And the number keeps dropping...

[Ed]

...or rising, depending which side you are looking at.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mone...-measures.html

[Ed]

The comments also seem to be a lot more sane.

[Bob Bement]

If paying customers of the airlines are starting to look for other means of traveling, then why don't the airline owners get into the act. I would think it would be in their best interest to say something.

[iBazinga!]

We're doomed

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

Originally Posted by ScottM

We're doomed

There's a kool-aide drinker born every minute.

[I need to get serious.]

That is weird, because a couple of days ago I read that 83% didn't care.

[Light and Sporty Guy]

Originally Posted by Maxmosbey

That is weird, because a couple of days ago I read that 83% didn't care.

Different questions asked.

[dennyleeb]

I have not talked to one person who does not like the security. I love it...

[Light and Sporty Guy]

Originally Posted by dennyleeb

I have not talked to one person who does not like the security. I love it...

What security?

[I need to get serious.]

Originally Posted by Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

Different questions asked.

Probably right on that. Polls don't really mean a lot in the real world. I'm headed to New York City next week and the body scanners are the least of my worries.

[Let's Fly]

The sheep keep lining up for slaughter

[Greg Bockelman]

Originally Posted by dennyleeb

I have not talked to one person who does not like the security. I love it...

You like the "security"? Security is an illusion. Not to mention the total disregard of Constitutional rights that "they" say you waive by entering the line to get screened. I can pretty much assure you that this "security" will not deter this or the next generation of terrorist.

Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Safety = Security in this context.

Helen Keller once said, "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing."

By the way, Do NOT think the TSA is happy just settling for Airline travel. Make no mistake, they WILL come after GA. The time to fight this is NOW.

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by Greg Bockelman

snip...

By the way, Do NOT think the TSA is happy just settling for Airline travel. Make no mistake, they WILL come after GA. The time to fight this is NOW.

Already happening. As PIC, I am responsible for the safety of my flight. Since I have no scanners, I must perform an extensive pat down on all female passengers prior to flight, and if further suspicious, again during flight. I require all male passengers to be well know and pass my background check, so pat down is waived, or they can pat themselves down.


Just kidding... I really hope Americans wake up and stop this nonsense!

[Bob Bement]

I wrote TSA for a list of terrorist or a profile and they sent me one for auto accidents. So I use this for who to pat down for my flights. Bob

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4y32Zy_xoc

[Telemakhos]

Originally Posted by Greg Bockelman

Helen Keller once said, "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing."

C'mon now. Helen Keller didn't SAY anything.

[iBo Deeh Ibonek]

Originally Posted by Greg Bockelman

...

Not to mention the total disregard of Constitutional rights that "they" say you waive by entering the line to get screened.

....

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the Constitution - at least the 4th Amendment - just isn't a factor here, nor will it be absent a major change in how the Supreme Court interprets it.

Just to reiterate, for starters, the 4th Amendment isn't implicated. The 4th prohibits unreasonable intrusions absent cause; this airport security stuff, as it stands now, just won't be found to be unreasonable (if it goes further, though, that might change). "Unreasonable" is kicking in your door based on the fact that you did a rolling stop 5 years ago three states away; "unreasonable" isn't subjecting every passenger, or even every 5th passenger, to a scan that can see through clothes, in the face of a known threat to a particular target that the people scanned are willingly and voluntarily using.

Even assuming the 4th Amdmt is implicated, it's a well established part of constitutional law that you can waive those rights. For instance, it's a routine occurrence for a police officer, even though he doesn't have anything other than the slightest of hunches because you look "funny," to walk up to you, engage you in conversation, and then ask if you don't mind if he pats you down for, say, weapons (or drugs, or whatever). It's entirely voluntary, and unless he's coerced you in some impermissible way (and this is where there *might* be a little wiggle room in what I'm saying - it can be argued that "you're not getting on this plane unless you waive your rights" is coercion, but I highly doubt that this would be a successful argument for a variety of reasons), it's entirely valid. Same if you want to go into, say, a prison or any other area that's at a known, proven, and consistent threat of criminal activity - if you want in, you're going to have to waive whatever 4th Amdmt. rights you have (again, assuming they exist).

So, I'm sorry I'm tell y'all things that you probably don't want to hear. But this is how and what the law is, and I'm not going to blow smoke up your respective derrieres.

With all of that being said, however, I agree with everything else in your post.

[Greg Bockelman]

Originally Posted by Telemakhos

C'mon now. Helen Keller didn't SAY anything.

I believe she actually did learn to speak. In fact I KNOW she did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv1uLfF35Uw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnBPjo8_dOU

[Telemakhos]

Originally Posted by Greg Bockelman

I believe she actually did learn to speak. In fact I KNOW she did.

This marks the first time in my life I've had a Helen Keller joke fail.

[iNdigo]

Originally Posted by Telemakhos

C'mon now. Helen Keller didn't SAY anything.

Actually she learned how to talk.

Oops, Greg beat me to it.

[sba55]

Originally Posted by Greg Bockelman

You like the "security"? Security is an illusion. Not to mention the total disregard of Constitutional rights that "they" say you waive by entering the line to get screened. I can pretty much assure you that this "security" will not deter this or the next generation of terrorist.

Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Safety = Security in this context.

Helen Keller once said, "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing."

By the way, Do NOT think the TSA is happy just settling for Airline travel. Make no mistake, they WILL come after GA. The time to fight this is NOW.

Great post Greg!

This makes me sick. Indoctrination has begun.....Why does it seem this isn't the girls' own handwriting

[hm]

Originally Posted by Greg Bockelman

You like the "security"? Security is an illusion.

Um, no. Security is never perfect. If something gives you the appearance of perfect security, then that's certainly an illusion. But the lack of perfect security does not equate to the lack of _any_ security. It is possible to be "more secure", that's no illusion.

I can pretty much assure you that this "security" will not deter this or the next generation of terrorist.

The track record suggests that as means of attack are eliminated through screening, attackers seek out new attacks. You can declare this to be evidence of the futility of screening, asserting that there are thus always new attacks available to be tried, or you can declare this to be evidence of the utility of screening, as attackers are continually forced to employ less practical, less effective, and more complicated attacks. Since I think it's pretty clear that terrorism would be a lot easier if a crew of guys could board with automatic weapons and suitcases full of dynamite, I think the "utility" argument is supported.

Similarly, when a man gets on board a plane with a home-made underpants bomb that he fails to properly detonate, we can declare that to be evidence of the futility of security, as the guy got on board with a dangerous substance any way, or we can declare that to be evidence of the utility of screening as he had to resort to an extremely unreliable means of attack, a home-made kludge for detonation because a mechanism would be found in screening, etc.

Helen Keller once said, "Security is mostly a superstition...

Okay, but you can't prove something via "somebody once said something in a wholly different context that I'll now interpret in the current context in such a way as to support my argument". I think HK's line is more about taking risks in life and less about a recommendation on the topic of aviation security.
-harry

[Greg Bockelman]

Originally Posted by mantakos

It is possible to be "more secure", that's no illusion.

So how much is TOO much? When do we cry "Uncle"?

[hm]

Originally Posted by Greg Bockelman

So how much is TOO much? When do we cry "Uncle"?

Whether you're securing a computer, a network, a home, a car, an airline flight, a country, etc, you're always looking for the right compromise between security and cost. In this context, cost consists of, well, actual dollar cost, but it also has components of convenience and the aesthetics of the experience, which is negatively impacted by intrusions into privacy.

So there are no absolutes, it's a big mushy ball of compromise. We'll never have a solution that thrills everybody, because some people go through life terrified of highly improbable risks while others think "we all gotta go some time, might as well enjoy the ride". Some people think "there's a man in that room who can see the outline of my boy parts, and that makes me very uncomfortable" while others think "whatever, checkout my junk, knock yourself out, I wish my prostate exam was this easy". So we're always seeking out compromises that have to be applied universally though everybody weighs these factors differently.
-harry

[iNdigo]

Originally Posted by mantakos

We'll never have a solution that thrills everybody, because some people go through life terrified of highly improbable risks while others think "we all gotta go some time, might as well enjoy the ride".

That's the stumbling block right there. We hired a furloughed airline pilot once who was uncomfortable with the fact that we have no cockpit doors.

That person didn't stay very long.

[I need to get serious.]

Originally Posted by EppyGA

The sheep keep lining up for slaughter

Give it a break big guy. Sheep lining up for the slaughter? What slaughter? Maybe I am just not the world traveler that some of you people are, but I do get around a little. I have never found airport security to be that big of a deal. I don't think the body scanner is that big of a deal either. I am headed to New York City next week, and if along the way I'm asked to step into a body scanning machine, I'm just going to step into it. In fact, I think it is kind of neat. I wish that they would make a screen shot of me in the scanner and give it to me. I also don't care about a pat down. My tailor sticks his tape up my crotch every time I get a new suit. My doctor sticks his finger up my butt every time I get a physical. I'm guessing that it will probably be more uncomfortable for the TSA agent than it will be for me. I think that some people just get all agitated over nothing.