"Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, called a news conference at the airport Monday afternoon to announce the probe. He said the investigation could lead to prosecution and civil penalties of up to $11,000."
Love the use of the word "probe."
There's some really deep feeling brewing out there about the TSA's newly intensified searches of airline passengers. I'm wondering what potential this very particular issue has for skewing politics more generally.
Think about why this issue has such a strong emotional impact: The government wants to see you naked or grope your genitals. It is conditioning an important aspect of personal freedom — flying in airplanes — on your resigning yourself — and your children — to sexual assault. I was chatting with someone the other day who seemed more angry about this than any other political issue.
Now, I think this TSA issue has the potential to affect the political orientation of many individuals. How might the political parties and other political participants seize this opportunity?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
359 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 359 of 359FLS--the question is did he check the shotgun in baggage compartment luggage--then go from there; if he did, then seems to me to be kosher.
He stood out from the usual run of passenger. Then he refused inspection. If he didn't want to be irradiated, they gave him an option.
I don't think the TSA agent was interested in his junk.
The great advocate in the case of Robinson v. California, Samuel Carter McMorris, challenged patdown searches in the SF Hall of Justice. He rebutted the city's argument that the searches were consensual by saying that as a lawyer, he could not represent his clients or earn his living without undergoing a patdown search.
The Ninth Circuit was not persuaded, holding that the search met the strict scrutiny standard: courthouse safety was a vital government interest -- for example, a terrorist assault had occurred at the Marin Courthouse in 1970; and the patdown search was limited and reasonable.
McMorris v. Alioto, 567 F.2d 897 (1978)
Evidently, universal "scanning or groping" is considered politically correct while profiling is not.
How stupid have we become?
hombre nailed it.
(And thanks for the welcome backs, you guys.)
This hardly shows a Democratic vendetta against him or that he suffered any damage.
As regards "Democratic vendetta," which party did the officials who violated his privacy?
So did he suffer any damages from his privacy being illegally violated? Depends on how you feel about privacy. I'm on shaky ground here (I can picture Prof. Althouse reading the statement and commenting to herself that it's even more shaky than I imagine), but I think that nearly all American citizens agree that our confidential information should not be extracted from government databases and passed to left-leaning media to feed an orchestrated campaign of personal derogation. To the extent that the materials published were published with malicious intent to harm his reputation, I argue that he did suffer damages.
You probably feel that your own confidential data ought to be protected from being maliciously used against you, Cookie, it's merely that you don't think that anyone else deserves the same protections.
jr565,
A lot of people might not like the ways Israelis do it either. I"saac Yeffet, the former head of security for El Al and now an aviation security consultant in New York, said El Al has prevented terrorism in the air by making sure every passenger is interviewed by a well-trained agent before check-in.
No they don't - they profile. Abdul is going to have a talk with security. I might even have to, being black, but they'll figure me out pretty quick, considering the "I'm not a terrorist" tattoo on my forehead, and my wallet photo of Bush.
Evidently, universal "scanning or groping" is considered politically correct while profiling is not.
What kind of profiler are we going to get for $35K a year?
Not "Aaron Hotchner."
@Brian
Exactly I have a friend who is a competitive shooter. He flies domestically and internationally to matches. He checks his shotguns in as baggage without any problem. His biggest worry is airline handler theft, Italian shotguns run into the $30k range.
Feeling up a 3 year old is making us safer? It's insane. And harassing this guy who chose not to undergo the scanning or groping?
Abuse.
I will agree that's irrational. It's obvious who the terrorists are but we choose to make sure that everyone is subjected to the same treatment. In the interest of fairness.
Lets just go back to 9/10/01 and roll with it.
Part of the problem is that people have the fear that the TSA is staffed by officious assholes. Mr. Aguilar has done nothing to allay that fear. The resolution of this problem will come when the TSA bans cell phone videos at check in points....I think Tyner over reacted, but he should have the right to draw his own boundaries without triggering further persecution.
This is timely and interesting. Didn't know the airports could opt out of having TSA perform security.
Robert Cooke wrote:
Given that Mr. Tyner has been threatened with civil action and a government investigation because he chose to miss his flight and leave rather than submit to the search, and because this wasn't good enough for the TSA, I'd say we've all lost plenty of our liberties already.
Ok, but suppose this wasn't a question of this guy refusing to submit to a body scan, but rather a guy who refused to put his bag through the baggage check and refused to step through the metal detectors? (I'll stick to things in airports prior to our so callled assault on person freedoms). The fact that someone is going to an airport and then refusing to step through a metal detector might raise a lot of red flags. So, would that also be a loss of personal freedom if they held the guy who was being so uncooperative when it came to subjecting himself to any form of search whatsoever?
What safeguards in place is it perfectly reasonable for the TSA to use that aren't losses of personal freedom, and why are they less onerous than, say a full body scan.
Because unless you're suggesting that there should be no metal detectors, no baggage checks, no customs agents, nothing whatsoever to determine what gets on a plane, then you're going to have to settle for the airlines doing SOMETHING to check bags, and/or passegers. Would that SOMETHING that they do meet your requirement so as to not be an invasion of your privacy.
Given that Mr. Tyner has been threatened with civil action and a government investigation because he chose to miss his flight and leave rather than submit to the search, and because this wasn't good enough for the TSA, I'd say we've all lost plenty of our liberties already.
Good point. The same thing is going to happen if you refuse to buy health insurance too.
I don't think we're really disagreeing, Hoosier Daddy. I want more security than we had on 9/11.
I just want sane implementation.
Crack Emcee wrote:
No they don't - they profile. Abdul is going to have a talk with security. I might even have to, being black, but they'll figure me out pretty quick, considering the "I'm not a terrorist" tattoo on my forehead, and my wallet photo of Bush.
Part of their profile is checking terrorist watch lists, which are a database of names and photographs of suspected terrorists. Is compiling that data not an invasion of privacy? And similarly, your photo of Bush could simply be your cover, just as a sleeper cell dresses in western clothes and adopts western values while here as their cover. And there have been some terrorists caught who didn't quite meet the terrorist profile.
Not saying that they shouldn't ALSO profile, but profiling in and of itself may not be enough, and in any case still might be an invasion of someone's privacy.
High speed trains could also be used as terrorist delivery devices. So wouldn't passengers and cargo on high speed trains need to be thoroughly screened?
What kind of profiler are we going to get for $35K a year?
What kind of dumbass question is that?
a) What kind of scanner reading, feeler-upper are we going to get for $35,000 a year?
b) What kind of federal employee, particularly FBI or other profilers, earns a mere $35,000 a year?
Darcy wrote:
don't think we're really disagreeing, Hoosier Daddy. I want more security than we had on 9/11.
I just want sane implementation.
Isn't it just as insane to suggest there should be no airline security as to suggest we should make people subimt to full cavity searches?
And clearly, coming up with a sane implementation is the tricky part, considering some people think any intrustion on their absolute freedoms (when flying on a private companies airline) in the interest of security amounts to the end of life as we know it.For those people, if you suggest using a baggage check would be sane, they might sock you with the "giving up an ounce of freedom for security gives you neither" speech.
Ok, but suppose this wasn't a question of this guy refusing to submit to a body scan, but rather a guy who refused to put his bag through the baggage check and refused to step through the metal detectors?
Warning, you are now approaching FLS territory.
I don't think we're really disagreeing, Hoosier Daddy. I want more security than we had on 9/11.
I just want sane implementation.
Ditto.
TSA is not wrong to scan baggage.
TSA is not wrong to use metal detectors. And explosive sniffers.
TSA is not wrong to do hand pat/grope downs.
TSA is not wrong to use x-ray systems.
TSA is wrong not to do the first damn thing first - profile.
Why is it the one forbidden step?
It's the one step the Israelis employ to great success.
Based on what I believe most pheasant hunters would do, we now have "Man brings gun to airport, refuses security inspection."
Man checks legally registered hunting weapons in the proper security channels.
Man puts his baggage, cell phone and carry on luggage through the x ray screening process without protest.
Man walks through metal detector without any protest.
Man refuses to be exposed to an unknown amount of possibly dangeros radiation.
Man refuses to let another man fondle his balls and penis.
Over 200 comments, and no one else seems to have connected the coercion in this case to the coercion we can expect from Janet Napolitano's party and the Obama administration relative to the coming health care debacle.
I suspect we will see the power of the State applied with an even heavier hand as far as health care providers and recipients of health care who have cases that do not precisely fit the norms.
What kind of dumbass question is that?
That's what a TSA security screener makes.
I love that TSA claims that saving the full-body scan images is impossible.
I read that the TSA specs for the scanners required them to have the capability of storing images and transmitting them over the Internet.
In Africa, I heard, scanner operators would look at a young woman's naked image on the scanner, then run out to the check-in line to see her in person.
Over 200 comments, and no one else seems to have connected the coercion in this case to the coercion we can expect from Janet Napolitano's party and the Obama administration relative to the coming health care debacle.
I did. See my 12:01 :-)
ChuckR wrote:
TSA is not wrong to scan baggage.
TSA is not wrong to use metal detectors. And explosive sniffers.
TSA is not wrong to do hand pat/grope downs.
TSA is not wrong to use x-ray systems.
TSA is wrong not to do the first damn thing first - profile.
Why is it the one forbidden step?
It's the one step the Israelis employ to great success.
Why not do all of the above AND profile?
The point being, every one of those things on your list is an invasion of your "privacy". Unless you want to say the TSA should do nothing to secure their passengers and planes, then you, by flying, are going to submit yourself to a loss of privacy of some kind.
Isn't it just as insane to suggest there should be no airline security as to suggest we should make people subimt to full cavity searches?
Yes, so stop suggesting it.
Over 200 comments, and no one else seems to have connected the coercion in this case to the coercion we can expect from Janet Napolitano's party and the Obama administration relative to the coming health care debacle.
Several people made this point.
TSA is wrong not to do the first damn thing first - profile.
Why is it the one forbidden step?
This, I think is where the political opportunity lies. Because of our refusal to profile, we end up searching granny and 3 year olds. I suspect there is a majority in this country who object to this nonsense.
Dust Bunny wrote:
Man puts his baggage, cell phone and carry on luggage through the x ray screening process without protest.
Man walks through metal detector without any protest.
But what if I think putting my bag through XRAYS (and having to walk past the machine as they do it) is a similar invasion of privacy?
I don't know where to start with that, jr565. It's as if you're not reading what's going on.
No, it's not okay with me at all. It is not hard to cut the PC crap and use common sense. We all have it. Let's use it.
no one else seems to have connected the coercion in this case to the coercion we can expect from Janet Napolitano's party and the Obama administration relative to the coming health care debacle
Yes, a state employee will order Tyner to "turn his head and cough." Not to mention what he may be forced to do when he turns 50 -- can you say "anal probe"?
Big Mike said...
Over 200 comments, and no one else seems to have connected the coercion in this case to the coercion we can expect from Janet Napolitano's party and the Obama administration relative to the coming health care debacle.
I made this very point at 10:16, thanks. One size fits all rarely does.
Orignal Mike wrote:
sn't it just as insane to suggest there should be no airline security as to suggest we should make people subimt to full cavity searches?
Yes, so stop suggesting it.
The implication is that there should be no security.
So then where does that line exist whereby making someone step through a metal detector and put their bags through an x ray machine is somehow not an invasion of privacy but the body scan is? THey all are. Some people are willing to make the trade off that putting their bags through an xray machine or taking off their shoes or even submitting to a pat down is not an invasion of privacy or personal freedom, or the benefit (getting to fly around the country) outweighs the few minutes of inconvenience.
jr565
The point is simple - develop a basis for suspicion from less invasive checks - including profiling - before, not instead of, invasive checks. The invasive checks should not be randomly applied in a manner primarily driven by PC dictates.
The latest on ol' Drudge is the hands down the pants grope based on suspicious behavior - wearing shorts or sweatpants. Possibly Althouse would approve for the male shorts wearers....
This is plain and simple intimidation. Tyner is being made an example of so that others will think twice before protesting. Works in Iran, works in Russia, works in China and it works here. This is not the first time a government agency or department has used intimidation.
For those trying to make this a partisan political issue, give it up. Repugs are the party that screams loudest about law and order, and security and the Dums are accused of being squishy on the the same things.
As far as this causing some sort of realignment, don't get your hopes up. Americans are passive and risk adverse, and will give up personal freedom first on the promise that doing so will make them 'safe.'
It would be great if this crystallized a movement that pushes back about such outrages as the Patriot Act, but pigs will fly first.
The implication is that there should be no security.
No, it isn't.
Your new fraternity name is ..... Zeno.
Because of our refusal to profile, we end up searching granny and 3 year olds.
But Bubbie Berman told me how El Al grilled her for five solid minutes. Why was she flying to Tel Aviv? Why from New York and not Chicago? El Al didn't give her a pass, why should United?
@Hoosier, you posted while I was still typing.
@donttread2010, I went back and looked, and I apologize. Your comment about one size fitting all (has that overtaken "the check's in the mail" as the biggest lie yet?) caught my eye more than your reference to health care.
@DBQ, please don't beat me.
Darcy wrote:
I don't know where to start with that, jr565. It's as if you're not reading what's going on.
No, it's not okay with me at all. It is not hard to cut the PC crap and use common sense. We all have it. Let's use it.
Except the people saying we should use body scans are saying its a sensible way to scan people going on airports and is common sense. Just as Crack Emcee is saying profiling is common sense. But then on the other hand, you'll have a Robert COoke saying profiling is racist, and not based on common sense. Someone might have a problem with putting their bags through an x ray machine or taking off their shoes. If a shoe bomber used a shoe to pack bombs, and they can detect such things by making people take their shoes off, then isn't that common sense? yet to some its an invasion of privacy.
Common sense means different things to different people. So suppose you were running an airport, and were starting from scratch and had to put in security measures. What would you put in and leave out? Do you think that if you made people take off their shoes it wouldn't be based on your view of common sense, or that people wouldn't object to it? And what if when you set up your perfectly commmon sensical solution someone came to your airport and said, I"m sorry I refuse to submit to that because it's an invasion of my privacy (i.e. I wont put my bags through an x ray machine, I wont take my shoes off etc). Would you then remove all the safeguards you had previously suggested were based on common sense because someone refuses to think they aren't a violation of his rights?
common sense. We all have it.
Clearly that's not true.
LOL, Original Mike. Oop. You're right, of course.
jr565 wrote: The implication is that there should be no security.
So then where does that line exist whereby making someone step through a metal detector and put their bags through an x ray machine is somehow not an invasion of privacy but the body scan is?
Oh, of course, you're absolutely right. There are no identifiable lines of demarcation.
So, in the domain of touching, for example, putting my hand on your shoulder is no different than grabbing your crotch. LOL
@FLS, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find annual digital prostate exams mandated by Obamacare for everyone fifty years and older -- and doctors being hauled into court for failing to perform the procedure on women.
Why you and other liberals think that it's okay to put a bureaucrat between me and my doctor is something I simply don't get -- and doubly so when your side attacks right-to-lifers for allegedly putting bureaucrats between a pregnant woman and her doctor.
But what if I think putting my bag through XRAYS (and having to walk past the machine as they do it) is a similar invasion of privacy?
Well....if you think that putting your inanimate luggage through screening is the same thing as having someone squeeze your balls and penis or fondle your tits and vaginal area (if you are a woman)....I don't think there is any hope for you.
You should stay home or learn to drive.
There are reasonable screening procedures. Such as having your checked luggage and carry on luggage examined and being examined by a metal detector for weapons.
There are unreasonable procedures such as being sexually violated, fondled and exposed. Obviously, you can't tell the difference.
Now it seems that the TSA is putting their hands down pants to pat down underwear if you wear baggy pants or shorts.
Hmmmm...there may be an up side of to this...fliers will stop wearing smelly sweats and flashing butt cracks when they sit down.
Big Mike,
Indeed, 'one size fits all' is the prescription for 'fairness'. Shared misery. Force. Coercion. And special treatment for those that are 'more equal' than others.
Original Mike wrote:
This, I think is where the political opportunity lies. Because of our refusal to profile, we end up searching granny and 3 year olds. I suspect there is a majority in this country who object to this nonsense.
Except, knowing that you wont look at babies might make a terrorist use a baby to bring his exploseives on board,assuming you wont check him there. (Just as the shoe bomber put bombs in his shoes, and just as the underwear bomber put bombs in their underwear). I'm all for profiling, but profiling without considering that someone might do something out of the norm so as to avoid the profile, means that profiling can often miss a lot.
Suppose Adam Gadan went to afghanistan, trained and then got on board a plane carrying explosives in his underpants. And suppose we didn't know adam Gadan was Adam Gadan (he just looked like a nice jewish kid). The profile wouldn't look for an Adam Gaddan.
So, in that case maybe some additional security might help.
it wouldn't surprise me at all to find annual digital prostate exams mandated by Obamacare for everyone fifty years and older -- and doctors being hauled into court for failing to perform the procedure on women.
Channeling jr565: "Why, however could we draw a line?"
Except, knowing that you wont look at babies might make a terrorist use a baby to bring his exploseives on board
Gee, I never thought of that. {:rolleyes}
Dust Bunny Queen wrote:
There are reasonable screening procedures. Such as having your checked luggage and carry on luggage examined and being examined by a metal detector for weapons.
There are unreasonable procedures such as being sexually violated, fondled and exposed. Obviously, you can't tell the difference.
I'm not for fondling anybody either. But have you ever been to an airport, and had the guys put you through a metal detector and it goes off, then they give you a cursory pat down. It's not a fondling per se, but their hand go down the length of your arms and legs, looking for potential weapons). That happens all the times using metal detectors. So maybe we shouldn't have them, so that who don't like being touched in any way aren't bothered.
It's simple: the more power you give government, the more they take.
Our choice.
I'm not for fondling anybody either.
Well, I guess that's progress.
Original Mike wrote:
Except, knowing that you wont look at babies might make a terrorist use a baby to bring his exploseives on board
Gee, I never thought of that. {:rolleyes}
Yet, your profiling would miss that because you would only be looking for the prototypical terrorist and not the babies or grandmom's.
Not to say that because Profilning isn't perfect we shouldn't ALSO profile, but profiling is just one aspect of security.
Nothing's perfect, Zeno.
Bwaahahahaaaa!! Best headline...
Why you and other liberals think that it's okay to put a bureaucrat between me and my doctor is something I simply don't get -- and doubly so when your side attacks right-to-lifers for allegedly putting bureaucrats between a pregnant woman and her doctor.
There already is a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. It's called your insurance provider.
But have you ever been to an airport, and had the guys put you through a metal detector and it goes off, then they give you a cursory pat down.
I used to fly quite a bit for business. I make sure that the metal detector will not go off by not wearing items that will trigger it. I have never had a pat down and if I were to fly again, which isn't likely, I will refuse to be fondled and groped.
There is a difference between the pat down and wanding for metal items. that they used to do, and the full on sexual groping of your "private parts" that they do now.
Like I said, I'm not that concerned about being seen naked. I am concerned about being repeatedly exposed to radiation.
I would strip down in the airport lobby before going through the X ray machine.
jr565 is probably one of those useful idiots who whine about irradiating tomatoes and strawberries (which is completely harmless) but think it is perfectly fine to expose children and others to radiation with unknown long term side effects.
Because Marshal can't make a link, here is a story on Gizmodo about 35,000 images stored by Federal Marshals on a millimeter wave scanner at the court house in Orlando.
Why you and other liberals think that it's okay to put a bureaucrat between me and my doctor is something I simply don't get
As long as you pay your share I don't care if you use your health insurance or not.
Way in another direction, but garage, we choose to buy insurance.
We choose the bureacrat.
Well, until Obamacare.
Please put a "u" in bureaucrat for me. :P
Original Mike wrote:
Channeling jr565: "Why, however could we draw a line?"
Drawing a line meets making tradeoffs between a certain loss of freedom (if you want to call it that) and the benefit of the action. So you might argue that by submitting your bags to an x ray check you are allowing people to look into your private stuff (what if you have something embarassing in your bag like a vibrator for example), but the tradeoff is you make the plane ride that much more secure or it's one of the best ways to make sure that people aren't bringing bombs on planes. Who are the ones saying that you can't draw that line? THe absolute freedom nuts who say If you give up personal freedom for liberty you get neither and use it to denounce any safeguards taken by the state or the airlines as an encroachment on their liberty.
My point is simply, if you want to fly, you're going to be giving up some of your rights. Where the airlines ultimately draw that line may be too far, or not far enough for your tastes but don't expect them to not draw that line.And if you don't like where they draw the line, then don't fly the airline until they change their policies.
X=Measures airlines want to use to improve security, which will involve them getting into your life somehow, be it looking at your bags, or your body or some combination as a means of securing airlines. Without knowing what X actually stands for (is it x ray machines, is it a full body scan) first answer whether airlines should be allowed to implement X in the first place? Or is whatever they implement a volation of your rights that must be fought. Because then you're arguing that airlines can't actually implement security procedures. If they can, then it doesn't make sense to argue that they can't violate our rights in any way to allow us to fly on THEIR airplanes. IT's simply a matter of whether you think their implementation goes too far or not far enough.
As long as you pay your share I don't care if you use your health insurance or not.
But they do. Private payment will not be allowed. It was a feature of HillaryCare (not sure about the current ObamaCare law, which is certainly not the last word on their ambitions). Arizona a couple of years back had a state referendum that made it illegal for the State to prohibit private payment for health care. The left fought it tooth and nail.
It's not fair, you see, to pay for something yourself when others might not have the financial means to do so. Facists.
Dust Bunny wrote:
Like I said, I'm not that concerned about being seen naked. I am concerned about being repeatedly exposed to radiation.
I would strip down in the airport lobby before going through the X ray machine.
jr565 is probably one of those useful idiots who whine about irradiating tomatoes and strawberries (which is completely harmless) but think it is perfectly fine to expose children and others to radiation with unknown long term side effects.
I think i fyou look at my posts you'll find that I have the same objections to the body scan, namlely I don't want to have my nads irradiated.
Though I will say, how do I know that I won't be exposed to radiation when I walk by the big XRAY machine that is scanning my suitcase? How do I know I wont get radiation from simply flying? How do I know that the amount radition I receive from a full body scan is less or more than that which I receive from eating an irradiated strawberry. Did they tell me they were going to irradiate my strawberry before selling it to me?
How do I know that the amount radition I receive from a full body scan is less or more than that which I receive from eating an irradiated strawberry.
There's your answer, DBQ. Zeno, you need to take a science course.
Original Mike wrote:
There's your answer, DBQ. Zeno, you need to take a science course.
Well what's the precise amount of radiation you are exposed to using a full body scan? Maybe your (and my belief) that our nads will be irradiated is as unfounded someone believing that irradiated strawberry will get them sick.
On this topic (radiation physics), jr, I know exactly what I'm talking about.
A full body scan is simply a security measure. A security measure is neutral. The point is, how effective is it at dealing with threats, and what are the tradeoffs to using said security measures as opposed to other security measures. And balancing the benefit of using said procedures with the risks or downsides to use of that procedure. Period.
So if I don't like full body scans I can say, they don't work, they expose people to needless radiation, they are embarassing to customers (and might therefore impact that companies bottom line) or they are the best and quickest way to find if someone has weapons on them, they're quicker than what we use now, they complement our exisiting security measures and make it that much easier to not have a bomb get on a plane. Where you stand on the issue will probalby determine whether you think we should or should not have full body scans.
But the principal is no different than saying we should or shouldn't profile, or should or shouldn't use x ray machines and/or metal detectors. And saying that we should use common sense to come to our arrangements is similarly meaningless becuase those who implement whatever procedures the airport adopts are using common sense. You just may or may not agree with it.
Original Mike wrote:
On this topic (radiation physics), jr, I know exactly what I'm talking about.
Well then, what is the precise amount of radiation given off from a full body scan?
While the TSA is grabbing your junk, Obama is running his mouth on TV. He's awarding the Medal of Honor. And like the body scans and groping, the recipient doesn't want it - the medal.
Certainly in part because he knew he would have to stand there and listen to Obama run his junk.
Lets face it, a lot of the problems we have today exist because of the fleeting search for 'fairness'. Fairness really is a false concept promoted to extract some kind of preferential treatment - like the kind that children lobby for. Most understand by early adulthood that what got them in a given situation is not 'unfairness' but the direct result(s) of a specific action/inaction. Getting someone to recognize or admit this is another story.
I know, pointing this out may be unfair...to those that don't understand.
Original MIke,
Also vis a vis the radiation from irradiated strawberries versus the radiation from a body scan. Also very hard to determine LONG TERM, because one, how many strawberries are you going to eat in your lifetime and two, how many full body scans are you going to go through in your lifetime? It might be hard to argue that long term someone will suffer damage if they go through a single body scan, if they only fly a few times in their lifetme. Especially considering that the mere act of flying exposes you to some degree of radiation.If you are going to be that worried about the long term ramifications of a full body scan you might also be worried about the long term ramifications of flying a lot.
Medical imaging is my field (not airport scanners) so I don't know this from personal experience, but the published number seems to be about 0.005 mrem. What's the risk of carcinogenesis from such a dose? If you believe BEIR VII, and without going into all the sub groups of population and different types of cancer, about 1 in 300 million.
The radiation you receive from the irradiation of a strawberry is zero.
Ann,
I think my problem witht the TSA search procedure is that in many cases there is no realist or affordable alternative to flying between two geographic points. If flying is the only relaistic travel method then does not this TSA procedure place an enormous and unreasonable burden on the citizen? In many parts of this country there is no train or bus service. Steamboats are no longer plying our rivers. The average citizen usually has only two realistic choices: Fly or drive.
If time is of the essence , then flying is often the only realistic choice fro the traveler in a hurry. Less than a quarter of our population live in the AMTRAK BOWASH correddor.
So my question is would the SCOTUS take this issue if the case came up from the 4th District CoA?
I'd love to see Judge Janice Rodgers weigh in on this subject.
And just what terrible injustices or oppression was Joe the (fake) Plumber subjected to by Democrats?
Your ignorance is staggering.
Awww... poor conservatives don't like the police state they've created. WAH! WAH! WAH!
The state's hands are going to fondle your genitals and those of your children. You had the opportunity to stop this long ago but you punted. Now you get what you deserve.
Suck it up.
And take a deep breath. Now cough.
Darcy wrote:
I want more security than we had on 9/11.
I just want sane implementation.
How much more though? Isn't that the rub? And also, sane implementation? How are we determining that? Someone might say even more security is insane. and some might say we'd be insane not to implement even more security than the more that you want to implement (because it's not enough or not effective).
All I'm pointing out is that, if it were so easy to simply implement the perfect system of security that catches all threats, and violates peoples rights the least, wouldn't we have already done so?
Airlines are going to say, we'll try this and this and this, and terrorsits are going to, knowing the restrictions are going to try to find ways around that and that, and people are going to complain that said security measures went too far or not far enough.
Suppose for example we have body scans and someone still gets on a plane and hijacks it. Then the argument would be that you want more security than we had when the terrorist got past the body scans (because obviously it wasn't enough security to stop said attacks) but you want it done sanely.
The TSA was formed under George Bush in 2001.
And the bill was written by Tom Daschle and Joe Lieberman.
You goof
Awww... poor conservatives don't like the police state they've created.
Um, they didn't create a "police state"
Coming from the party of government, your comments are parody.
Ann Althouse said:
"I would want to study it in much greater depth, with much more information, but my first take on this [the constitutionality of pat-down screening]is that it's rendered legal by consent."
"The constitutionality of an airport screening search, however, does not depend on consent." United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d. 495 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (overruling earlier decisions to the contrary).
There already is a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. It's called your insurance provider.
Again, your ignorance is staggering.
What kind of profiler are we going to get for $35K a year?
How about we abolish TSA and let the airlines handle the screenings?
Then you don't have to worry about who "we" are going to get.
You can rest you silly liberal litte head...
Never let a crises go to waste.
"They" are driving the public out of planes and flying and into the mythical high speed trains.
9/11 wouldn't have happened as it did had airliners had a policy of locking cockpit doors and not opening them. It really is that simple. This isn't hindsight, many of us complained repeatedly about this before 9/11. (I'd flown on planes where the cockpit door was not only kept unlocked, it was left wide open the entire flight.)
A second point is that if someone really wanted to blow up an airplane mid-air, it isn't that hard.
As has been pointed out, the TSA is all about security theater.
Regarding the Wikipedia entry about intrusive searches into Joe the Plumber's personal information: it appears they were a couple of isolated cases and the persons involved were disciplined for their improprieties, as they should have been.
This hardly shows a Democratic vendetta against him or that he suffered any damage.
Hysterical.
So um, you think the multiple, illegal, inquiries into his background were isolated cases, huh?
So it was all coincidence?
Even though you're obviously not that bright and easily misled, I doubt you actually believe the drivel you're spewing.
Also vis a vis the radiation from irradiated strawberries versus the radiation from a body scan. Also very hard to determine LONG TERM, because one, how many strawberries are you going to eat in your lifetime and two, how many full body scans are you going to go through in your lifetime?
Irradiated vegetables, food does not carry any residual radiation. There is NO radioactivity in irradiated food. There is zero harm or effects, other than that the bacteria on the food is dead and the product lasts much longer before rotting, which is a good thing.
There is no comparison between irradiated food and exposing your living body to radiation over and over. We are exposed to radiation all the time from natural causes and from voluntary events, such as going to the dentist, medical procedures. Why should we be FORCED to have further exposures... involuntarily. Who knows what the tipping point is that might cause a cancer to bloom.
We don't know. Therefore it should be our choice to put ourselves into further exposure.
See...I knew you were one of those useful idiots. You haven't any idea of the difference between radiation/irradiation.
Joe wrote:
9/11 wouldn't have happened as it did had airliners had a policy of locking cockpit doors and not opening them. It really is that simple. This isn't hindsight, many of us complained repeatedly about this before 9/11. (I'd flown on planes where the cockpit door was not only kept unlocked, it was left wide open the entire flight.)
A second point is that if someone really wanted to blow up an airplane mid-air, it isn't that hard.
As has been pointed out, the TSA is all about security theater.
9/11 was a little different than a normal hijacking in that the intent wasn't to bring weapons on board or blow up the plane. Rather they used boxcutters and plastic knives and instead of blowing up the plane flew the planes into buildings.
And while it's true that if someone really wanted to blow up a plane it isn't that hard, wouldn't the answer then be to find ways to make it harder to blow up planes? Should the airlines cimply cede that point to terrorists, or find even more ways from allowing bombs on in the first place. You say the answer to 9/11 was that they should have locked the cockpit doors. Except one could argue, that if one really wanted to get into a cockpit door they can do so. Clearly the answer is to close off the security hole and lock the door, right? Well why wouldn't the same be true of finding more innovative ways of preventing bobms from getting on planes?
Why isn't locking the cockpit doors similarly TSA security theater? Sounds good to me. If someone loses the freedom to see unimpeded into the cockpit then that's a freedom I'm willing to give up in the interest of not having terrorists storm the cockpit. Though if terrorists have a bomb on board, the cockpit doors don't have to be opened and I'll still be dead.
The TSA has officially responded to this controversy with this just now on their blog.
I don't see why anybody consider body scans a larger invasion of privacy than scanning personal belongins. My passport and hand luggage tell way more about me than an image of my body can ever do.
It's risky for politicians to politicize this. It could backfire on them the first time there was an incident. Let the private sector deal with this.
I did not know until today that TSA was optional for airports. Since this is the case, airports should allow airlines to opt out of the TSA (assuming it is up to the airport to make the call- I don't know the legal process). I might be willing to fly on an airline* if it will do things like profile, and/or private background checks on me and my fellow passengers, scan all the baggage and carry on, and has no TSA security theatrics.
There is money to be made for airlines that can make flying the pleasure it used to be, not the Orwellian nightmare it has become. Our choices today are irradiation, molestation, or being harassed and fined by the govt. Who the hell would choose this over getting in their car, no matter how long the drive? Airline CEOs are idiots if they choose to continue with this TSA experiment.
As for Napoletano doubling down in the face of a passenger push-back, what a maroon. This admin is setting themselves up for yet another fail.
*(I stopped flying over 5 yrs ago, because I kept getting tagged for enhanced searches. I guess TSA doesn't trust red-heads.)
Nora wrote:
don't see why anybody consider body scans a larger invasion of privacy than scanning personal belongins. My passport and hand luggage tell way more about me than an image of my body can ever do.
Exactly. Despite all the talk of invasion of privacy, if you've boarded a plane in the last 25 years they've invaded your privacy. And there hasn't really been a time when they havent' in some way invaded your privacy. And if they did, it was quickly changed because by not invading your privacy someone got hurt. For example, no metal detectors. Someone brings a gun on board. Oops, security hole we better add a metal detector.
to me it's not so much a violation of my personal freedom as I don't have an absolute freedom to fly a plane. But rather, what is the protocol I need to go through to get on a plane so I can reach my destination and is it annoying enough for me to go through the process or would I rather not fly, or take a bus instead. So, in the few instances I fly I'll put my laptop in the bin as they ask, take off my shoes, as they ask, go through the metal detectors as they ask, they may also be profiling me and checking me with a full body scan without me even being aware.
In the few instances where the inspector made me open my bag and do a full check I complied.
I got a pat down at least twice but never a grope. But it was simply the protocol needed to get on a plane. If that protocol becomes too complicated, too onerous or too much of a hassle the market will speak by sending their dollars elsewhere. Maybe it will cause more people to want the high speed trains. At least then you don't have to deal with the security checks. At least that is until a terrorist uses said trains to commit an attack of some kind.
Then the argument will be, why didn't the trains do more to protect people? They should have known there was security holes. Then the trains will implement new improved security measures to deal with the hole in their lack of security measures and people will then ciomplain about why they have to submit to security protocols that are a violation of their rights.
Just Lurking wrote:
I did not know until today that TSA was optional for airports. Since this is the case, airports should allow airlines to opt out of the TSA (assuming it is up to the airport to make the call- I don't know the legal process). I might be willing to fly on an airline* if it will do things like profile, and/or private background checks on me and my fellow passengers, scan all the baggage and carry on, and has no TSA security theatrics.
Which is fair enough. I like jet blue better than some other airlines because it doesnt charge you for the first carryon. The only issue is, will these customers who fly the other airlines that don't have the more elaborate security measures, sue the airlines if their loved ones die due to a hole in their security? Or would they ask why the company didn't do more to protect their passengers?
And similarly, would airlines, in the interest of not being held liable increase security measures so as to prevent themselves from being sued? THe security measures are to protect the passengers, but it's also to protect the airlilnes from the passsengers and their willingness to hold them liable for everything.
Why isn't locking the cockpit doors similarly TSA security theater?
Because it's well documented that many hijackings would have been averted by this simple act. By the mid-90s, most airline security experts were advising just such a policy, but it was ignored.
Having hardened cockpit doors was also advocated, again based on actual REPEATED events (not one offs, which is what TSA responds to--heaven forbid a terrorist shove a bomb up his butt since we'll all get cavity searches.)
wouldn't the answer then be to find ways to make it harder to blow up planes?
Of course, but what the TSA is doing isn't it. They have zero imagination and are just bullies. When you look at their list of items, it isn't based on anything reasonable or even likely. It's just made up shit that sound good to people who've seen too many really bad spy movies.
Incidentally, the best security we have now are the passengers themselves. If someone stands up on a plane today and announces they are hijacking the plane, they'll be subdued or dead within thirty seconds.
* * *
(BTW, I have little sympathy for John Tyner. He made an ass of himself and got singled out as a problem. Arguably, the system WORKED! Moreover, anyone who calls his "penis" his "junk" is an illiterate asshole.)
@jr565
No system is 100% perfect or safe, and nothing can stop people from suing. It's the airlines' call. Which is worse to them- the threat of a lawsuit in the event of an incident, or being run out of business due to the TSA driving away their customers?
For many people, flying is a choice, and more and more are choosing to drive, rather than deal with the TSA. The private sector can either face that reality, or face failure. Or end up owned by the pubic sector and subsidized.
Joe wrote:
Of course, but what the TSA is doing isn't it. They have zero imagination and are just bullies. When you look at their list of items, it isn't based on anything reasonable or even likely. It's just made up shit that sound good to people who've seen too many really bad spy movies.
That's simply your opinion (not saying it's invalid either. One could make a perfectly realistic argument that a body scan, by scanning the entire body would prevent people from carrying a bunch of stuff, be it drugs, or bombs or weapons, onto a plane. And again, even though cockpit doors could and should have been closed, that wouldnt' prevent terrorists from doing other things like blowing up a bomb if they were able to get it on board. To me, its the same exact principle as saying we should lock cockpit doors. Ok, perfectly reasonable .What is the cost and benefits of doning so? Sounds like a good idea. Should pilots have waepons? Maybe, maybe not. What's the cost and benefits. SHould there be full body scans? Maybe me not. what's the costs and benefits.
What it sounds like is you think having cockpit doors that lock is a good idea, therefore by suggesting THAT they are using common sense and not being bullies. Whereas, those suggesting the thing you personally disagree with are bullies and those ideas are stupid. According to your opinion.
And those suggesting their ideas think their ideas are sound and based on fact and proper threat assessment and it would be better to implement those things than not. Which is also their opinion.
Just beause you say their ideas are stupid doesn't make it so, and just because they say their idea is smart doesn't make it so. But regardliess, whatever they implement, someone is going to complain that it goes too far or not far enough.
oops... typo or Freudian slip?
In my previous post I meant "public sector" not "pubic sector".
wv is "fingst" - what you get when you "opt out" of a body scan.
Just Lurking wrote:
No system is 100% perfect or safe, and nothing can stop people from suing. It's the airlines' call. Which is worse to them- the threat of a lawsuit in the event of an incident, or being run out of business due to the TSA driving away their customers?
But they could just as easily lose customers because customers think it's unsafe to fly because the airlines aren't doing enough to deal with security threats.
For example, it took forever to get on board, I had to get a full body scan and they ruffled through my clothes.I'm never flying again. Versus, last wee a plane was hijacked and all the passengers died and the media is reporting that they didnt' even profile an obvious terrorist and let him get on with abomb and blow up the airplane. Why didn't they just use a full body scanner?
Just Lurking wrote:
No system is 100% perfect or safe, and nothing can stop people from suing. It's the airlines' call. Which is worse to them- the threat of a lawsuit in the event of an incident, or being run out of business due to the TSA driving away their customers?
But they could just as easily lose customers because customers think it's unsafe to fly because the airlines aren't doing enough to deal with security threats.
For example, it took forever to get on board, I had to get a full body scan and they ruffled through my clothes.I'm never flying again. Versus, last wee a plane was hijacked and all the passengers died and the media is reporting that they didnt' even profile an obvious terrorist and let him get on with abomb and blow up the airplane. Why didn't they just use a full body scanner?
jr565,
"You have no rights to airline travel, and are not forced to fly."
Those who opposed the Bill of Rights were correct, it appears. No, sorry, freedom of movement within one's own country is a basic human right.
"Someone brings a gun on board."
So? This used to be routine. And for ground transportation in freedom-respecting areas like Washington state, it still is. It's completely legal to carry a loaded handgun, concealed or openly, on public transportation in WA as long as you have a CPL. People do it all the time--mostly concealed, so if you ever visit Seattle and ride Metro, Sound Transit, or the Sounder (or visit tourist areas like Pike Place), people all around you are armed and you don't even know it.
DBQ,
Seattle next month? We need to get Althouse out here at the same time and have a blog party!
Kirk Parker wrote:
So? This used to be routine. And for ground transportation in freedom-respecting areas like Washington state, it still is. It's completely legal to carry a loaded handgun, concealed or openly, on public transportation in WA as long as you have a CPL.
It was routine so long as you have a CPL. THey need to install medical detectors because unlicensed people are carrying guns on board. Like terrorists for example.
And as for the right travel within your country. How about overseas flights? And flying doesn't impede your right to travel in your country. You are using a companies airlines to do your travelling though. So they have every right to set rules that you must abide by if you want to get on board THEIR plane? Or do you think your right to travel should supersede their rights as the owner of the airplane. IS them charging you a fee to fly on their plane a violation of your right to travel if you don't want to pay the fee?
Because it's well documented that many hijackings would have been averted by this simple act. By the mid-90s, most airline security experts were advising just such a policy, but it was ignored.
So there's nothing a hypothetical hijacker could do in the cabin that would make the pilots open the cockpit door? Not threatening to blow a stewardess's head off? Cut a nun's throat? Fondle a three-year-old girl?
@jr565
I'm not really sure what your point is. Maybe you can clarify it. I haven't read all the previous posts.
My point is there are many options for airlines in terms of what they choose to do for security measures. I mentioned a few. There may be others. And I am not saying that airlines should be forced to get rid of the nudie pics and the groping if that is what they deem makes sense for their business model. (Unless of course it turns out they are a violation of our rights.)
All I'm saying is that this is a private sector issue, or should be. The airlines can choose to give the disgruntled flying public more options, or continue to lose customers. It's their choice.
I was going to quote a long text from jr565, but for the sake of brevity, am just winging it.
I think that the TSA is not making trade-offs here because they don't have to. Their mandate is to make the skies safe, regardless of cost, either monetary, or in person liberties. And, as good bureaucrats, that is just what they are doing.
They are rated on how many planes are blown up or hijacked, and since that isn't happening, they must be doing a great job. No matter how many people are groped, intimidated, etc., what matters is that planes are not being blown up or hijacked. That is their mission, and they are sticking to it - esp. since they can get a lot of growth in their agency as a result.
The problem is that there really is a trade off - it just isn't in their charter. President Obama was essentially correct when he suggested that we could afford a hijacking here or there every year. (not sure of his actual words).
The real trade off should be whether it is worthwhile sacrificing our personal integrity to prevent a plane from being blown up every couple of years. And given that we are trading hundreds of millions of invasive pat downs or clothes stripping scans a year, for the lives of a hundred or so people, maybe every couple of years, I think that the trade off should be looked at more closely.
Remember, the only reason that the first three hijackings on 9/11 worked was that we had been trained to not resist hijackings, because everyone would always be released later. Even with a gun, I don't see hijackings being successful any more, and guns are the one thing that the older technology was fairly good at detecting.
Which leaves blowing up the plane. But that mostly limits the perps to the people on board, and then only if they manage to set the bomb off. Which really leaves checked baggage, which is where the TSA should be concentrating their efforts.
I frankly find the whole thing ridiculous. I would suggest that it is prima facie evidence of why the government should not be given power - that whatever power they are given will inevitably be used badly as a natural consequence of bureaucratic operation.
And, yes, I will continue to travel. I will be flying to Vegas tomorrow, and thence to Denver Sat., and back to Reno the next Sat. And I will likely go through the new scanning machines in both Vegas and Denver so I won't have to be groped. And the person I will be meeting there will continue to avoid them for legitimate medical reasons. The difference now is that they now yell it out, and the pat-downs are a lot more intrusive. But, it beats driving. And the difference for me is that all that I have to remove all that stuff now that used to go through the old machines with no trouble.
jr565,
Careful, you're verging on a rant there. What did I say that suggested an airline company shouldn't have the right to set their particular standards for boarding security? The relevant issue is, right now they don't have that choice, it's all by (ridiculous) government fiat.
So there's nothing a hypothetical hijacker could do in the cabin that would make the pilots open the cockpit door? Not threatening to blow a stewardess's head off? Cut a nun's throat? Fondle a three-year-old girl?
Likely not. I think that they would more likely turn on the seat belt sign, and then maybe invert the plane. Or, at least fly a lot more aggressively. My understanding is that at least some of them have been for this. Hurting a couple of people with the maneuvering is far better than killing thousands.
The problem is that 9/11 happened because the pilots did open the cockpit doors. Everyone knows this now, and esp.the pilots. My guess is that the only way that door opens is if one of the cockpit crew is armed and is planning on shooting the hijackers.
But they could just as easily lose customers because customers think it's unsafe to fly because the airlines aren't doing enough to deal with security threats.
For example, it took forever to get on board, I had to get a full body scan and they ruffled through my clothes.I'm never flying again. Versus, last wee a plane was hijacked and all the passengers died and the media is reporting that they didnt' even profile an obvious terrorist and let him get on with abomb and blow up the airplane. Why didn't they just use a full body scanner?
Please - refrain from using a non-plausible scenario. After 9/11, it is highly unlikely that any plane in this country is going to be hijacked, because the pilots and flight crew know that it isn't just about the people on board, but also the people in high profile buildings on the ground, such as the twin towers or the Pentagon.
Bombing yes. Very plausible. But it is reasonably hard for terrorists to make sure that their bomb does any more than just destroys that one plane. The next guy who tries to light his shoes or briefs on fire may not survive. And, when planes are the most vulnerable, on takeoff or approach, passengers are required to be in their seats, where their seat mates are likely to notice anything out of the ordinary.
But right now, the TSA can't really even tell us how many planes would have gone down if they hadn't been as aggressive, because they don't know, and that is because they cannot know.
This thread is approaching Palin comment levels. But the TSA is a massive distraction built up to make travelers feel safe. It is now doing the opposite,and needs to be ended. The money spent on Democrat's special friends who sell us scanners needs to be bundled with Super Train graft dollars and spent to track Khan's nukes that Bin Laden is transporting to NYC and DC by other means of transport.
jr,
"But what about this?"
"But what about that?"
"What if this happens?"
"What if that happens?"
Is that the point you were trying to make?
I flew to see my family in October and I had to do the pat down and the scanner. I did not really care all that much. I did not see anyone who did. Besides, I knew when I got the ticket I would have to do this, so I was not surprised. I actually thought about taking a train instead and then decided to go ahead and fly anyway.
I think most of the people who work for TSA are just regular people trying to do their jobs..I don't think they are perverts or anything like that. I do think that Tyner probably encountered someone who was just trying to show his authority and make an example of this guy.
I have to say however, that I don't just blame the government, I blame the people who fly planes into buildings and put bombs in their shoes and underwear.
I blame the people who fly planes into buildings and put bombs in their shoes and underwear.
Good point. Why not try and find out if they all have a common trait, and then remove those people with that trait from boarding airplanes?
Why not try and find out if they all have a common trait
You know, I'm not a racist, but sometimes when I get on an airplane, I'll see a Bill Ayers, or an Ulrike Meinhof, in their Godless garb, and I worry. I get nervous.
BTW, it would be interesting if the case against Tyner becomes a civil rights case. There is something odd about being threatened with a fine if you refuse to submit to their procedures; especially since they appear to keep changing them and making them more intrusive. Ie: they are now going into people's pants as part of their search.
There are probably a lot of people who bought tkts that are not aware of this enhanced technique. They should be fined if they decide they don't want themselves or their kids irradiated or fondled? This doesn't pass the smell test.
Bill Ayers and Ulrike Meinhof. Have these two been blowing up planes?
@fls:
You know, I'm not a racist, but sometimes when I get on an airplane, I'll see a Bill Ayers, or an Ulrike Meinhof, in their Godless garb, and I worry. I get nervous.
There goes any shot at getting a job at NPR.
in their Godless garb
Seriously, WTF?
Right now, I'm wearing coveralls. You know, that's the work outfit with the zipper up the front of the garb. I'll bet Jesus had a pair.
BJM:
I think they handled all this very badly, but I think the reason they did not let him leave, is because once you enter that part of the airport you can't leave until you are cleared to leave. Remember the Asian man who went under the rope after he said goodbye to his girlfriend? He got in trouble for that. He was not supposed to leave unless he left the way they told him to leave.
It is really kind of ridiculous, but those are the rules. I just wonder why this guy was even there at all? It is not a big surprise that they check you out before you get on a plane.
Brian,
There goes any shot at getting a job at NPR.
Heh.
The government wants to see you naked or grope your genitals. It is conditioning an important aspect of personal freedom — flying in airplanes — on your resigning yourself — and your children — to sexual assault.
That's hyperbole.
Your doctor is given consent to grope you; your government just took over health care. Ergo, your government IS your doctor, your daddy, your nanny, and your protector.
Consent or else.
Oh, and you voted for it. Every incumbent returned to Washington, every soon-to-be-co-opted new member--how many will introduce legislation to repeal these rules, prosecute the gropers, and restore privacy rights to the American people?
We're not talking about privacy. We're talking about earmarks. Earmarks.
We are distracted by nonsense, and leering at nekkid scanner images. Time for another glass of wine.
@Terrye
"is because once you enter that part of the airport you can't leave until you are cleared to leave."
You are correct; but in his case, one set of agents had told him he could leave, and then a different bureaucrat accosted him and threatened him with a fine on his way out.
It is not a big surprise that they check you out before you get on a plane.
He had no problem with the metal detector scan. He asked to use it more than once, but was denied. He also didn't appear to have a problem with the old style pat-down, that didn't involve "touching his junk." The junk touching is part of the new enhanced technique that the TSA instituted a week or so ago, to my knowledge. Allegedly to punish those who "opt out" of the scanner (but that might be hearsay.)
Next enhancement will be the anal probes and gyno exams if they find something odd about your nudie pic. How many will but tickets to go through that? Maybe if they offer free prostate exams and pap smears, people would. Get a free mammogram and colonoscopy while you're there, too. Are we sure this isn't in the 2000+ page Obamacare law?
There is no way I'm going to read over 300 posts but I hope that at some point someone has pointed out....
This is not the fault nor decision of ANYONE at TSA barring the most highest-up big-wig muckety-muck, possibly not even in the TSA but the boss of the TSA. WHO decided on this policy change? Do we know? Well, that's the person who ought to be feeling the heat here and who's BOSS ought to be feeling the heat.
Someone decided on this. Napolitano like the infamous Drudge picture suggested? Who? Someone very high up decided on this and decided to spend the money on this technology.
It's really wrong to slam the TSA as a whole and certainly to slam the people working in the airports, because at what point do they have a choice?
The political fall out on this should be huge, and it should fall on the people in this administration who felt this *reasonable*.
But then again... the horrible thing when Drudge was posting about this policy was the nasty conservatives suggesting that Napolitano likes to look at naked women, not the fact that government employees were going to be forced to look at your privates in order to keep their jobs.
As has been pointed out in the past, the Israelies are much more effective while putting the majority of the public through much less hassle. But that would require, horrors, actually looking at the individual rather than treat everybody like cattle.
Israel is a country of roughly 7 million people with one international airport. You really want the federal government to do an Israeli-style screening operation throughout the United States?
Except a lot of people might not like the ways Israelis do it either.
La Senora and I went to Israel in February and the Israeli security at both ends, while thorough, was more efficient than TSA and took less time.
By contrast, the security on the Amsterdam to Detroit flight - yes, that one - was ridiculously overdone and time consuming.
Wow. My 6:15 post was to a comment that has been remove. So sorry.
... removed....
"You really want the federal government to do an Israeli-style screening operation throughout the United States?"
We're a bigger country, so we would have more screeners. Why is it not scalable? And the govt. doesn't have to be the entity to do the screening. The airlines can hire private screeners.
Synova...There is an exception to the rule and every so often a reasonable man/woman works at a TSA over a screening line. But 95% of the time you are treated like prisoners by loud mouthed control freaks showing off to one another while they are not stealing everything they can from the bags being screened. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts quicker than the blink of an eye.
The Crack Emcee said...
No they [elal] don't - they profile. Abdul is going to have a talk with security. I might even have to, being black, but ...
11/16/10 11:52 AM
ElAl does lot of things, including interviews, profiling, intelligence, checking content of luggage prior check-in, etc. My luggage was once searched, when I had a ceramic plate in a suitcase. I also heared from Israeli passengers that they don't take play-dough when travelling with kids.
I passed through Schiphol (Amsterdam) a month ago and they do inteviews there now (and it looks like profiling too) that combined with hand luggage screening at the entrance to the gate lounge.
In Canada, OTOH, every passanger had to go through both, body sceening and search, back in August. They were also most tedious, slow and rude.
I still think that TSA is a brainless behemoth, although I don't blame them for not doing profiling. If they did, they would get no end suits from the hords of parasitic NGOs and lawyers waiting for this to happen. And the ones to pay for their frivolties will be passengers anyway.
I have to say however, that I don't just blame the government, I blame the people who fly planes into buildings and put bombs in their shoes and underwear.
I do blame the government--for over-reacting. There is no such thing as perfect security and yet the government is humiliating and demoralizing us (not to mention enraging us) by making us choose between a grope and a porno scan.
We are in a war with terrorists. In any war you have to expect the occasional casualty now and then. People who think they are entitled to perfect safety shouldn't get out of bed in the morning.
As far as TSA agents just being ordinary people who are doing their jobs, there is no law that forces anyone to take a job that humiliates and embarrasses other people. How do these underwear screeners look their kids in the eyes when their kids ask what they do for a living?
Show me your genitals, your genitals, show me your genitals (your genitalia!)
Bruce Hayden wrote:
The problem is that there really is a trade off - it just isn't in their charter. President Obama was essentially correct when he suggested that we could afford a hijacking here or there every year. (not sure of his actual words).
The real trade off should be whether it is worthwhile sacrificing our personal integrity to prevent a plane from being blown up every couple of years. And given that we are trading hundreds of millions of invasive pat downs or clothes stripping scans a year, for the lives of a hundred or so people, maybe every couple of years, I think that the trade off should be looked at more closely.
My point though was that even before we had a thought about whether to include full body searches we had already made many tradeoffs that sacrificed some aspect of our personal dignity in order to get on planes. Someone mentioned how searching your bag is ok. Well what if you have personal stuff in your bag, like sex toys or nude pics of your wife. The people operating the machine can see that stuff and it can be just as embarrassing as if they looked at you nude (although the full body scans seem to white out most of the details of your body so it looks like you're whole body has been xrayed. Which makes it less of a personal issue for me. If someone looked at my picture and couldn't identify me persoanlly then i don't necessarily care that they can see the equivalent of my xray.
But we've already made the various tradeoffs. So the idea that making such tradeoffs is a violation of our liberties strikes me as a fake argument.
Because I've never flown a plane in my life where someone wasn't checking my passport, checking my bags, putting my stuff through an x ray machine making me wait on long lines.
Just Lurking wrote:
My point is there are many options for airlines in terms of what they choose to do for security measures. I mentioned a few. There may be others. And I am not saying that airlines should be forced to get rid of the nudie pics and the groping if that is what they deem makes sense for their business model. (Unless of course it turns out they are a violation of our rights.)
All I'm saying is that this is a private sector issue, or should be. The airlines can choose to give the disgruntled flying public more options, or continue to lose customers. It's their choice.
I think what's more likely to happen is that people will simply submit to the scan because they realize it's a non issue, and they will then go about their business and get on the plane as they've done. If the TSA starts conducting full cavity searches then I can see it impacting business. But the scan ultimately takes a few seconds, when you look at the picture you see a whited out x ray of yourself and then you're done. Nothing too earth shattering.
But everything is a choice. And if security looks like it's too lax that could similarly impact business just as if it's too strict.
Gene wrote:
I do blame the government--for over-reacting. There is no such thing as perfect security and yet the government is humiliating and demoralizing us (not to mention enraging us) by making us choose between a grope and a porno scan.
We are in a war with terrorists. In any war you have to expect the occasional casualty now and then. People who think they are entitled to perfect safety shouldn't get out of bed in the morning.
That's well and good unless you're the person on the plane that's abut to be destroyed by terrorists. And while people shouldn't expect perfect safety, should they at least expect adequate security? No security? We all recognize that no one can protect everything, but by the same token, there have to be some safeguards in place to provide some level of security. Is that asking for too much? If not, then what level is good enough and what level is too much security. and that's where it gets tricky.
As far as TSA agents just being ordinary people who are doing their jobs, there is no law that forces anyone to take a job that humiliates and embarrasses other people. How do these underwear screeners look their kids in the eyes when their kids ask what they do for a living?
The same way an x ray technician can look at his kids in the eyes when he takes a picture of you. Most people working there aren't out to grope people or get off on x ray pictures.
When drudge posted the picture of the guy in the scan did anybody recognize him? Did he cry out in agony that Drudge violated his rights? Or did he not even recognize his own picture, if he looked at drudge, because the picture is so non descript.
Here's a link to the actual scans. While you could argue that the US marshalls shouldn't be saving the pictures (which is a separate issue) can anyone tell me that the image of you in the scanner is in any way invasive? You can barely even tell it's human. It looks like a bunch of white blobs or graphics from an old atari 2600 game.
http://gizmodo.com/5690749/
@jr565
If it were just the nudie scan, I might go back to flying. But it's more than the scan. It's this idea that you must give up your right to protest increasingly invasive techniques that I don't like.
If the scan looks funny, what then? Can they strip search me? And if I refuse to submit to a strip search, can I be arrested and forcibly strip searched? Sorry. No go. I'm not putting myself in a situation where I can be treated like a criminal just because I'm wearing an underwire bra or a maxipad.
But I see your point, and maybe it will be as you say: the majority of people will accept the scanner, and airlines will continue to allow these procedures out of fear of lawsuits if they don't.
In the meantime, if I can't drive there, I ain't going. Unless I can find an affordable charter flight. (Is there such a thing?)
Just Lurking wrote:
But I see your point, and maybe it will be as you say: the majority of people will accept the scanner, and airlines will continue to allow these procedures out of fear of lawsuits if they don't.
In the meantime, if I can't drive there, I ain't going. Unless I can find an affordable charter flight. (Is there such a thing?)
I'm not arguing that the scan is a necessity. It very well may be overkill and the airlines might take a hit for using it. supposedly there's a more high res scanner that shows more (though if you look on drudge you can't tell who the person is and it makes you look like a martian. Its so nondescript as to be meaningless. And it's done while they're putting you through the medical detector so is barely something you'd notice. It's just not that invasive. And, it does have some value in showing what people might be carrying beneath their clothes or even in their bodies (think about what this might do to for people smuggling stuff internally). BUT, while I'm ok with them doing it, and don't think it's the end of the world as we know it for property rights, the market will ultimately determine it's value.
If enough people stop taking flights then the airlines will have to weigh the benefit of the extra security info with the potential loss of customers (though as I said, I"m not sure if they'll lose that many customers). And people who are offended will simply find other ways of getting around. Maybe cruise lines will see a big upswing in business.
JR565, you sound like you have a dog in this fight. Are you with the TSA? Do you actually fly?
as for the idea that they're taking away your right to protest, again, that's already an issue. Suppose there were no body scanners and just hte traditional x ray machine and metal detectors and you simply had to empty your pockets and take off your shoes etc. If at that moment you refuse to do so, out of protest they are probalby going to hold you until they can determine why you went all the way to security then refused to comply with security and empty your pockets like everyone else. So, the exact same thing would happen in that situation that happened to the guy who didnt want to be scanned.
And most people wouldnt bat an eye that security took the guy away. They are standing in line taking out laptops and following protocol and this yokel is causing a disturbance. I think most people who are taking off their shoes and putting their laptop in the bin would not be too considerate of this guys feelings that he was being oppressed for refuisng to empty his pockets. Rather they would be mad that he was holding up the line with his antics.
Again, not to say that full body scanning is right or wrong, only you don't have the freedom you think you do in an airport.
Lily Bart wrote:
JR565, you sound like you have a dog in this fight. Are you with the TSA? Do you actually fly?
Not at all. I barely fly. I did fly a month ago to Florida (and had a very nice flight - no body scan though) but prior to that I hadn't flown in two years, and prior to that I hadn't flown in 10 years. (I had a fear of flying)
I'm just arguing agains the absolute position a lot of people are taking vis a vis their privacy rights when it comes to flying. They don't have that many. If they get on a plane they know that people are going to check their itinerary, check their lugggage, make them walk through metal detectors, pat them down (though hopefully not grope them). Adding one more layer of security is not suddenly the end of privacy as we know it (though it doesn't mean that its a necessity either) just as the previous security measures weren't the end of security as we know it.
I want SOME degree of security on a plane, and wont accept that some planes will necessarily be hijacked therefore don't worry about security, which is what the argument usually amounts to. It's the old, no one can guarantee perfect security argument, therefore what? any attempt to impose any security is an overreach?
There is no perfect security, and there is no common sense solution that will please everyone. But by the same token airlines still have to do something to deal with potential threats. WHere you stand on the individual things they attempt migth vary.
Part of my perspective comes from the fact that, while not a security expert, I work in IT for a major corporation. And we have to deal with security issues that can affect the company. And recognize that if you want to use the internet and have email (which all companies do) then you have to acdept that there will be cyber threats. You can't avoid them unless you give up the service (which wont happen). Therefore, you need to invest in a firewall, and a spam filter, and spyware software, and hire an IT Dept to handle the filter. And you need desktop support to clean peoples machines if they do get a virus (which happens all the time. Security is a constant threat and there are always new security threats that noones heard of before which try to get past the filters. So you then have to adapt to meet those threats. Imagine if the IT dept took the attitude that security threats happen and you might have to sacrifice some degree of safety to do your work. While that may be true in principle, if the IT dept were that nonchalant about dealing with new threats, as soon as a threat got through that they didn't forsee or didn't care to block THEY'D ALL BE FIRED. I view airline security the same way.
"I barely fly"
There you go. This is just academic for you.
Bruce Hayden wrote:
The problem is that 9/11 happened because the pilots did open the cockpit doors. Everyone knows this now, and esp.the pilots. My guess is that the only way that door opens is if one of the cockpit crew is armed and is planning on shooting the hijackers.
Everything that happens is because those looking out for security didn't recognize the holes in security. And in the case of doors, that's an obvious flaw, that people have had the foresight to correct. But storming the cockpit isn't the only way to bring down a plane. If someone got a bomb on board it's because there was a security hole that allowed someone to get a bomb on board. Just as you would argue it makes sense to plug the hole so that in the future noone can storm the cockpit I would argue you should plug the security hole so that someone doesn't get on board AGAIN with a bomb. Your attitude about how we can afford to lose a plane or two smacks to me of someone who knows there is a security hole in locking cockpit doors but suggest that we can afford to lose a plane or two a year so why boher locking cockpit doors? It's the same thing. I recognize that you're right, it does make sense to lock cockpit doors, but also recognize that terrorists don't need to get into a cockpit to bring down a plane, so therefore airlines should come up with a procedure that does it's best to plug that security hole (while weighing the checks and balances as to whether that procedure works or whether ti doesn't cause more harm than good to implement).
Where are our representatives in congress? Why haven't they taken a stand against these high resolution naked scans or screeners who handle our genitals? Don't they read their mail?
I suppose they do. But like every other part of our government they just don't care.
When are you dopes going to realize that the TSA security line IS the new terrorist target. Thanks to the TSA the optimal point of attack is now the 300 or more folks standing in line like sheep and the building that would be destroyed by the attack.
NO security checkpoint at all is the safest move; because, the queue is a choke point and backs up with human traffic with no security before you reach that point.
How do you defend against that?
The only true security on a plane is the other passengers, period. Before that point, you minimize the targets outside of the security zone (the passengers on the plane) and that does not include herding them into lines so they can be blown up in the terminal.
Kabuki.
Stevie wrote:
xNO security checkpoint at all is the safest move; because, the queue is a choke point and backs up with human traffic with no security before you reach that point.
How do you defend against that?
The only true security on a plane is the other passengers, period. Before that point, you minimize the targets outside of the security zone (the passengers on the plane) and that does not include herding them into lines so they can be blown up in the terminal.
That's dumb. If there was no security checkpoint, then you'd go back to people bringing stuff on planes, the other passengers who are our only hope are also the ones who similarly never went through a checkpoint and could be brining god knows what on board. And there's no way to avoid crowds in airports when there are thousands of people waiting around to catch flights. Lines are inevitable.
No security is not the best security. It simply means no security.
Is there any way that Darrell Issa could hold hearings investigating Janet Napolitano [and throw in Eric Holder while he's at it] for massive intrusion on the privacy of US citizens?
Sure there are crowds in an airport, but they aren't in close proximity to each other like they are in the security queue wrapped around and around in a nice tight target zone.
If someone wants to bring something in, they are going to figure a way around it.
Point being, you secure with an eye toward balancing the risks and the choke point of the TSA only moved the risk and didn't really mitigate against unknown risks. Who would have thought we needed to screen for undies before Christmas or for shoes before that? You weigh the risk of 300-600 people in a tightly packed space (with no security having been applied) vs 200+ on the plane after security has been applied but only against the known knowns, which one is more likely to be attacked?
Stevie wrote:
You weigh the risk of 300-600 people in a tightly packed space (with no security having been applied) vs 200+ on the plane after security has been applied but only against the known knowns, which one is more likely to be attacked?
YOu'd have to have contingency plans for both. We need a Temple Grandin who's studied airport traffic to determine the optimal way to setup a terminal so as to not create bottlenecks and also stave off various threats.
For those of you who believe there can be no such thing as too much security when getting on an airplane, here's a link to the new children's book, "My First Cavity Search."
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1653822421755&set=a.1311268138112.2047188.1122873359&pid=31744656&id=1122873359
The TSA looks for the weapon and not the user of the weapon. Until congress directs the TSA to use profiling to direct their searches, like the Israelis, commercial flying will be a hassle.
and here the democrats, the party of "civil liberties" in action:
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said using a cell phone while driving is so dangerous that devices may soon be installed in cars to forcibly stop drivers — and potentially anyone else in the vehicle — from using them.
“There’s a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones and we’re looking at that,” said LaHood on MSNBC. LaHood said the cellphone scramblers were one way, and also stressed the importance of “personal responsibility.” …
“I think it will be done,” said LaHood. “I think the technology is there and I think you’re going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones. We need to do a lot more if were going to save lives.”
Again, command & control are all these people know.
Jay wrote:
and here the democrats, the party of "civil liberties" in action:
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said using a cell phone while driving is so dangerous that devices may soon be installed in cars to forcibly stop drivers — and potentially anyone else in the vehicle — from using them.
“There’s a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones and we’re looking at that,” said LaHood on MSNBC. LaHood said the cellphone scramblers were one way, and also stressed the importance of “personal responsibility.” …
“I think it will be done,” said LaHood. “I think the technology is there and I think you’re going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones. We need to do a lot more if were going to save lives.”
Again, command & control are all these people know.
Now that's just nuts.
We need Penn to save us!
He has the moxie, celebrity mojo, and humor to put the TSA in its place.
To paraphrase Rodney Dangerfield: If it weren't for TSA screeners, I'd have no sex-life at all.
To paraphrase Rodney Dangerfield: If it weren't for TSA screeners, I'd have no sex life at all.
Post a Comment