, and having lived in 7, I call the US home. Yes, we have some issues, but we seem to have a few less issues most. Not all, mind you, as there are some countries out there which I really admire! However, I have relatives, here, so for what it's worth, this is my home.

Besides, Colorado is a really cool place to live!

 

[Proton Soup]

Oh, gosh! One wonders if the going rate might soon be based on one's cup size.

We guys are at a serious advantage, here!

Well, perhaps. Perhaps not. There are, of course, other considerations...

Still, how much did she win? I'm going to have to go through the scanners more often!

that's just it, we don't know. and I'm guessing FOIA won't help. about all that we can surmise is that the amount is not punitive, despite the http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/tsa-exposure-suit?page=3"