So, did this guy just kill his career?

[wsuffa]

I have heard that it is NOT any faster and may actually take longer. With the metal detector, all you have to do is walk through it. With the scanner, it takes maybe 30 seconds or so to do the scan.

30 seconds is optimistic. And in my observations >70% of the people going through the virtual strip search are frisked, too.

 

[Palmpilot]

When I went through LAX on Friday I noted that most of the folks chosen for the strip-search machine were attractive women.... very few of the overweight, supersized travelers were sent that way.

That's pretty disgusting.

 

[wabower]

Even if they did, getting them to admit it would be the hard part. NPI.

I would be surprised if anyone here cares about the size of your "manhood."

 

[TMetzinger]

I have heard that it is NOT any faster and may actually take longer. With the metal detector, all you have to do is walk through it. With the scanner, it takes maybe 30 seconds or so to do the scan.

I didn't think it was an either/or? Everybody gets the metal detector and then there is the imaging.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I didn't think it was an either/or? Everybody gets the metal detector and then there is the imaging.

Well, as it is set up in the line I go through in Chicago, one line goes through the imaging machine and the other goes through the metal detector. "Either/Or"

I think I will stay and talk to the TSA guys next time I go through that line.

 

[TMetzinger]

Well, as it is set up in the line I go through in Chicago, one line goes through the imaging machine and the other goes through the metal detector. "Either/Or"

I think I will stay and talk to the TSA guys next time I go through that line.

Ah, cool. From the original post it sounded like some folks were going through the metal detectors and then getting selected for the imaging the way they used to send people through the sniffing machine.

 

[wsuffa]

Ah, cool. From the original post it sounded like some folks were going through the metal detectors and then getting selected for the imaging the way they used to send people through the sniffing machine.

In most cases, it's "either - or", TSA is using the strip-search machines as primary screening devices. In some cases you may end up having to do both. And you may get an "enhanced" pat-down, too, which according to reports leaves no part of the body untouched.

 

[ScottM]

In most cases, it's "either - or", TSA is using the strip-search machines as primary screening devices. In some cases you may end up having to do both. And you may get an "enhanced" pat-down, too, which according to reports leaves no part of the body untouched.

Is there a happy ending?

 

[wsuffa]

Is there a happy ending?

Well, the TSA guy running the strip-search machine is in a private booth...

 

[alaskaflyer]

I think the TSIs are Special Agents, aren't they? I know TSA has fully sworn 1811's (or the equivalent).

No, they are civilian investigators. Separate and distinct division from TSOs. The only TSA LEOs are FAMs and though FAMs do have ground-based investigative duties they are not connected to incidents at checkpoints. Remember the guy that climbed up on the pitot tube at the gate during an "inspection"? TSI.

On the other hand the "agent" could have been one of the deputy/assistant federal security coordinators in the TSO chain of command.

 

[SkyHog]

That's pretty disgusting.

Makes me want to be a TSA agent.....

giggity.

 

[Ghery]

I have heard that it is NOT any faster and may actually take longer. With the metal detector, all you have to do is walk through it. With the scanner, it takes maybe 30 seconds or so to do the scan.

They're using the virtual strip search machines at LIH. My wife didn't mind, it was much faster for her as she has an artificial knee which always trips the metal detectors. For me it was slower as I had to stop and remove EVERYTHING from my pockets, not just the stuff I usually remove for the metal detectors. If they can see everything, why do they care if my comb is still in my pocket? Idiots.

 

[LT4247]

My family and I have decided we will not subject ourselves to the the personal indignity of these scanning machines just to fly on an airplane. So, we no longer fly commercial,.....ever. Terrorist win. So be it....

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

My family and I have decided we will not subject ourselves to the the personal indignity of these scanning machines just to fly on an airplane. So, we no longer fly commercial,.....ever. Terrorist win. So be it....

First, I'll say that I absolutely agree with what I bolded in your post.

Regardless, while I don't like it, the bottom line is that this is how it is. If you want to fly, you've got to waive rights (that actually may not exist, but assuming that they do they can be waived) to get on the airplane. There's no right to travel by airplane; it's entirely elective, so there's no coercion (or deprivation of a derivative/collateral right) involved in getting a waiver.

To change that would take a constitutional amendment, saying something along the lines of: 1) the gov't can't require waiver of a right for voluntary or involuntary participation in anything; or 2) there is a right to travel by airplane (this could also be established by a Supreme Court ruling saying that, in today's world, there do exist rights to interstate travel by particular means; but, regardless of how established, there would be some unintended consequences that might border on the absurd).

But, for now, that's how it is. And, like I said, that assumes that there actually is some kind of right here. I could see the Supreme Court would say "this is not an unreasonable intrusion, so the 4th Amendment isn't implicated."

Feel free to shoot the messenger.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The mouseover="Don't need any, thanks. I have a backscatter fetish"

 

[RJM62]

First, I'll say that I absolutely agree with what I bolded in your post.

Regardless, while I don't like it, the bottom line is that this is how it is. If you want to fly, you've got to waive rights (that actually may not exist, but assuming that they do they can be waived) to get on the airplane. There's no right to travel by airplane; it's entirely elective, so there's no coercion (or deprivation of a derivative/collateral right) involved in getting a waiver.

To change that would take a constitutional amendment, saying something along the lines of: 1) the gov't can't require waiver of a right for voluntary or involuntary participation in anything; or 2) there is a right to travel by airplane (this could also be established by a Supreme Court ruling saying that, in today's world, there do exist rights to interstate travel by particular means; but, regardless of how established, there would be some unintended consequences that might border on the absurd).

But, for now, that's how it is. And, like I said, that assumes that there actually is some kind of right here. I could see the Supreme Court would say "this is not an unreasonable intrusion, so the 4th Amendment isn't implicated."

Feel free to shoot the messenger.

Well, legally, yes; and you're a lawyer.

But there used to be a characteristic common to humans, especially those in the United States, variously referred to as guts, gumption, chutzpah, or balls, by which people would stand up and say, "Enough of this [choose your favorite expletive]," say it loudly, mean it, and thereby effect change.

Case in point: once upon a time, there was a toll plaza at the junction of the Belt Parkway, Cross Island Parkway, and Southern State Parkway. The toll was collected when entering the Southern State Parkway and had been $0.10 ever since Robert Moses built the road.

Some time in the late 1960's, the state decided to raise the toll from a dime to a quarter. The drastic increase was chosen (according to the state) to make it easier to pay, because it still would require only one coin. The people would have none of it, however. In the first place, the toll was supposed to have been removed once the bonds used to build the road had been paid (which they had been by then). Secondly, the jump from a dime to a quarter was unreasonable.

So you know what people did, including my straight-laced, conservative, law-abiding father? They just refused to pay the toll. They drove right through, en masse, and refused to pay. Period.

The state sort of got the message, and they rescinded the toll increase. But guess what? People still refused to pay. The road had been paid for and the toll was supposed to have been removed. Since the state wouldn't remove it, the people chose to do so themselves.

Legally and constitutionally, the state was in the right. They'd made enough changes in the law that the broken promises regarding the bonds had effectively been legalized. But there is a force even greater than that of the law, and that is the public when they finally get fired up enough to stick together and demand justice -- which is not always the same as the law.

That's the only thing, I fear, that will counter the wholesale degradation of civil rights that is occurring in this country. But I doubt it will ever happen. Americans, by and large, have become too wimpified to stand up for themselves anymore.

-Rich

 

[SkyHog]

Well, legally, yes; and you're a lawyer.

But there used to be a characteristic common to humans, especially those in the United States, variously referred to as guts, gumption, chutzpah, or balls, by which people would stand up and say, "Enough of this [choose your favorite expletive]," say it loudly, mean it, and thereby effect change.

Case in point: once upon a time, there was a toll plaza at the junction of the Belt Parkway, Cross Island Parkway, and Southern State Parkway. The toll was collected when entering the Southern State Parkway and had been $0.10 ever since Robert Moses built the road.

Some time in the late 1960's, the state decided to raise the toll from a dime to a quarter. The drastic increase was chosen (according to the state) to make it easier to pay, because it still would require only one coin. The people would have none of it, however. In the first place, the toll was supposed to have been removed once the bonds used to build the road had been paid (which they had been by then). Secondly, the jump from a dime to a quarter was unreasonable.

So you know what people did, including my straight-laced, conservative, law-abiding father? They just refused to pay the toll. They drove right through, en masse, and refused to pay. Period.

The state sort of got the message, and they rescinded the toll increase. But guess what? People still refused to pay. The road had been paid for and the toll was supposed to have been removed. Since the state wouldn't remove it, the people chose to do so themselves.

Legally and constitutionally, the state was in the right. They'd made enough changes in the law that the broken promises regarding the bonds had effectively been legalized. But there is a force even greater than that of the law, and that is the public when they finally get fired up enough to stick together and demand justice -- which is not always the same as the law.

That's the only thing, I fear, that will counter the wholesale degradation of civil rights that is occurring in this country. But I doubt it will ever happen. Americans, by and large, have become too wimpified to stand up for themselves anymore.

-Rich

What happened with the toll? Did the state leave it torn down?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Well, legally, yes; and you're a lawyer.

Thus deserving the shooting.

But there used to be a characteristic common to humans, especially those in the United States, variously referred to as guts, gumption, chutzpah, or balls, by which people would stand up and say, "Enough of this [choose your favorite expletive]," say it loudly, mean it, and thereby effect change.

Case in point: once upon a time, there was a toll plaza at the junction of the Belt Parkway, Cross Island Parkway, and Southern State Parkway. The toll was collected when entering the Southern State Parkway and had been $0.10 ever since Robert Moses built the road.

Some time in the late 1960's, the state decided to raise the toll from a dime to a quarter. The drastic increase was chosen (according to the state) to make it easier to pay, because it still would require only one coin. The people would have none of it, however. In the first place, the toll was supposed to have been removed once the bonds used to build the road had been paid (which they had been by then). Secondly, the jump from a dime to a quarter was unreasonable.

So you know what people did, including my straight-laced, conservative, law-abiding father? They just refused to pay the toll. They drove right through, en masse, and refused to pay. Period.

The state sort of got the message, and they rescinded the toll increase. But guess what? People still refused to pay. The road had been paid for and the toll was supposed to have been removed. Since the state wouldn't remove it, the people chose to do so themselves.

Legally and constitutionally, the state was in the right. They'd made enough changes in the law that the broken promises regarding the bonds had effectively been legalized. But there is a force even greater than that of the law, and that is the public when they finally get fired up enough to stick together and demand justice -- which is not always the same as the law.

That's the only thing, I fear, that will counter the wholesale degradation of civil rights that is occurring in this country. But I doubt it will ever happen. Americans, by and large, have become too wimpified to stand up for themselves anymore.

-Rich

These are good points. But, do we see anything like that with air travel?

Could the lack of objection perhaps be due to the fact that most people don't think this airport security stuff is unreasonable?

For instance, look at the post in the OP. What do you think the average person's reaction to that was? Was it, "his rights are being taken, and I absolutely agree," or was it "what a whiner?" Do most of us get PO'd about airport security, or do we not like it but understand why it's there?

Bottom line is that most people aren't going to not fly because of security, unless body cavity searches become the norm. You're right that there is indeed a breaking point, but I don't think we're anywhere near it as things stand now.

 

[RJM62]

What happened with the toll? Did the state leave it torn down?

The people didn't literally tear it down. I should have made that clear. They just stopped paying the toll, and refused to start paying it again after the state rescinded the increase and rolled it back to a dime. They just drove through and refused to pay.

Eventually, the governor ordered the toll booths removed, and that was that.

-Rich

 

[RJM62]

Could the lack of objection perhaps be due to the fact that most people don't think this airport security stuff is unreasonable?

For instance, look at the post in the OP. What do you think the average person's reaction to that was? Was it, "his rights are being taken, and I absolutely agree," or was it "what a whiner?" Do most of us get PO'd about airport security, or do we not like it but understand why it's there?

Bottom line is that most people aren't going to not fly because of security, unless body cavity searches become the norm. You're right that there is indeed a breaking point, but I don't think we're anywhere near it as things stand now.

I think you're right that most people don't believe it to be unreasonable, but I also think that's because as a society, we've become absurdly risk-averse. I blame most of this on politicians jumping on their soapboxes every time something bad happens, promising to draft new laws to guarantee that "[Fill in bad thing here] never happens again." Of course, they can't deliver on their promises, but they nonetheless promote the fallacy that we can somehow legislate our way to paradise if we can just get those pesky civil rights out of the way.

It started, I believe, with drunk driving, when it somehow became legal to mass-detain thousands of travelers without probable cause by way of roadblocks, on the assumption that someone in the crowd of vehicles might have been drinking, despite no evidence that any particular person had been drinking. To me, this was the beginning of the downfall of America.

Don't get me wrong: I detest drunk driving. For all the messed-up things I did when I was young, driving drunk was never one of them. I've crashed on couches throughout the Americas specifically to avoid doing that. So I have little tolerance for drunk driving.

But I also detest fascism. And when I'm sitting in traffic in the middle of a holiday travel night for sometimes upwards of an hour, burning gas, choking on the exhaust fumes of hundreds of cars and trucks, and listening to the kids whining about their full bladders, just to wait for some snotnose, pimply-faced trooper to shine his flashlight in my eyes and start barking at me in an accusatory tone about whether I'd been drinking, I wonder what happened to the America I once knew. I'm also tempted to forget that I'm a Christian and tell the cop what he can do with his flashlight, his badge, and his breathalyzer.

"But it's all worth it if we stop even one drunk driver," many will say. Bull****, I say. I often wonder how many people were delayed from getting life-saving medical treatment because of these roadblocks, how many women in labor couldn't get to the hospital, how many people trying to see a dying relative one last time missed that opportunity, how many surgeons couldn't get to the hospital to perform emergency surgeries, and so on.

Airport screening is even more idiotic because it's utterly, completely, and hopelessly useless. The scanners are useless. Actual strip searches would also be useless. Why? Because if a terrorist wanted to, they could indeed insert the explosive device or other weapon in their anus and defeat any sort of search other than a cavity search. So is that next?

You say no, we're nowhere near that point. So let me ask you: Five years ago, what would you have said if someone suggested that you would be expected to let a stranger virtually strip search you and your family every time you boarded an airplane?

I submit that the only reason TSA doesn't do routine cavity searches (either physically or with the aid of yet another machine whose rays can penetrate the skin) is precisely because they know people won't stand for that -- yet. But let some terrorist actually set off a wazoo-borne device, and you may find that Americans have become wimpified to the point that they would accept even cavity searches in return for the empty promise of "safety."

So what can passengers do? You say that they won't stop flying. I submit that many already have. Those who must fly, however, could also help stop this madness. Passengers could stick together and refuse to be scanned. They could boycott airports that use the screening devices. They could exert pressure on their elected representatives to ban the devices (as well as other excessively intrusive search techniques). They could demand that screeners and supervisors justify their actions, and keep moving their complaints up the ladder if they're not satisfied with the answers. They could fart at the screener during the pat search, for all I care. The point is that they can, and should, do something other than stand on line like good little sheeple.

In short, they could act like Americans did back when we still believed that our rights were worth fighting for.

-Rich

 

[etsisk]

One part of the problem is the corruption of LEO with the idea that LEO have the right to commit the felony they euphemistically call the "silent blue code" Leo seems to have forgotten that to conceal suppress or alter evidence of a possible crime is in most cases a felony. the Law provides no exception just because you wear a uniform. I see the "silent blue code" as the MOST disrespectful thing a person can to to the uniform and badge of LEO. LEO GET a clue , Even staunch law abiding Law and order supporters (like me) are disgusted by the lack of respect to the badge that i see daily from LEO. Sadly it seems I have far more respect for the badge & law & order that the MAJORITY (YES, majority and I CAN back up that statement with facts) of LEO. DaveR

So much of that is utter bullsh1t that I can hardly even believe it. Of course I'm not surprised - the cop haters pop right on up on a regular basis as soon as anything comes along that might be related to cops - however tangentially. I wasn't going to read the rest of this thread - so much of what the cop haters say sounds so obviously "sour grapes" and self-serving (had one guy swear he got arrested because "all I did was tell the officer that he littered" and I don't believe that's the full story for one single second) that I can't hardly listen to it any more, but I did read it - I'm glad to see that Mr. Dayle was the only one spouting his party line.

sheesh.

 

[Ddayle]

So much of that is utter bullsh1t that I can hardly even believe it. Of course I'm not surprised - the cop haters pop right on up on a regular basis as soon as anything comes along that might be related to cops - however tangentially. I wasn't going to read the rest of this thread - so much of what the cop haters say sounds so obviously "sour grapes" and self-serving (had one guy swear he got arrested because "all I did was tell the officer that he littered" and I don't believe that's the full story for one single second) that I can't hardly listen to it any more, but I did read it - I'm glad to see that Mr. Dayle was the only one spouting his party line.

sheesh.

are you insane? I am so law and order that i want the police to do better than they currently perform , and you interpet that as a cop hater??? You must think your boss hates you because he wants you to do your job better and the FAA hates you because they want you to be trained enough to keep your sorry ass alive. Dave

 

[RogerT]

Why not?Here's why....


When I went through LAX on Friday I noted that most of the folks chosen for the strip-search machine were attractive women.... very few of the overweight, supersized travelers were sent that way.

Interesting observation. When I went through security last week they
had one of those going. I dutifully removed everything from my pockets ...
usually I don't but I guess even paper messes them up. The whole thing
is a non issue with me .. I don't care if they want to see me naked. Enjoy.
But right in front of me was an attractive female service member in uniform
and they routed her to the machine which she promptly opted out of. They
shouted out "female assist" I guess for a pat down fondling. She was still
waiting when I'd collected my stuff and departed. They didn't send me
thru it ... they sent me thru the old magnetic one.

RT

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Why not?Here's why....

Would be really great marketing if a local Miami microbrewery added an ale called "Negrin's Rage" with the byline "brewed for about a year".

Quoted from the article linked above:

Negrin's rage brewed for about a year, and on Tuesday night, he snapped. He allegedly had a confrontation with a co-worker in an employee parking lot that night and proceeded to beat him with a baton. He told police "he could not take the jokes anymore and lost his mind."

 

[flyersfan31]

So much of that is utter bullsh1t that I can hardly even believe it. Of course I'm not surprised - the cop haters pop right on up on a regular basis as soon as anything comes along that might be related to cops - however tangentially. I wasn't going to read the rest of this thread - so much of what the cop haters say sounds so obviously "sour grapes" and self-serving (had one guy swear he got arrested because "all I did was tell the officer that he littered" and I don't believe that's the full story for one single second) that I can't hardly listen to it any more, but I did read it - I'm glad to see that Mr. Dayle was the only one spouting his party line.

sheesh.

You obviously haven't spent much time in Philadelphia....

 

[Maxmosbey]

I know that most everybody here thinks that the people working TSA are ignorant, power hungry, idiots who can't think for themselves, but they aren't. The truth is that most of them are just trying to do the job that they are told to do. They can no sooner say, "this is BS, so I'm not going to do it", than anyone else can do in their own job. So they end up in a thankless job, dealing with obnoxious passengers and primadonna pilots all day every day, caught in the middle of a no win situation. Frankly, I get tired of just listening to all the indignation. I'm sure they get tired of having to deal with it directly every day, and that is where the frustration comes into the mix. Just do what they ask you to do, and get through the line. Then everyone else can move on. If you don't want to do it, then take a train, but give the poor guy trying to do his job the best he can under crappy conditions a break.

 

[jesse]

I know that most everybody here thinks that the people working TSA are ignorant, power hungry, idiots who can't think for themselves, but they aren't. The truth is that most of them are just trying to do the job that they are told to do. They can no sooner say, "this is BS, so I'm not going to do it", than anyone else can do in their own job. So they end up in a thankless job, dealing with obnoxious passengers and primadonna pilots all day every day, caught in the middle of a no win situation. Frankly, I get tired of just listening to all the indignation. I'm sure they get tired of having to deal with it directly every day, and that is where the frustration comes into the mix. Just do what they ask you to do, and get through the line. Then everyone else can move on. If you don't want to do it, then take a train, but give the poor guy trying to do his job the best he can under crappy conditions a break.

If they disagree with the practices of their employer they can find another job. I don't do something if I think it's wrong just because my employer tells me to. I value my integrity over a job. You can get a new job but integrity is permanent.

 

[Maxmosbey]

If they disagree with the practices of their employer they can find another job. I don't do something if I think it's wrong just because my employer tells me to. I value my integrity over a job. You can get a new job but integrity is permanent.

Well, that is great for you Jesse, but most of us have to compromise in order to get through life. Not everyone can just up and quit their jobs, especially because their job is making boarding an airplane a little inconvenient for a few people who are not willing to compromise themselves. It goes both ways.

 

[Maxmosbey]

I don't think a whole lot of the body scan machines myself, but if I ever have to go through one I'm not going to have a fit right there at the airport. That is just stupid. What are they going to say, "OH, let this guy go around, he doesn't think he need to go through"? I will instead contact the people who make these stupid policies and voice my indignation when I get home. I'm serious, when I go through security at the airport, I try to make it as easy as I can for the guys doing their jobs, and I've found that they try to make it as easy as they can for me to get through and on my way.

 

[jesse]

Well, that is great for you Jesse, but most of us have to compromise in order to get through life. Not everyone can just up and quit their jobs

Actually everybody can. I didn't say it would be easy. But there is no way I'd work day in and day out putting people into a machine I didn't believe in. Period.

 

[Everskyward]

I know that most everybody here thinks that the people working TSA are ignorant, power hungry, idiots who can't think for themselves, but they aren't.

I don't. I actually think the TSA agents at KDEN are pretty friendly. I've been trying to observe since we had a discussion a little while ago about the regional differences.

 

[alaskaflyer]

If they disagree with the practices of their employer they can find another job. I don't do something if I think it's wrong just because my employer tells me to. I value my integrity over a job. You can get a new job but integrity is permanent.

What makes you think they disagree?

What makes you think that they think it is wrong?

What makes our viewpoint the right one? For every bitchy airline pilot with a superiority complex and an affinity for Rand Paul campaign commercials there are ten people who frankly don't give a rat's ass about his inconveniences and dime store lawyering.

 

[sba55]

I know that most everybody here thinks that the people working TSA are ignorant, power hungry, idiots who can't think for themselves, but they aren't.

Yes, they are, and you actually made that point yourself. If you have a job to "get by" (that's perfectly fine) but you disagree with it and are too lazy to find another job to get by on, then you cannot think for yourself. Either that or you have no integrity or ethics.

This is a generalization, of course. I'm sure a small minority of TSA employees aren't mindless idiots, but that doesn't change the fact that most of them are. I don't mind that at all - I only mind that those mindless idiots are helping erode my personal freedoms. Of course, hurting someone physically is worse than helping to facilitate the erosion of their privacy rights - but in both cases, you're doing something that is unethical, and while one has a greater impact than the other, but are morally unacceptable. We've already established again and again in our history that claiming that your superiors "told you so" is not a good excuse to do something that's wrong.

So I really don't care if they claim that they're "just doing their job". That might be, but it's not an excuse at all.

-Felix

 

[shenanigans]

I know that most everybody here thinks that the people working TSA are ignorant, power hungry, idiots who can't think for themselves, but they aren't. The truth is that most of them are just trying to do the job that they are told to do. They can no sooner say, "this is BS, so I'm not going to do it", than anyone else can do in their own job.

I believe some (many?) TSA people believe what they are doing is important for the safety of the public. I don't think that makes them ignorant, power hungry, or idiots. And i doubt they all dream of telling their boss: "this is BS, so I'm not going to do it".

I suspect that flying would be more dangerous if there were no airport security at all. I also think it could be made safer with much stricter controls than we have now. Does anyone really dispute either of those? If not, it should be clear that different people are going to have a different point of comfort between the extremes. I think it's inappropriate for people to insult anyone who doesn't share their same point of comfort. And those sorts of insults always come up with this topic.

Personally, I don't really care if some random guy sees a scan of me naked. I wouldn't be happy standing around for however long it takes to get scanned and I'm not convinced that the expense is justified, but I don't see it as an invasion of my privacy.

I'm interested to know why myself and other people who don't care about being seen naked are 'sheep' to be denigrated.

 

[DutchessFlier]

By the way: They just arrested a bunch of TSA screeners at Newark Liberty who were stealing cash from carry-ons, etc. that were hand screened in addition to the scanners. Story said they were grabbing between $400 and $700 each shift and dividing up the spoils.

More to follow...you can't make this stuff up people....

 

[RJM62]

I believe some (many?) TSA people believe what they are doing is important for the safety of the public. I don't think that makes them ignorant, power hungry, or idiots. And i doubt they all dream of telling their boss: "this is BS, so I'm not going to do it".

I suspect that flying would be more dangerous if there were no airport security at all. I also think it could be made safer with much stricter controls than we have now. Does anyone really dispute either of those?

I am old enough to remember flying on commercial airliners when there was no security to speak of. I remember many trips to my aunt's home in Indiana starting when I was a young child. Back then, passengers walked right onto the tarmac, along with anyone else who claimed to be sending off or picking up a passenger. The only "security" was at the gate (as in, a chain-link gate about three feet high) beyond which only ticketed passengers could walk the last few feet to the pax stand and board the plane. There were no metal detectors, no bag searches, nor anything else like that until I was, I'd guess, about 10 or 12 years old.

My point in mentioning this is not that we should return to those days, but just as a reminder that those days did once exist. Airport security procedures didn't come down from Sinai. They were instituted as a result of a string of hijackings in the 1960s and 1970s. But the procedures were reasonably related to safety, and non-invasive to passengers.

The backscatter scanners on the other hand, are both invasive and of questionable usefulness. It's believed that they wouldn't have detected the "crotch bomber's" rig, for example, nor would they detect any device or material hidden anally.

If not, it should be clear that different people are going to have a different point of comfort between the extremes. I think it's inappropriate for people to insult anyone who doesn't share their same point of comfort. And those sorts of insults always come up with this topic.

It really should have nothing to do with your "point of comfort" or whether your feelings are hurt. Violations of privacy rights have to be justified by a reasonable likelihood that the procedure will enhance safety, and by the absence of any reasonable, less-invasive way to accomplish the objective. These scanners accomplish nothing. Their existence is merely one more factor that a would-be terrorist would take into consideration when planning an attack.

Personally, I don't really care if some random guy sees a scan of me naked. I wouldn't be happy standing around for however long it takes to get scanned and I'm not convinced that the expense is justified, but I don't see it as an invasion of my privacy.

I'm interested to know why myself and other people who don't care about being seen naked are 'sheep' to be denigrated.

It's not a matter of "being seen naked." If that's your position and you really don't care, then why do you feel that the "sheep" comment was directed toward you? You're okay with it, hence you have no need to protest. But others are not okay with with it, but still will not stand up for themselves. They're the sheep.

For what it's worth, I care very little about being seen naked. I've been going to nude beaches and skinny-dipping in convenient bodies of water ever since I was a kid. Back then, swim class at school was also bare-a$$. It never bothered me a bit. I've never had issues with people seeing my naked body even when I was a young man with a body worth looking at. Why would I care now?

I wouldn't call myself a "nudist" because those people tend to positively enjoy getting naked. I'm more of a person who doesn't care one way or the other. Most of the time when I go to a nude beach it's because I feel like taking a dip, don't have a swimsuit with me, and don't feel like paying the inflated prices at the beach to buy one. So I go to the nearest "clothing optional" beach instead.

But there's a difference between going nude voluntarily, and being forced to submit to an electronic strip-search by a stranger, along with assuming whatever medical risks the process might carry (the government has been wrong on these sort of issues before), without probable cause that you are carrying any sort of contraband, in order to exercise the "privilege" of boarding a transportation conveyance. The argument that the scanning is optional is obviously bogus, as demonstrated by the experiences of those who "opt out" of the scanning.

In addition, consider that a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties can't arbitrarily decide to strip-search people at random. Even suspects who are in custody can't necessarily be strip searched. The courts have ruled (and rightly so) that a strip search is inherently humiliating and degrading by its very nature. Therefore, there are policies, rules, and procedures governing when criminal suspects can be strip-searched and how those searches are to be conducted.

If you decide to fly on an airliner, on the other hand, the mere act of doing so is considered sufficient cause to subject you to the virtual version of something that courts have consistently ruled to be inherently humiliating and degrading when applied to criminals. David and our other attorney members correctly assert that the law gives the government the right to do this because there is no inherent "right" to fly.

But the law ultimately is determined by the people. We elect those who make the laws. Good men have died to defend and preserve government by the people.

Therefore, I submit that people who passively tolerate government behavior that they oppose, simply because it's the law, without exerting whatever pressure they can to change that law, are sheep. I would include in that statement anyone who has any reservations, objections, or embarrassment about these devices, but passively submits to them without making a stink in the loudest manner that is legally possible.

-Rich

 

[JeffDG]

I know that most everybody here thinks that the people working TSA are ignorant, power hungry, idiots who can't think for themselves, but they aren't.

What I get a kick out of is that people scream "My Rights! My Rights!" when before the TSA was established, the same screening would have been done by the airlines, probably more intrusively (airlines don't have sovereign immunity so they would react more directly to any perceived threat to limit liability). And...if the airlines were doing the screening, you wouldn't have any rights...they're not government agents, so your rights don't exist, they only exist when you interact with government agents.

 

[TMetzinger]

What I get a kick out of is that people scream "My Rights! My Rights!" when before the TSA was established, the same screening would have been done by the airlines, probably more intrusively (airlines don't have sovereign immunity so they would react more directly to any perceived threat to limit liability). And...if the airlines were doing the screening, you wouldn't have any rights...they're not government agents, so your rights don't exist, they only exist when you interact with government agents.

This is wrong on so many levels...
You don't only have rights in regard to the State. If IBM decided to detain you on public property, or to break into your house, or other behavior, they'd have violated your rights and could face criminal and civil action.

 

[Maxmosbey]

The backscatter scanners on the other hand, are both invasive and of questionable usefulness. It's believed that they wouldn't have detected the "crotch bomber's" rig, for example, nor would they detect any device or material hidden anally.




But the law ultimately is determined by the people. We elect those who make the laws. Good men have died to defend and preserve government by the people.

Therefore, I submit that people who passively tolerate government behavior that they oppose, simply because it's the law, without exerting whatever pressure they can to change that law, are sheep. I would include in that statement anyone who has any reservations, objections, or embarrassment about these devices, but passively submits to them without making a stink in the loudest manner that is legally possible.

-Rich

Again, I agree that the body scanners are way overboard. In fact, I agree that airport security policies in many ways are a joke. My point is that you don't make a stand at the gate with the security person manning the machine. You make your point with whoever makes policy. Instead of finding out who that is, people would rather make a public spectacle of themselves, inconveniencing everyone else in the process. If someone is going to fly in the future, and they don't think that going through the body scan is right, then they need to start making their feelings known now, not at the gate. When you get to the gate, it is time to keep your mouth shut and move through as quickly as you can.

 

[Maxmosbey]

By the way: They just arrested a bunch of TSA screeners at Newark Liberty who were stealing cash from carry-ons, etc. that were hand screened in addition to the scanners. Story said they were grabbing between $400 and $700 each shift and dividing up the spoils.

More to follow...you can't make this stuff up people....

I don't see how this is a reflection of TSA in general. I can probably get on the internet and find instances of church secretaries stealing out of the offering plate, teachers stealing lunch money, or just about anyone stealing anything. You can find all kinds of that sort of thing. It happens. The point is, they got caught. it isn't like the TSA is hiring people and saying, "hey, while you are at it, steal everything you can get your hands on."