• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Airport Security - Too much?

jpccusa

jpccusa

Happy with this new hobby
My Oceanside "neighbor" John Tyner raised a stink when he refused to have his groin area checked by a TSA agent.

According to Jeffrey Goldberg, the check would consist of a TSA agent feeling in between the legs with the back of his/her hand until resistance is met (genitals).

Now we have this type of stories: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2010-11-17-airportpatdown_N.htm

In my opinion, everyone should be checked, even frequent fliers and flight crew... it is a matter of safety and in case something wrong happens, there won't be second chances for hundreds of people. I really don't mind my groin area checked as long as their are gentle with my junk. :)
 
My personal feeling is that they've gone too far. I am concerned about safety, but this really steams my broccoli. We need reasonable security measures. At some point, you have to draw a line. If someone gets the brilliant idea to store an explosive in an unmentionable place, what's next...mass cavity searches? I find this issue both ridiculous and troubling.
 
I don't like the added radiation from the full body scanners. I take radiographs on a regular basis. I don't need to be adding more beyond the increase just from flying. And as for the searches? What's preventing someone from swallowing or inserting explosives into places currently not checked? Are they soon going to straight up be taking full radiographs of people? Cavity searches?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 
Its pointless. It's only a matter of time until someone does bring a bomb in a body cavity. Or they will move onto trains or OKC bombing style attacks.

The biggest problem is that the TSA is always one step behind the terrorists. Sooner or later one of their plots is going to work again.

And does anyone else thing its stupid to do this to pilots?!? I mean, they don't need to bomb the plane or blow it up, they control the plane. If they've gone rogue, this search won't do anything. They'll pass with flying colors and then go pilot their missile. Just a thought.
 
Blue Apple Herps said:
Its pointless. It's only a matter of time until someone does bring a bomb in a body cavity. Or they will move onto trains or OKC bombing style attacks.

The biggest problem is that the TSA is always one step behind the terrorists. Sooner or later one of their plots is going to work again.

And does anyone else thing its stupid to do this to pilots?!? I mean, they don't need to bomb the plane or blow it up, they control the plane. If they've gone rogue, this search won't do anything. They'll pass with flying colors and then go pilot their missile. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

exactly the pilots can just smash the plane
 
I probably wouldn't mind so much if it was effective in preventing whatever, but I do question its effectiveness.
 
I would rather have someone feel my business than end up splattered across several states because someone refused a pat down or body scan and got away with it. I personally saw the plane crash into the twin towers from not even 100 feet away and lost many friends in the terrorist attack. There are no security measures that are too invasive if it means that no one has to die like that again. People have obviously forgotten the horror and suffering of that day, otherwise this would not be an issue.
 
I have a question the way I heard (don't remember where) the age limit is 12 and over. Would this not be just a 'tad' overwhelming for a 12 yo? Not that I have a solution, at this point just opinion.
 
susang said:
I have a question the way I heard (don't remember where) the age limit is 12 and over. Would this not be just a 'tad' overwhelming for a 12 yo? Not that I have a solution, at this point just opinion.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that age limit. According to a radio station I heard that they "frisked" a kicking and screaming 3 year old...
 
I am not body modest so having my rather overage self frisked wouldn't upset me. I do think, though, that irradiating people or putting them thru a patdown that for a child, teenager, or sexual abuse/rape victim could be devastating is a little worrisome as a governmental policy.

I'm not a big fan of "racial profiling" but so far all of our airline terrorists have been Muslim males. Not little old ladies of any type, not African Americans or Latinos, not little children or kids under 14 or so of any type. Maybe, just maybe, we should concentrate on the high-probability people?

And maybe we should be looking harder at checked baggage and air cargo?! And employing technology not to provide nekkid images of the people who went through the scanner but to use methods of detecting explosives, whether that's bomb-sniffing machines, or the low-tech bomb sniffing dog?

And lastly, I am not willing to see all the freedoms of this country, including relative freedom of movement, traded away for an illusion of safety. If everyone gets irradiated and their crotch fondled, Al Qaida will just find another way to attack us. It's an illusion of safety, not real safety.
 
wstphal said:
I am not body modest so having my rather overage self frisked wouldn't upset me. I do think, though, that irradiating people or putting them thru a patdown that for a child, teenager, or sexual abuse/rape victim could be devastating is a little worrisome as a governmental policy.

I'm not a big fan of "racial profiling" but so far all of our airline terrorists have been Muslim males. Not little old ladies of any type, not African Americans or Latinos, not little children or kids under 14 or so of any type. Maybe, just maybe, we should concentrate on the high-probability people?

And maybe we should be looking harder at checked baggage and air cargo?! And employing technology not to provide nekkid images of the people who went through the scanner but to use methods of detecting explosives, whether that's bomb-sniffing machines, or the low-tech bomb sniffing dog?

And lastly, I am not willing to see all the freedoms of this country, including relative freedom of movement, traded away for an illusion of safety. If everyone gets irradiated and their crotch fondled, Al Qaida will just find another way to attack us. It's an illusion of safety, not real safety.
Click to expand...

I think I understand that this concerns you and thank you as victims of sexual abuse/rape does bother me. I mean one inspector may not bother me but then another may turn me into a puddle of emotion. I love to fly but I don't know if I want to put myself through this. I'm not convinced it is the solution.
 
Suicide bombers come in all shapes and sizes, male, female, young and old. If a person is frisked it will be by a person of the same sex. I do agree that other areas of transit and public gatherings are at risk of attack and obviously we can't live in constant fear, however strict safety measures must be taken to prevent another 9/11 and a solution will not be reached by everyone complaining about steps that are taken for our safety. I believe that the latest reports state that the body scan is 1:100 of the amount of radiation that we are exposed to for a standard radiograph.
 
Yes, I think the TSA has gone WAY too far. I won't fly until the policy as it stands now is reversed. I will never willingly allow anyone to sexually molest me and look at me naked in the name of "security".

Frankly, I'd rather keep my constitutional rights than be "safe and secure" any day.
 
"...It's an illusion of safety, not real safety."

Unfortunately, it is too true. I have heard of reports (sorry, can't remember where, but I think it was on TV news) of some potentially dangerous items that easily escaped detection. It sounded very believable. I have heard stories from actual passengers who said they accidentally carried prohibited items in their carry on luggage without realizing it until they got home - and they were never detected.

It seems that much of our society and government is built on illusions rather than reality. Present something to fear - drugs, terrorists, pythons, whatever - and then present a government solution that involves more money and power to government, and less to citizens, and like magic, the problem is promised to be solved! Except that, since it never works, it always takes more money and power / authority to renew the promises that THEN the problem will be solved...and so on...and so on...
 
They can scan me to their hearts' content, as long as I don't have to look at it.

I know I'm weird, but being patted down/patted up like I've seen in the news and on the internet...I'm afraid I'd be giggling or reflexively knocking the fashizzle out of somebody if I weren't sedated. Maybe if they'd buy me a drink or sweet talk me first it might be a little more bearable.

I remember over 20 years ago going to visit a friend in jail, and this particularly 'thorough' old coot searched me and his thumbs went where no stranger's thumbs had gone before. I gasped, and I remember my girlie friend at the time having a good laugh.
 
The truly sad thing is that all of you who oppose this are going to be the one's crying the loudest and saying the government hasn't done enough when something does happen again.
 
I didn't say at the time "the government didn't do enough". What happened was a crime and a tragedy, but no one really thought hijackers would use planes as bombs, and if there was a failure of government, it's that there may have been warning of the coming attack that was not acted upon.

I do want TSA to do a better job. I just am not sure that invasive patdowns are the best strategy. I think the next attempts are going to be in checked baggage or air cargo, and those areas are not being screened much if at all. That's what will make me mad, if we are concentrating all our efforts on what seems to be pretty close to molesting passengers while Al Qaida is busy packing boxes like the ones that were intercepted in the Middle East & Britain thanks to TIPS not thanks to screening.
 
vetusvates said:
They can scan me to their hearts' content, as long as I don't have to look at it.

I know I'm weird, but being patted down/patted up like I've seen in the news and on the internet...I'm afraid I'd be giggling or reflexively knocking the fashizzle out of somebody if I weren't sedated. Maybe if they'd buy me a drink or sweet talk me first it might be a little more bearable.

I remember over 20 years ago going to visit a friend in jail, and this particularly 'thorough' old coot searched me and his thumbs went where no stranger's thumbs had gone before. I gasped, and I remember my girlie friend at the time having a good laugh.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Personally, I don't much mind a scan or 'grope' either....I just question it's effectiveness. Of course that's just me, I can understand people who may have issues with it.

I was listening to the radio the other day, maybe npr, some sort of news segment about it. Some older sounding man says something to the effect of "if they get turned on while looking at me naked [chuckle] well god bless 'em!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top