Archive

New Security Screening "Procedures" At Airports.

  • I Wear Pants
    [video=youtube;TBL3ux1o0tM][/video]
  • majorspark
    LJ;554781 wrote:So then don't fly? That's simple

    Maybe so. I and my family can choose not to fly. And we now have incentive to choose otherwise when possible. It is not that simple. These new measures are acts of the government into the free market. They are perpetual in nature and have no end. Your choice is limited by the government to other possibly less efficient means of transportation, you have to factor that into this.

    Terrorists will adapt to the current security measures. How long till some nutbag gets caught smuggling explosives in his undies on a train, bus, subway, or taxi. The same reactionary solutions will be implemented on these means of transportation as well.
  • I Wear Pants
    No no no majorspark, anything is reasonable as long as they say that the terrorists are going to get us.
  • Glory Days
    I Wear Pants;563621 wrote:[video=youtube;TBL3ux1o0tM][/video]

    Naked Airlines! I'd fly them even if i didnt have anywhere to go!
  • isadore
    I Wear Pants;563775 wrote:No no no majorspark, anything is reasonable as long as they say that the terrorists are going to get us.
    so you are still working to to give them a chance to use to use their brutal tactics successfully
    I Wear Pants wrote:So we have the right to just run roughshod over anyone and they are automatically the bad guys for using gorilla/brutal tactics that are their only real way to fight. We are too large an enemy for almost any single country to fight. Is everyone just supposed to bow to our will then?
  • BoatShoes
    I think the question that hasn't been asked yet is this: Why is it so imperative that I, an American citizen, raised in schools pledging allegiance to my flag for 18 years must go through a body scanner to get on a plane traveling within my countries borders; and a citizen of Mexico, with relatively few items, can waltz into the U.S. armed to the teeth if he so desires, relatively easily in some cases.

    I'm not vehemently opposed to body scanners...but it seems like we might have disorganized set of priorities when it comes to security.
  • I Wear Pants
    BoatShoes;564170 wrote:I think the question that hasn't been asked yet is this: Why is it so imperative that I, an American citizen, raised in schools pledging allegiance to my flag for 18 years must go through a body scanner to get on a plane traveling within my countries borders; and a citizen of Mexico, with relatively few items, can waltz into the U.S. armed to the teeth if he so desires, relatively easily in some cases.

    I'm not vehemently opposed to body scanners...but it seems like we might have disorganized set of priorities when it comes to security.
    Good point.
  • fish82
    Interesting....another airport requests to opt out of having TSA screeners. http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/11/sanford-airport-to-opt-out-of.html
  • ptown_trojans_1
    BoatShoes;564170 wrote:I think the question that hasn't been asked yet is this: Why is it so imperative that I, an American citizen, raised in schools pledging allegiance to my flag for 18 years must go through a body scanner to get on a plane traveling within my countries borders; and a citizen of Mexico, with relatively few items, can waltz into the U.S. armed to the teeth if he so desires, relatively easily in some cases.

    I'm not vehemently opposed to body scanners...but it seems like we might have disorganized set of priorities when it comes to security.
    It is a good point, but al Qaeda has not tried to attack us through using the border (at least that we know of). They have tried multiple times to execute an attack on airlines or using airplanes. Hence, the measures.

    They are annoying, yes and do raise privacy issues. But, I do see the argument for having them in place. If your metric for success is no more successful attacks, (its a low standard I know), then the measures have been successful thus far.
  • I Wear Pants
    If it's going to be invasive it might as well be effective. These scanners don't detect items in body cavities. Pretty simple to see what will happen.

    Fear has been the driving force of policy decisions for nearly ten years now. I'm getting tired of it.
  • tk421
    I Wear Pants;564388 wrote:If it's going to be invasive it might as well be effective. These scanners don't detect items in body cavities. Pretty simple to see what will happen.

    Fear has been the driving force of policy decisions for nearly ten years now. I'm getting tired of it.

    I agree. I've noticed no one addressed my points I made earlier in this thread about that very same issue. It seems pretty logical to me that eventually the TSA will mandate cavity searches before getting on a plane. Will this still be OK in the name of security? Where is the line drawn? Having someone's hand shoved up your ass/vagina for the women just to fly is what we have to look forward to?
  • BoatShoes
    tk421;564493 wrote:I agree. I've noticed no one addressed my points I made earlier in this thread about that very same issue. It seems pretty logical to me that eventually the TSA will mandate cavity searches before getting on a plane. Will this still be OK in the name of security? Where is the line drawn? Having someone's hand shoved up your ass/vagina for the women just to fly is what we have to look forward to?

    There's no reason to assume this will happen. It does not logically follow. In fact, your argument is a logical fallacy.
  • jhay78
    ptown_trojans_1;564334 wrote:It is a good point, but al Qaeda has not tried to attack us through using the border (at least that we know of). They have tried multiple times to execute an attack on airlines or using airplanes. Hence, the measures.

    They are annoying, yes and do raise privacy issues. But, I do see the argument for having them in place. If your metric for success is no more successful attacks, (its a low standard I know), then the measures have been successful thus far.

    Which brings me to the profiling issue . . . when was the last middle-aged white guy, 70 year-old grandma, or 5 year-old child that was a member of Al-Qaeda? Are these scans and pat-downs really the best way to go, when the Israelis (who would seem to be more of a target than our airlines) have basically written the book on safe air travel? I'm just wondering . . .
  • jmog
    ptown_trojans_1;564334 wrote:It is a good point, but al Qaeda has not tried to attack us through using the border (at least that we know of). They have tried multiple times to execute an attack on airlines or using airplanes. Hence, the measures.

    They are annoying, yes and do raise privacy issues. But, I do see the argument for having them in place. If your metric for success is no more successful attacks, (its a low standard I know), then the measures have been successful thus far.

    Not true, it was found out that Al Qaeda members who flew the 9/11 planes initially crossed at the Canadian border. So in essense, Al Qaeda has attacked us by first crossing our border.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    jhay78;564565 wrote:Which brings me to the profiling issue . . . when was the last middle-aged white guy, 70 year-old grandma, or 5 year-old child that was a member of Al-Qaeda? Are these scans and pat-downs really the best way to go, when the Israelis (who would seem to be more of a target than our airlines) have basically written the book on safe air travel? I'm just wondering . . .

    Yes, but 1. Profiling is politically impossible and 2. Al qaeda is looking to recruit Americans, so limiting screenings to one sector of society may not work.
    jmog;564569 wrote:Not true, it was found out that Al Qaeda members who flew the 9/11 planes initially crossed at the Canadian border. So in essense, Al Qaeda has attacked us by first crossing our border.

    True. I was referring to the southern border.
  • Glory Days
    jhay78;564565 wrote:Which brings me to the profiling issue . . . when was the last middle-aged white guy, 70 year-old grandma, or 5 year-old child that was a member of Al-Qaeda? Are these scans and pat-downs really the best way to go, when the Israelis (who would seem to be more of a target than our airlines) have basically written the book on safe air travel? I'm just wondering . . .

    Al Qaeda does that all the time. They use women bombers and have children carry weapons for them. Granted it hasnt happend here yet, but why wait and be a step behind.
  • CenterBHSFan
    Glory Days;564678 wrote:Al Qaeda does that all the time. They use women bombers and have children carry weapons for them. Granted it hasnt happend here yet, but why wait and be a step behind.
    So, that just suggests that we can no longer use gender/age profiling ONLY. I think a little of general profiling altogether could be warranted with this issue. Like I said earlier, patting down little old ladies in wheelchairs on oxygen just seems to use up alot of time and resources.
  • I Wear Pants
    If we're going to be afraid enough to let people fondle us why not be afraid enough that the terrorists are hiding bombs in wheelchairs and oxygen tanks and inside of senile old ladies?

    You know, the terrorists are probably setting up a nursing home right now so they can hide bombs inside of or on the persons of old people and put them on planes with little suspicion. We need stricter safety checks of all elderly people!
  • CenterBHSFan
    I Wear Pants;564783 wrote:If we're going to be afraid enough to let people fondle us why not be afraid enough that the terrorists are hiding bombs in wheelchairs and oxygen tanks and inside of senile old ladies?

    You know, the terrorists are probably setting up a nursing home right now so they can hide bombs inside of or on the persons of old people and put them on planes with little suspicion. We need stricter safety checks of all elderly people!


    That's great! lol
  • tk421
    BoatShoes;564528 wrote:There's no reason to assume this will happen. It does not logically follow. In fact, your argument is a logical fallacy.

    How do you figure that? They don't currently check any body cavities. Are you saying that a terrorist would not hide explosives in their cavities? Or are you saying that the TSA wouldn't stoop to having people cavity searched? After every attempt by the terrorists, the TSA has implemented new screening procedures, it follows that when a terrorist tries that approach, the TSA will react afterward.

    The scanners will not detect items in the cavities if the terrorists are half way intelligent. Hell, we have people who have to be pat down now because of all kinds of false positives. Any person who goes through the scanner and then has to be pat down now could have explosives hidden on their person, this screening does nothing to detect that.
  • justincredible
    LJ;554781 wrote:So then don't fly? That's simple

    This isn't an option for a lot of people. I bought a plane ticket to Mexico before all of this came to be. Now I should just stay home and eat the few grand because I find the process to be complete and utter bullshit that does nothing give the illusion of "safety" and violate my 4th Amendment rights?

    It's a slippery slope towards a nanny state and I don't like it. Yeah, if I want to go to Mexico in a few weeks I'll have to grit my teeth and "submit" to them but I'm not going to do it with a smile on my face. It would be nice if there was more common sense floating around in Washington and this was killed before it ever started.
  • tk421
    I don't remember if this point was raised before, but I have a question for the "don't like it, don't fly" people. If the TSA was truly concerned about keeping people safe, wouldn't they have the security screening right as people come inside the airport instead of letting anyone walk around as long as they don't try to go to the gate areas?

    Maybe it's just me, but does anyone ever imagine a terrorist going to the airport and getting in the security line during a very busy time, like maybe Thanksgiving/Christmas and detonating a bomb inside the airport? Why would they try to get on a plane anymore?

    Huh, you'd think with all the supposed smart people in the government and the TSA that want to keep us safe would have thought about this issue before. Oh, well I guess if you don't like it, stay home and don't get blown up.
  • I Wear Pants
    The "don't like it don't fly" argument isn't very good. If you have no reasons to support these new measures and the only thing you can say is "don't like it don't fly" then you probably don't really think these are a good idea.

    That'd be like people saying "don't like the healthcare bill? Then don't live in the US".
  • ts1227
    Another thing to consider is whether we consider the ability to travel via plane a right or a privilege, and then gauge how the standards line up with that view... because if it's not a right, then is there really anything wrong happening?
  • I Wear Pants
    Yes. My ability to drive my car isn't a right but if I had to get felt up before I could drive it there would be something wrong happening.

    Just because something isn't a right doesn't mean that there can't be privacy concerns.