National Opt-Out Day: November 24

Just curious, but what kind of security procedures do TSA agents have to go through when they arrive at the airport to go to work?
 
sba55 said:
I wouldn't be so sure. There's of course the few parents who are informed and won't let their child be exposed to some creep (probably of the opposite gender) in an undisclosed location. Maybe that's not physical molestation, but I don't think something that basically amounts to child pornography is better.

That said, this was two years ago. Should be even more interesting now!

Three year old girl gets a pat-down (with video)

Just like the person who originally posted this, I also "seriously doubt too many parents will let their children get traumatized like this when they realize what a TSA pat-down of a small child will likely result in." They're losing control of their message.....
Click to expand...

It's starting to sound like TSA Officer is the dream job for pedophiles. :eek:
 
sba55 said:
... Three year old girl gets a pat-down (with video)...
Click to expand...
Okay, but what are we seeing on that video? I see a TSA agent running her hands along the arms and legs of a little girl, and the girl is kicking and screaming and having a fit. Is the TSA agent doing something wrong? What? How should TSA agents handle children?

Little girls (and boys) do kick and scream and have fits. One time I saw a particularly cruel mother who forced her child to endure a trip to the supermarket, and a kicking and screaming fit ensued. The answer can't be "we shouldn't do anything if it might induce a kicking/screaming fit in a 3-year-old", because that sort of eliminates pretty much everything that can happen in life.
-harry
 
JeffDG said:
My child? Not at all.
Click to expand...
So what are the screening procedures for children, then? And what are the security implications of a disparity between the screening of children and adults?

Doesn't any disparity just mean "okay, for our next terrorist act, we bring along a kid to carry our weapons"?
-harry
 
Here's an article that discusses the issue of whether the nude-o-scopes are safe:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/12/body.scanning.radiation/?hpt=Sbin

I actually find myself reassured on the subject, but the possibility of having a stranger handle my private parts is a deal-breaker for me. Judging by Dave Barry's experience, going through the nude-o-scope does not guarantee that you won't be groped, so I think I'm going to be doing everything I can to avoid getting on airliners.

http://blogs.herald.com/dave_barrys_blog/

If it meant I wouldn't be touched, I would rather go in a private room and drop my drawers, and I think that should be offered as an option.
 
mantakos said:
So what are the screening procedures for children, then? And what are the security implications of a disparity between the screening of children and adults?

Doesn't any disparity just mean "okay, for our next terrorist act, we bring along a kid to carry our weapons"?
-harry
Click to expand...

That's my point, Harry. How do they justify different policies for children without compromising the alleged effectiveness of the whole security circus? But on the other side of the argument, how long will parents tolerate their children being fondled and groped? And why should the cut-off age be 12, anyway? Why is it okay to fondle a 12-year-old, but not an 11-year-old?

This whole question shines a light on the idiocy of the whole system. If they're going to exempt children, then the whole thing is a farce. If not, then they may as well recruit the next batch of TSOs from the sex offender registry.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
The problem with that, as I elaborated on in this post, is that assuming for the sake of argument than any of this made any sense to begin with, exempting children from the security measures defeats the whole alleged purpose of the program. Children's undies and diapers can be stuffed with C-4 or PETN, too.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Exempting children just goes to show that even the TSA knows that this is all theater.
 
Palmpilot said:
Here's an article that discusses the issue of whether the nude-o-scopes are safe:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/12/body.scanning.radiation/?hpt=Sbin

I actually find myself reassured on the subject
Click to expand...
I don't. See attachment.

The long-term effects of this technology obviously haven't been evaluated (there hasn't been a single study). We're still finding out new issues with radiation exposure every year. Even if they are benign (big if), I think it's a mistake to trust the TSA with the proper operation and calibration of those scanners.

If this happened in a hospital, the technician would have a lot more training than the TSA officers. Also, as the authors in the letter point out, what stops the TSA from increasing the radiation dose in order to increase resolution? What happens if the machine stops moving for just a second and exposes a traveler to a very high dose of radiation?


The physics of these X-rays is very telling: the X-rays are Compton-Scattering off outer molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds).

Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies
(28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying
tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume
of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.

The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic
ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this
comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X-
rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately
understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport
scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent
tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two
orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • concern.pdf
    62.2 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Does anyone kbow if it's true that they can subject you to a civil suit and $10,000 fine for refusing the grope and leaving the airport? If so, does anyone have a citation to the statutory or regulatory authority for this?

If that's true, it would certainly provide a good reason to avoid airline travel for anyone who can.
Click to expand...

What is interesting to me is what would happen if you refuse the scan, refuse the frisk, but don't leave? Are they going to frisk you against your will? Not likely. Then what? I look forward to reading about it.



Movie_poster_the_terminal.jpg
 
Apparently, the TSA has initiated an "investigation" of the person who left the airport in San Diego.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/15/tsa-probe-scan-resistor/

Since they themselves told him to leave, however, I doubt that this is much more than a PR stunt to intimidate the public. I would love to see this go to court (although I doubt very much it will).

Hey ACLU, are you listening???
 
mantakos said:
So what are the screening procedures for children, then? And what are the security implications of a disparity between the screening of children and adults?

Doesn't any disparity just mean "okay, for our next terrorist act, we bring along a kid to carry our weapons"?
-harry
Click to expand...

How about we just realize that we can only go so far but that we cannot, will not, be able to stop all persons that are willing to die to take down an airplane, period.

I do believe that the tipping point has been reached and that the porn-o-scope and sexual pat downs have gone too far.
 
tdager said:
How about we just realize that we can only go so far but that we cannot, will not, be able to stop all persons that are willing to die to take down an airplane, period.

I do believe that the tipping point has been reached and that the porn-o-scope and sexual pat downs have gone too far.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I have little faith in the intelligence of the bulk of my fellow Americans, and far too much experience to back my views. A person is intelligent, but people are dumb panicky animals, to quote a fictional character.
 
steingar said:
I doubt it. I have little faith in the intelligence of the bulk of my fellow Americans, and far too much experience to back my views. A person is intelligent, but people are dumb panicky animals, to quote a fictional character.
Click to expand...

Yep. We are a nation of sheep.

But I do see the TSA leadership engaging in "blame the victim" rhetoric this week.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
What's the ACLU going to do?
Click to expand...

Tilt at windmills.

It's settled law, both the administrative search and their insistence on completing the screening once begun.

Let's put it this way...say someone was an evil-doer (please don't take this to SZ...just a phrase). They know thier bomb is intermingled with their "junk", and that it will not set off a metal detector. So they go through the metal detector. They get selected for the nude-o-scope. At that point they opt out and refuse a pat down and leave the airport with no consequences...

Drive up the road to the next airport and try again, this time no selection for nude-o-scope and voila. You now have a rational basis for the whole thing.
 
tdager said:
How about we just realize that we can only go so far but that we cannot, will not, be able to stop all persons that are willing to die to take down an airplane, period...
Click to expand...
Somebody crashed two planes into buildings, killed 3000 people, and we responded by invading 2 countries, at an eventual cost of trillions of dollars, suffered 7000 military casualties, and incurred tens of thousands of civilian casualties.

So, sure, we can talk a big game about "hey, we'll just take our chances, thank you very much", but the reality is that the next guy who walks on board a plane and sets off an underpants bomb, bringing the plane down, will bring back every bit of that security because the public will demand it.

We're just not good at the math of "we're a herd of gazelles, and the lions can only get one of us today, so _my_ odds are pretty good".
-harry
 
mantakos said:
Somebody crashed two planes into buildings, killed 3000 people, and we responded by invading 2 countries, at an eventual cost of trillions of dollars, suffered 7000 military casualties, and incurred tens of thousands of civilian casualties.

So, sure, we can talk a big game about "hey, we'll just take our chances, thank you very much", but the reality is that the next guy who walks on board a plane and sets off an underpants bomb, bringing the plane down, will bring back every bit of that security because the public will demand it.

We're just not good at the math of "we're a herd of gazelles, and the lions can only get one of us today, so _my_ odds are pretty good".
-harry
Click to expand...

I guess that's why the catering trucks go through the nude-o-scope when they enter the airport.
 
JeffDG said:
Tilt at windmills.

It's settled law, both the administrative search and their insistence on completing the screening once begun.

Let's put it this way...say someone was an evil-doer (please don't take this to SZ...just a phrase). They know thier bomb is intermingled with their "junk", and that it will not set off a metal detector. So they go through the metal detector. They get selected for the nude-o-scope. At that point they opt out and refuse a pat down and leave the airport with no consequences...

Drive up the road to the next airport and try again, this time no selection for nude-o-scope and voila. You now have a rational basis for the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

There is, quite literally, no possible way that a lawsuit challenging these practices will win. While it's speculation on my part, that's whay, in 9 years, there have been no challenges - groups like the ACLU aren't stupid, and those folks know that all a lawsuit will do is establish, conclusively, that the government can do this. If anyone really wants this practice to end, that's a result to be avoided at all costs (challenge a gov't practice in court and lose, and that practice might as well be written in stone).

The better option is to attempt to stir up public sentiment, in such a way that those in charge - be they legislators, airline CEO's, whoever - take notice and have a reason to scale things back. There are plenty of ways to skin the cat in this regard; ask yourselves whether drama-queening is the best way to do it. Ask yourselves whether, say, a legislator, would be more persuaded by ranting and raving or by a rational argument presented in a reasonable manner about why these scanners and "patdowns" are bad ideas.

Getting in a huff about things makes us feel good. No doubt about it. I do it all the time. I get much better results, however, when I get past it and deal with things from a perspective of "apathetic rationality" - emotion doesn't help much in most situations.

None of this should be taken as me saying that I agree with what is happening. Regardless, I'm not going to fool myself, or anyone else, with arguments about rights and how the TSA is violating them. This is a question of policy, not of legality.

If anyone would like, I'd be glad to go into more detail on the legalities.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Exactly.

....

The better option is to attempt to stir up public sentiment, in such a way that those in charge - be they legislators, airline CEO's, whoever - take notice and have a reason to scale things back. There are plenty of ways to skin the cat in this regard; ask yourselves whether drama-queening is the best way to do it. Ask yourselves whether, say, a legislator, would be more persuaded by ranting and raving or by a rational argument presented in a reasonable manner about why these scanners and "patdowns" are bad ideas.

....
Click to expand...

I must respectfully beg to differ, David.

I think getting in a huff and "drama-queening" are precisely the way to go. Drama queens get exposure. Their antics go viral on YouTube and the evening news. And in the process, a lot of people who were thinking the same things, but were too reserved to voice them, get ticked off.

And what the legislators see then, are votes.

I am long past believing that most members of Congress give a rat's hindquarters about what's "right" and what's "wrong," nor are they all that interested in listening to sane, rational discussions regarding such matters. What they care about are votes, first; and contributions, second.

How long have people been making sane, rational arguments against the TSA lunacy, writing letters to their congressmen, posting their opinions on blogs and fora, leaving them as feedback on TSA's own site, and otherwise making their points know in the "reasonable manner" that you advocate?

I'd say probably six or seven years, at least.

And what has been the result of all of that "reasonably-mannered" dialogue?

Nothing.

So I say, let the drama queens whine and moan all they like. Their theatrics get more publicity in one day on YouTube than all of our reasonable arguments have in more than half a decade. And to politicians, publicity = votes.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
I must respectfully beg to differ, David.

I think getting in a huff and "drama-queening" are precisely the way to go. Drama queens get exposure. Their antics go viral on YouTube and the evening news. And in the process, a lot of people who were thinking the same things, but were too reserved to voice them, get ticked off.

And what the legislators see then, are votes.

I am long past believing that most members of Congress give a rat's hindquarters about what's "right" and what's "wrong," nor are they all that interested in listening to sane, rational discussions regarding such matters. What they care about are votes, first; and contributions, second.

How long have people been making sane, rational arguments against the TSA lunacy, writing letters to their congressmen, posting their opinions on blogs and fora, leaving them as feedback on TSA's own site, and otherwise making their points know in the "reasonable manner" that you advocate?

I'd say probably six or seven years, at least.

And what has been the result of all of that "reasonably-mannered" dialogue?

Nothing.

So I say, let the drama queens whine and moan all they like. Their theatrics get more publicity in one day on YouTube than all of our reasonable arguments have in more than half a decade. And to politicians, publicity = votes.

-Rich
Click to expand...

You may very well be correct.

Speaking strictly for myself, however, whenever someone starts getting all "drama-queeny" with me, that almost always shoots that person's credibility to zero with me. That's across the board; everything from aviation to the legalization of currently-illegal drugs.

Also, I can't say I've paid much attention, but I've not heard rational argument one regarding elimination/reduction of the TSA. From what I've paid attention to, it's been exclusively misdirected arguments that are in the typical rant format.

That's unfortunate, because I think that there are plenty of meritorious arguments to be made for reducing, redirecting, or perhaps even eliminating, the TSA.
 
mantakos said:
Somebody crashed two planes into buildings, killed 3000 people, and we responded by invading 2 countries, at an eventual cost of trillions of dollars, suffered 7000 military casualties, and incurred tens of thousands of civilian casualties.

So, sure, we can talk a big game about "hey, we'll just take our chances, thank you very much", but the reality is that the next guy who walks on board a plane and sets off an underpants bomb, bringing the plane down, will bring back every bit of that security because the public will demand it.

We're just not good at the math of "we're a herd of gazelles, and the lions can only get one of us today, so _my_ odds are pretty good".
-harry
Click to expand...

That, unfortunately, is true. Personally, I think it's the consequence of a delusory belief that we can somehow make this world perfect and eliminate all risk -- if we just pass enough laws. This delusion is strengthened every time some politician races to a soapbox to tell voters how he or she is sponsoring legislation to "make sure [fill in bad thing here] never happens again."

The truth is one that few people want to accept: That life is risky, and although we can manage risk, we can never fully eliminate it.

As a society, we have become so risk-averse that it borders on the pathological. Whenever a bad thing happens, who look for people to blame and heads to roll, all because we harbor the irrational notion that risk can be eliminated.

But it can't; and we just refuse to accept that. So we live in a constant state of dissonance, always looking to reach that impossible goal of Utopia.

-Rich
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
You may very well be correct.

Speaking strictly for myself, however, whenever someone starts getting all "drama-queeny" with me, that almost always shoots that person's credibility to zero with me.
Click to expand...

You're not a congressman who needs to persuade people to vote for you every two years, David. The drama-queenery may be irritating to listen to, and may reek of non-credibility. But if it represents, albeit in a somewhat histrionic manner, what the politician believes is a widely-held position among the electorate, then it will get more notice than a library full of reasonable arguments.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
You're not a congressman who needs to persuade people to vote for you every two years, David. The drama-queenery may be irritating to listen to, and may reek of non-credibility. But if it represents, albeit in a somewhat histrionic manner, what the politician believes is a widely-held position among the electorate, then it will get more notice than a library full of reasonable arguments.

-Rich
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that. Squeaky wheel, I guess....
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Can't argue with that. Squeaky wheel, I guess....
Click to expand...
I guess, but I agree with you. Emotional histrionics always turn me off. They make me think that the person is doing it more to get attention for themselves than whatever cause they are promoting.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Can't argue with that. Squeaky wheel, I guess....
Click to expand...

I sure hope this whole sordid chapter doesn't turn into 1968 all over again. The protests and Chicago conventions of that year really did make a difference in the political landscape. I certainly hope the government learned something from that episode, though I see signs that they have not learned from the past. Having something like 1968 would be a lose-lose situation....

I agree that there are a lot of rational reasons that the TSA needs to be reformed. Those get very little media time. Partly due to the media, partly due to the folks involved. Unfortunately, neither the TSA nor the opponents are using facts as a basis for discussion - one begets the other, I suppose. TSA leaders pander to people and tries to use fear ("you will cause another underwear bomber if you don't let us....") and the opponents generate fear of the government ("she is traumatized because the TSA felt up this rape victim"). Neither gets us to where we need to be.

The rational arguments need to be around use of intelligence, the true risk, the goals of the terrorists, and potential harm done to citizens. We need rational, risk-based security, not fear-based control.

Better stop there as I don't want to send this to Spin Zone.
 
JeffDG said:
Tilt at windmills.

It's settled law, both the administrative search and their insistence on completing the screening once begun.
Click to expand...

A LOT of "settled law" has gotten changed, both in and outside the courts, as a result of the ACLU's efforts over the 90 years it has been in existence.

By the way, my understanding is that the insistence on completing the screening once it has begun has not made it to the Supreme Court yet.

Let's put it this way...say someone was an evil-doer (please don't take this to SZ...just a phrase). They know thier bomb is intermingled with their "junk", and that it will not set off a metal detector. So they go through the metal detector. They get selected for the nude-o-scope. At that point they opt out and refuse a pat down and leave the airport with no consequences...

Drive up the road to the next airport and try again, this time no selection for nude-o-scope and voila. You now have a rational basis for the whole thing.
Click to expand...

That's an argument for using nude-o-scopes and pat-downs. It's not an argument for doing it abusively, which appears to be what the ACLU is concerned about.
 
Last edited:
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Exactly.

There is, quite literally, no possible way that a lawsuit challenging these practices will win. While it's speculation on my part, that's whay, in 9 years, there have been no challenges - groups like the ACLU aren't stupid, and those folks know that all a lawsuit will do is establish, conclusively, that the government can do this. If anyone really wants this practice to end, that's a result to be avoided at all costs (challenge a gov't practice in court and lose, and that practice might as well be written in stone).

The better option is to attempt to stir up public sentiment, in such a way that those in charge - be they legislators, airline CEO's, whoever - take notice and have a reason to scale things back. There are plenty of ways to skin the cat in this regard; ask yourselves whether drama-queening is the best way to do it. Ask yourselves whether, say, a legislator, would be more persuaded by ranting and raving or by a rational argument presented in a reasonable manner about why these scanners and "patdowns" are bad ideas.

Getting in a huff about things makes us feel good. No doubt about it. I do it all the time. I get much better results, however, when I get past it and deal with things from a perspective of "apathetic rationality" - emotion doesn't help much in most situations.

None of this should be taken as me saying that I agree with what is happening. Regardless, I'm not going to fool myself, or anyone else, with arguments about rights and how the TSA is violating them. This is a question of policy, not of legality.

If anyone would like, I'd be glad to go into more detail on the legalities.
Click to expand...

You are aware that the ACLU does not work exclusively through the courts, aren't you?
 
Palmpilot said:
A LOT of "settled law" has gotten changed, both in and outside the courts, as a result of the ACLU's efforts over the 90 years it has been in existence.
Click to expand...
Of course. I guess some of our lawyers here don't get that :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top