Is the TSA going too far?

[Trekker4747]

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.

After 9/11 it was more astounding to me that the planes were taken over with box-cutters and the terrorists gaind acess through the cockpit door. A flight-crew more trained to deal with these types of situations and to diffuse them, Flight Marshals on flights and a hardy cockpit door would've stopped 9/11. Not pat-downs and body scanners.

I wasn't upset that the government allowed this to happen or that security wasn't enough, more that a series of systems all failed. Most importantly the intelligence system on these terrorists.

I don not believe for a moment that any of this TSA stff is neccessary. It's looking under our bed for monsters is all it's doing. It's an empty act to make us "feel safe" and nothing else. And we really shouldn't be willing to just let the government force us to either be exposed to radiation or be groped just to get on a plane.

 

[Nociod]

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.

After 9/11 it was more astounding to me that the planes were taken over with box-cutters and the terrorists gaind acess through the cockpit door. A flight-crew more trained to deal with these types of situations and to diffuse them, Flight Marshals on flights and a hardy cockpit door would've stopped 9/11. Not pat-downs and body scanners.
.

You're right.

Before 9/11 we were all naive. The airlines policy was to cooperate with any hijackers. No one expected them to use the planes as missiles. Things have changed now, the flight-crew know better, the passengers know better, the doors are reinforced. A hijacking is less likely to occur now.

Said it in the TNZ thread, and I'll say it again. Bring back airport security to the level it was before 9/11. Let us bring liquids again.

Let the intel agencies do their jobs. If you're worried about bombs, bring back the puffers. Or you could use dogs to sniff out explosives. There has been reports of the body-scanners not detecting bombs anyways, they are invading your private life, and exposing you to radiation.

The more comfortable you are with giving up rights in the name of freedom, the less free you become. You are no safer now because of the TSA. A terrorist who wants to hurt you till find a way, there are countless of ways to smuggle things onto an airplane that doesn't involve bringing it through the regular security.

 

[Davros]

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

This is just as reasonable.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I disagree. The bodyscanners display images of you - *naked*. You don't think that's an invasion of privacy? What if they just said the hell with it and made everyone actually GET naked before they could get on the plane?

As for the pat-downs, that's just this side of rape, IMHO. If you wouldn't want to get groped by a stranger in an alley, you should not want this.

 

[Trekker4747]

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.

After 9/11 it was more astounding to me that the planes were taken over with box-cutters and the terrorists gaind acess through the cockpit door. A flight-crew more trained to deal with these types of situations and to diffuse them, Flight Marshals on flights and a hardy cockpit door would've stopped 9/11. Not pat-downs and body scanners.
.

You're right.

Before 9/11 we were all naive. The airlines policy was to cooperate with any hijackers. No one expected them to use the planes as missiles. Things have changed now, the flight-crew know better, the passengers know better, the doors are reinforced. A hijacking is less likely to occur now.

Said it in the TNZ thread, and I'll say it again. Bring back airport security to the level it was before 9/11. Let us bring liquids again.

Let the intel agencies do their jobs. If you're worried about bombs, bring back the puffers. Or you could use dogs to sniff out explosives. There has been reports of the body-scanners not detecting bombs anyways, they are invading your private life, and exposing you to radiation.

The more comfortable you are with giving up rights in the name of freedom, the less free you become. You are no safer now because of the TSA. A terrorist who wants to hurt you till find a way, there are countless of ways to smuggle things onto an airplane that doesn't involve bringing it through the regular security.

Exactly. None of this is making us any safer. It's just an illusion. Just looking under the bed for monsters.

So, these new methods won't find cavity devices. So what if someone pulls something of with an ass-bomb? Are we then going to be so willing to allow TSA to do cavity searches in the name of "safety"?

"Ma'am you have as stick of dynamyte in you."
"Umm no I don't."
"Yes you do, I can see the fuse right there!"
"That's a tampon."
"I'm going to need to remove that."

Where is the line?

How far are people willing to go, stop, and say TSA is doing too much? I think feeling people up and/or exposing them to radiation (that produces a nudish image) is pushing that line.

 

[Davros]

^ I disagree. The bodyscanners display images of you - *naked*. You don't think that's an invasion of privacy?

Not at all. But I am not hung up on thinking there is anything significant about nudity. Your bags have the same fourth amendment protections your body has and they get scanned without violating your rights.

What if they just said the hell with it and made everyone actually GET naked before they could get on the plane?

That's ridiculous and unsanitary. You act like the so called nude image is being put up on display for everybody to see.

As for the pat-downs, that's just this side of rape, IMHO. If you wouldn't want to get groped by a stranger in an alley, you should not want this.

That is insane. The two things are nothing alike. To even try and compare the two is laughable.

 

[Red Ranger]

Frankly, I think the people making such a big fuss about this fall under the heading, "Much ado about nothing." I blame the Tea Baggers, You should be more concerned with global warming and humanity's role in it, or the poisoning of the food supply by big conglomerates. I'm taking a trip to Florida around Christmastime and I'd rather have a speedy scanner search of my body than a two-minute pat-down.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Your bags have the same fourth amendment protections your body has and they get scanned without violating your rights.

Like I said, that is a reasonable search. They have the right to search my bags, and putting said bags through a scanner is part of that. That is not the point, however.

You act like the so called nude image is being put up on display for everybody to see.

The TSA people can see it.

As for the pat-downs, that's just this side of rape, IMHO. If you wouldn't want to get groped by a stranger in an alley, you should not want this.

That is insane. The two things are nothing alike. To even try and compare the two is laughable.

You've never been through the new rules, have you?

 

[Nowhere Man]

I think Captain Picard will explain my position better. The Borg=The Government, The Enterprise=We the People.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGF1NP-FrCU&feature=recentfmore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjJN08uqt70&feature=related

 

[Davros]

Like I said, that is a reasonable search. They have the right to search my bags, and putting said bags through a scanner is part of that.

Scanning you is just as reasonable as scanning your bags according to the fourth amendment since they both have equal prptection.

That is not the point, however.

Since you can avoid the pat down by going through the scanner it is related.

You act like the so called nude image is being put up on display for everybody to see.

The TSA people can see it.

You have failed so far to show how that matters in any significant way.

You've never been through the new rules, have you?

All I have to do is observe and use common sense.

The outrage over this is about politics and not policy. The very same people bitching about this are the same people who were fime with warrantless wiretaps under Bush.

 

[Nowhere Man]

^ That's completely untrue, i'm still pissed about the warrantless wire taps. It's still going on you know. Also, you have a problem with painting broad strokes and assuming a lot about people. Your speaking for a lot of people including myself and you shouldn't.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Like I said, that is a reasonable search. They have the right to search my bags, and putting said bags through a scanner is part of that.

Scanning you is just as reasonable as scanning your bags according to the fourth amendment since they both have equal prptection.

A human being has more protections, more rights, more dignity, than an inanimate object.

It's reasonable to scan a bag, to open it up and search it. It is not reasonable to take naked pictures of people (and if even one person can see it, that matters), to open THEM up and search THEM, without PROBABLE CAUSE.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

All this ridiculous hyperbole about voluntary pat-downs being "this side of rape," about the government being Borg-like, and about the focus on it somehow being the "Tea Party's fault" (through some bizarre hyper-partisan logic I've not heard anyone use until today) are just obscuring the real point: Are these security measures effective or not?

Because these security measures have been so widely publicized (inevitably so), does anyone really believe the next attempted terror attack is not going to take them into account? The terrorists are often ignorant and have somewhat comical plans, but they do have access to TV, newspapers/magazines, and the internet.

Would it even have been effective in stopping the underwear bomber, the case that inspired the long-desired (by the TSA/Homeland Security at least) extra measures to finally go into place? Probably not. It's still reliant on a flawed human being in a cramped booth staring at ghost images of thousands of naked people on a small screen for hours on end day by day while fighting boredom, fatigue, job dissatisfaction, laughter, disgust, and titillation (don't ask me why, but apparently some people get off on it).

They have to decide what's important enough to focus and zoom in on, and smaller details aren't always apparent without focusing in. The underwear bomb was just some PETN powder sewn into the front of the underwear and a fuse. It wouldn't look much different from a man wearing a jock strap or a cup underneath his underwear. Someone wearing Depends or a woman wearing a maxi pad wouldn't look any different from someone who could be carrying enough PETN to blow a hole in a plane either. Do you think every person wearing any of those things is getting a focused inspection under the scanners in enough detail for a fuse or blasting cap to become obvious? The pat-downs are voluntary if you choose not to go through the scanners. If you're the type of person who's willing to throw your life away so easily, you wouldn't hesitate to take your chances going through the scanners with the possibility of being caught.

Terrorists rarely try the same tactic against the same type of target any more - at least when going after nations with extensive intelligence agencies and security measures. The first WTC attack was a van that exploded in the subterranean parking garage, the next was hijacked planes crashing into the upper floors. Passengers will now jump anyone who tries to hijack a plane, so they've switched to bombs. When shoe bombs failed, they switched to underwear bombs. When underwear bombs failed, they sent explosives via printer cartridges in cargo planes. Reactive measures, especially against a powder explosive like PETN which can be hidden in virtually anything, are largely a waste of time. Banning liquids and now printer cartridges just means they'll pack it in something else. Giving "enhanced pat-downs" just means they'll carry the explosives in body cavities next, and that's a line in the sand I don't think even Homeland Security will cross where it comes to standard searches.

Also, baggage handlers and other airport employees don't go through the same searches passengers do, so it's not unlikely that a terrorist could pose as or get an actual job as an airport employee, giving them access to cargo, the planes, or large groups of passengers.

While I'll gladly take the Israeli's advice on airport security since they have more expertise then anyone, it's also good to bear in mind that the US handles over two million passengers a day, meaning we could fly the entire Israeli population in less than four days. The entire country of Israel also has fewer international and domestic airports than just the New York metropolitan area. Obviously the same measures the Israelis use aren't always practical given the number of people we have to process in the US and the number of TSA employees we'd need to train extensively, but a middle ground between the overzealous and often pointless pat-down measures we're using today and the behavioral profiling/interview-based measures of the Israelis needs to be reached.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The pat-downs are voluntary if you choose not to go through the scanners.

Are you sure about that? Not every passenger is selected to go through the full body scanners, but for those that are, if they opt out of them they must undergo a patdown.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

The pat-downs are voluntary if you choose not to go through the scanners.

Are you sure about that? Not every passenger is selected to go through the full body scanners, but for those that are, if they opt out of them they must undergo a patdown.

That's what I'm saying. You only have to go through the pat-down if you choose not to go through the scanners (or if they find something in the scans that requires a pat-down). It's voluntary, which made your "just this side of rape" comparison silly. I have a problem with the pat-downs too, but you don't help your point by going way over-the-top with your argument.

The outrage over this is about politics and not policy. The very same people bitching about this are the same people who were fime with warrantless wiretaps under Bush.

Sorry, I don't buy that. I'm sure there are a small percentage of people motivated to protest this purely for political reasons, but the majority of people opposed to this are motivated by the fact that almost everyone has flown or will fly at some point and they aren't looking forward to getting seen naked or felt-up. Not everything is primarily a political issue, which applies to the absurd attempt up-thread to blame this on the Tea Party as well. I have a problem with both the much larger issue of the warrantless wiretaps and with the intrusive scans and pat-downs.

 

[Lookingglassman]

I dont care about pat downs all I care about is having pilots and planes that get me to my destination safely.

 

[ALF]

As for the naked body scanners, there was one woman on the news yesterday describing the scene of misuse: two TSA workers whispering to each other about who should be chosen to scan as she waited in line... as she was an average looking but generally attractive blond, she was able to relay that familiar feeling that one gets when people (men) are undressing them with their eyes.

"Oh yeah bro, forget the granny and that fat dude, let's scan that hottie!"
"Totally man, she's going in the Greatest Hits folder!*"

(* - T minus how many seconds until the first nude image scandal hits? Any minute now. And there should be a lottery to guess the first nude celeb scan to hit the web.)

How long have these machines been in widespread use? A couple months or weeks? Already this shit is starting up. Sketchy dudes whispering to each other about who to scan. It's skin crawling super-creepiness.

That is what is wrong with the scanners. I don't trust the people running the machines. And I don't particularly care about myself but I'd feel sensitive about my wife or kids going through... it's not as though emotionless computers are running these machines.

EDIT:
From the Canadian Globe and Mail - "No ‘junk touching’ in Canada, Transport Minister says", what a headline!! I can't believe that is the actual headline. I wonder if they ran that in print, too.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...anada-transport-minister-says/article1811831/

 

[ST-One]

The outrage over this is about politics and not policy. The very same people bitching about this are the same people who were fime with warrantless wiretaps under Bush.

You were wrong about that twice now.

 

[bluedana]

Like I said, that is a reasonable search. They have the right to search my bags, and putting said bags through a scanner is part of that.

Scanning you is just as reasonable as scanning your bags according to the fourth amendment since they both have equal prptection.

A human being has more protections, more rights, more dignity, than an inanimate object.

It's reasonable to scan a bag, to open it up and search it. It is not reasonable to take naked pictures of people (and if even one person can see it, that matters), to open THEM up and search THEM, without PROBABLE CAUSE.

Actually, no. The probable cause standard remains the same, whether I am seeking to search a bag, a house, a bank account, a person, or a car. Courts may, in the future, require a warrant (based on probable cause) to do the type of invasive search TSA is doing here, but (1) that will require meeting exactly the same probable cause standard as searching your bag or car, and (2) you will certainly miss your plane.

I think something to remember here is that the government is dealing with a moving target. These procedures are experimental: it will take a combination of analyzing the data, (sadly) looking at polls, and guidance from courts to figure out what searches at airports ought to look like. And the moment the government appears to "get it right," there will be another threatened or successful attack, using a method nobody's thought of yet, and the process will start again.

Frankly, all the hyperbole of "It's rape!" and "I have the right to do anything, anytime!" just clouds the issue and doesn't help to find that balance between rights and responsibilities.

 

[Davros]

Like I said, that is a reasonable search. They have the right to search my bags, and putting said bags through a scanner is part of that.

Scanning you is just as reasonable as scanning your bags according to the fourth amendment since they both have equal prptection.

A human being has more protections, more rights, more dignity, than an inanimate object.

It's reasonable to scan a bag, to open it up and search it. It is not reasonable to take naked pictures of people (and if even one person can see it, that matters), to open THEM up and search THEM, without PROBABLE CAUSE.

According to the fourth amendment your bags are just as protected from search as is your body your house or your papers. If they have the right to search your bags they have the right to search you.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized