Is the TSA going too far?

[Mr Awe]

I'm tired of people complaining about scans and pat downs. Yeah, they're not fun. However, you agree to them when you purchase your ticket. So, don't complain. You don't want that, don't buy the ticket. Fortunately, despite the noise, most people support the scans. There is some sanity left!

Also, these are not fun but they are better than being blown up. Ok, these measures are not perfect but they do lower the odds, which is worth it.

Finally, the TSA is in a tough spot. If they do these things, people complain. If they don't do these things and a plane blows up, people complain even more.

So, people are going to complain either way. They might as well go the route that can also save some lives.

Mr Awe

 

[Chaos Descending]

"Don't buy that ticket" is not a realistic option for most people, and repeating that red herring does nothing to further the discussion.

 

[Trekker4747]

I'm fine with that. I'm saying that no type of radiation should be completely trivialized...

Radio waves, which the population has been bathed in for over a century are radiation. Somehow no ill effects. And light is radiation, something we're bathed in all of time, forever, and since ever. No ill effects. (Except from those few people who have genetic light sensitivity problems.)

So, yeah, I think some forms of radiation should be "trivialized." I mean, I don't cower in fear from light so why should I worry about less-intense microwaves?

 

[Subcommander R.]

"Don't buy that ticket" is not a realistic option for most people, and repeating that red herring does nothing to further the discussion.

Its not a red herring, its quite thoroughly a part of the topic at hand.

Most people don't have huge distances to travel for the holidays. They could take Amtrak or Greyhound easily enough. Through proper planning you can take longer trips that way. And you can drive as well.

We've had so many options for so long that we consider them all rights rather than privileges. We're extremely spoiled actually, and now we're having a typical spoiled-kid reaction when we have to eat the veggies before the cake.

Think whatever you'd like, its your right. But try to see what its like in person before passing judgement. Benefit of the doubt and all that.

Radio waves, which the population has been bathed in for over a century are radiation. Somehow no ill effects. And light is radiation, something we're bathed in all of time, forever, and since ever. No ill effects. (Except from those few people who have genetic light sensitivity problems.)

So, yeah, I think some forms of radiation should be "trivialized." I mean, I don't cower in fear from light so why should I worry about less-intense microwaves?

You should always have a respect for the science of it, whether it is dangerous or mundane. It doesn't mean it should be completely ignored. As an example, even though sunlight has some ill-effects I don't trouble myself about it, but I am aware of it.

I'm just saying that being aware of these things won't hurt anyone. Now thats all I'm going to say. Please have a nice day.

 

[Trekker4747]

Sorry to correct you, because you were doing so well. But, sunburn and skin cancer is not caused by "alpha and beta waves", but rather by UV-A and UV-B light. There is a BIG difference between an Alpha particle (which is an energetic bare helium nucleus), a Beta particle (which is an energetic free electron), and UV-A and UV-B light waves, which are Ultraviolet light. More energetic than visible light to be sure, but still light.

Thanks for the correction/clarification. I got UV-A/B light mixed up with "Alpha and Beta" radiation. And, yeah UV-A/B is "light" but not "visible light" and, yes, harmful in the right doses in the right conditions.

 

[Chaos Descending]

^^^

 

[Chaos Descending]

Its not a red herring

It most definitely is. "You have no right to fly" is, for one, wrong. I have a right to do anything that the Government has no power to deny me. Furthermore, even if I had no specific right to fly, I still have a right to not be subject to unreasonable searches, which the current policy most definitely is, unreasonable.

 

[Trekker4747]

Its not a red herring

It most definitely is. "You have no right to fly" is, for one, wrong. I have a right to do anything that the Government has no power to deny me. Furthermore, even if I had no specific right to fly, I still have a right to not be subject to unreasonable searches, which the current policy most definitely is, unreasonable.

All of this cannot be said enough.

No, I've no specific "right to fly." But the government has no specific, right, or power given to them by me to restrict me from flying.

They also have no right or power, under any circumstance, to subject me to a search I find unreasonable and they certainly cannot do it without reason or cause.

This isn't like a breathalyser test on the onramp after a football game where everyone is stopped and asked to puff some air into a machine. This is a case where people are being viewed in a nude(ish) form or having their genital regions touched by a government agent.

The two are not the same thing.

People should not be so willing to put up with all of this and least of all be so convinced that it is all okay because it's all in the name of "freedom."

 

[Nowhere Man]

I guess i'll jump back in here. Once power is given to the government, it is dam near impossible to get it back. It's not like in 20 years when all of this terrorism shit is hopefully overthe government is going to stop the scanning andthe bag checking and all. It will only increase. There is always going terorists and no security measure is going to stop that. All we can do is try and use our recources like the FBI to stop these people from coming into the country and if they do come in, trasck them. If they make it to the airport, it's a little too late.

We have to accept that it is a dangerous world and shit is going to happen, but that doesen't give anyone, private or public to usurp my Constitutional right. Yes, I do have a right to choose any mode of transportation I want, so I do have the right to fly in that sense. When people live far eneough from wherever they need to get to to and no other mode of transportation is sufficiant, then an airplane is their only choice. They are forced to accept a situation that under normal circumstances they would not. Therefore they have no choice. Either way none of that matters because the fourth amendment is still bieng violated. There is no reasonable cause.

If there was high speed rails or uncongested highways, I might concede that there are other suficiant modes of transportation. No one has ever prooved that this new system is making us safer. Even if it did, it still violates the fourth amendment and I'm not ok with that. The more we give, the more they will take. It will never stop. I know 9/11 was horrible, but the reality is, we can't go to war everytime some nut blows shit up and the attacks are not that frequent camparively. We are not at war with a country. Small groups of people declared war on us. It's just like the Indian Wars of the 19th century, all these people want is to get us off of their land and I can't really blame them for that. I think it's really time to rethink all of this.

 

[Arrqh]

I'm tired of people complaining about scans and pat downs.

And I'm tired of being treated like a terror suspect for the "crime" of purchasing a plane ticket.

Opinion polls, by the way, are all over the place (here's one with 61% against) but ultimately it doesn't matter. Even if the majority of the country agreed with the screening, that doesn't give the government the right to bypass the constitution.

 

[Davros]

Its not a red herring

It most definitely is. "You have no right to fly" is, for one, wrong. I have a right to do anything that the Government has no power to deny me. Furthermore, even if I had no specific right to fly, I still have a right to not be subject to unreasonable searches, which the current policy most definitely is, unreasonable.

There is nothing unreasonable about making sure people are not bringing bombs or weapons on airliners. They have been doing it for decades.

 

[Holdfast]

All this airport security has tipped the balance too much in favour of annoying legitimate passengers.

Truth is, you can't eliminate the risk of terrorism. More controversially, I also disagree with the current popular thesis that "one should always try to reduce it as much as possible". That degree of reduction requires increasingly extreme levels of intervention in daily life. The tipping point of acceptability is NOT at the point of maximum reduction of risk, but actually arrives significantly before that point. We're seeing that with the public resistance to these pat-downs. Yes, they would probably increase security... but so what if it is unacceptable to our quality of life?

The greatest victory of terrorism isn't killing people, it's altering people's lifestyles sufficiently that the issue behind the terrorism become predominant in people's thinking. Losing a plane, say, every 20 years is far less intrusive on the average person's life than increasing airport security to a point where the risk drops to say, once every 30 or 40 years.

Of course, some security is required, but the systems currently in place are confused, partially redundant and efficient. Streamline and simplify to achieve a less intrusive balance between security and ease of travel, should be the watchword now.

I'm with you one hundred percent, Holdfast.

Thanks. I find it a shame that most focus more on what I see as trivia ("is the radiation dangerous"; "is it technically a breach of the 4th Amendment or not"), than the more fundamental question of just how much interference in daily life should we be prepared to accept in order to reduce the risk of terrorist incident. That's the fundamental question and it gets drowned out.

Or put more concisely - if simplistically - than I did:

If I had to choose, I'd rather be free than safe.

 

[Davros]

I cannot help but think that the ones screaming the loudest about this would be the first ones to bitch about the government not doing enough if some attacker did get through and killed another plane load of people.

 

[Lindley]

I cannot help but think that the ones screaming the loudest about this would be the first ones to bitch about the government not doing enough if some attacker did get through and killed another plane load of people.

Well, that would make it easier to dismiss their concerns, wouldn't it? But in this case I don't think you're correct. The objections are far more broad-based.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Thanks. I find it a shame that most focus more on what I see as trivia ("is the radiation dangerous"; "is it technically a breach of the 4th Amendment or not"), than the more fundamental question of just how much interference in daily life should we be prepared to accept in order to reduce the risk of terrorist incident. That's the fundamental question and it gets drowned out.

Or put more concisely - if simplistically - than I did:

If I had to choose, I'd rather be free than safe.

Absolutely.

I find myself comparing it to my personal situation. I think a few people here know that I was the victim of a violent crime earlier this year. Yes, I have taken some simple security measures around my house. But, mostly, I have tried very hard not to change the way I live my life. The more I change my life, the more my assailant "wins".

The more we change the way we live because of terrorism, the more the terrorists win.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There is nothing unreasonable about making sure people are not bringing bombs or weapons on airliners. They have been doing it for decades.

Perhaps, but there's better ways of going about this than the grope-fest rights-killers that TSA has turned into.

 

[Davros]

There is nothing unreasonable about making sure people are not bringing bombs or weapons on airliners. They have been doing it for decades.

Perhaps, but there's better ways of going about this than the grope-fest rights-killers that TSA has turned into.

This policy does nothing to your rights at all which hasn't been going on for decades.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Really? I must have forgotten all the times in the past that I've been groped and/or cooked by radiation with full body scanners that show me naked.

 

[Davros]

^ Really? I must have forgotten all the times in the past that I've been groped and/or cooked by radiation with full body scanners that show me naked.

You had to go through a metal detector and have your bags x-rayed. Constitutionally this is not any different.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ A metal detector is a reasonable search. This is not.