The Cheap Thrill-Airport Security Measures run Wild

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyounge1956 That is the one I meant. Reading it again it may be that the male agents were demanding to look at the daughter's scan, rather than do the pat-down search. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other, as far as I'm concerned. I doubt that the male agents would be fighting for the privilege of patting down my middle-aged person or of looking at my scan, but I think a female agent should be assigned as a matter of course, to screen or search female passengers (and male agents for male passengers). Michael B shouldn't even have had to ask for a woman agent, and the fact that he was threatened with arrest when he did ask is absolutely outrageous!

It was my daughter and it happened in 2005 at Ft Lauderdale airport. It wasn't a scan vs pat down situation, it was some male TSA agents asking her to step behind a large black folding screen for further screening early in the morning. I have no idea what that meant but I objected. I'm no prude, my daughter was college age and I understand that once security steps in one's rights are limited. Still, then and now, there is no situation where agents of one gender can conduct any type of personal screening on a passenger of another gender, and the only circumstances male agents can escort a female passenger into a secluded area is when the passenger is being detained for security violations.

The entire episode was unacceptable. One of the TSA agents got in my face and, although I did not initiate any contact, I also did not back away, and they may have seen that as challenging their authority. I suspect the supervisor was embarrassed because this was happening in public view. There is no doubt he was just trying to intimidate me when he gave me a stern warning.

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigNick It seems to me that people are losing a sense of proportion here. . One scan is described as being equivalent to 10 minutes typical US background radiation. Let's say thats off by a factor of 150 and that you in fact get a day's extra radiation. But this map shows that you can get several hundred days' extra radiation per year just by not living in the right place. You're really going to miss out on a trip to see your family, or a vacation in Paris or Australia, because there's some stupid bureaucracy, a momentary feel of your clothing, and a 3/4 hour wait, before getting on that plane, and exposing yourself to all of the germs, recycled air including some from the engine exhausts and radiation that that entails? Again, again: I am firmly against these security measures. But they are a reason to complain, not a reason not to fly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Speak for yourself. If all people do is complain, nothing will change.

I agree with both you.

Compared to the benefits of seeing your loved one or vacation in nice place the hassles are small. In my case obviously flying is the only option but I am not canceling trips cause of the idiocy of the new TSA procedures.

However, I don't have kids or wife and if I did I may react the same way as papa grizzly Brewer. (This really isn't an insult Brewer). Driving or RVing (ugh) is becoming an increasingly attractive alternative to flying.

In general society is better off when people fly medium to long distances rather than drive . Airlines get about 65 seat mile per gallon, fly pretty much in a straight line, and their energy efficiency and profitability increases the fuller they are. They are also significantly safer than cars, the 6% drop in airline travel after the 9/11 procedures resulted in 150-250 additional transportation deaths per year. Numbers much larger than radiation risks or terrorism risk.

So I think Brewer is right the only way to get this to change is to complain. Kvetching on the forums and Facebook has a small impact, writing to your congress critters a bit more, but switching from flying to driving (especially if you let the airline know) has a real economic impact.

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigNick Again, again: I am firmly against these security measures. But they are a reason to complain, not a reason not to fly.

Bad weather is a reason to complain. Excessive and unwarranted activity by TSA under the guise of security is a reason to take action. The longer we wait the more momentum this thing builds. Our elected representatives will pay greater attention and may actually do something if the airlines complain that they are losing business.

[RustyShackleford]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp In general society is better off when people fly medium to long distances rather than drive .

Socialist !

[M Paquette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover This could not be done electronically? (But, yes the image one trying to light the fuse is pretty humorous)

Yah. What's funny (or pathetic) is that a TSA executive being interviewed was asked about devices hidden in body cavities, and said that they would spot the leads or fuse.

Ahem. Professor Marconi has this amazing technology they should know about.


And no, I'm not giving anything away. The Bad Guys already know about this.

[kyounge1956]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigNick It seems to me that people are losing a sense of proportion here. Yes, the intrusive patdown is bad, and probably unconstitutional, and should be scrapped. But it's not like it's going to be broadcast on national TV. A million other people will be experiencing the same thing on the same day. There will be no sharp edges, rectal probing, or other severe humiliation.

Tell that to the two cancer patients whose stories I heard on NPR (last Friday I think it was): the bladder cancer patient with a urostomy bag, which despite his repeated warnings, the agents "examined" so roughly that it split, leaving him drenched in his own urine—the woman whose breast prosthesis they demanded to examine!

Quote:

Yes, there's no reason to expose yourself unnecessarily to radiation, but if you worry about that, I hope that you chose your current home location more or less exclusively on the basis that it had the lowest background radiation in the country. One scan is described as being equivalent to 10 minutes typical US background radiation. Let's say thats off by a factor of 150 and that you in fact get a day's extra radiation. But this map shows that you can get several hundred days' extra radiation per year just by not living in the right place.

Well according to your map I am in a purple area, which is at the low end of the scale. I can't avoid background radiation, but I can, and intend to, avoid additional exposure on top of that.

Quote:

You're really going to miss out on a trip to see your family, or a vacation in Paris or Australia, because there's some stupid bureaucracy, a momentary feel of your clothing, and a 3/4 hour wait, before getting on that plane, and exposing yourself to all of the germs, recycled air including some from the engine exhausts and radiation that that entails? Again, again: I am firmly against these security measures. But they are a reason to complain, not a reason not to fly.

No, I am not going to skip going to my nieces' graduations, and for the two soonest I won't have time to go any other way than by air. But after that, I'll have the luxury of selecting a mode of transportation which doesn't require me to take a risk of being subjected to indignities in the name of safety. If the scan/search is eliminated or replaced by something less intrusive, that mode will likely be air. But if not, I'll get there some other way.

[RustyShackleford]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette And no, I'm not giving anything away. The Bad Guys already know about this.

Wow, this is eerily similar to a plot-line in the excellent series "MI-5" (named "Spooks" in the UK, but renamed for US distribution for PC reasons).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/spooks/series4_ep4.shtml

[RustyShackleford]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp Airlines get about 65 seat mile per gallon,

Very interesting. Of course, if your car gets mileage in the 30s and you have at least two people in it, you're doing just as well. I guess the extreme speed cancels out the economy of having so many people in one vehicle.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyounge1956 Tell that to the two cancer patients whose stories I heard on NPR (last Friday I think it was): the bladder cancer patient with a urostomy bag, which despite his repeated warnings, the agents "examined" so roughly that it split, leaving him drenched in his own urine—the woman whose breast prosthesis they demanded to examine! Well according to your map I am in a purple area, which is at the low end of the scale. I can't avoid background radiation, but I can, and intend to, avoid additional exposure on top of that. No, I am not going to skip going to my nieces' graduations, and for the two soonest I won't have time to go any other way than by air. But after that, I'll have the luxury of selecting a mode of transportation which doesn't require me to take a risk of being subjected to indignities in the name of safety. If the scan/search is eliminated or replaced by something less intrusive, that mode will likely be air. But if not, I'll get there some other way.

This is a pattern with the TSA. Remember when they came up with the "bright" idea to have people take a sip of whatever liquid they wanted to bring through the probe station? I thought it was amusing to sip from my flask of bourbon for them at 6AM. The mother they forced to sample her own breast milk did not.

Urostomy bags and breast protheses are just the natural progression.

[Nodak]

I always hated flying when I was working; crowded, uncomfortable, and I would regularly come down with a cold or flu after flying. Since retirement I'm never in such a rush that I can't drive or take a train.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodak I always hated flying when I was working; crowded, uncomfortable, and I would regularly come down with a cold or flu after flying. Since retirement I'm never in such a rush that I can't drive or take a train.

Until the Long Beach Tunnel is finished, we Hawaii residents are going to have to keep taking our decongestants and vitamin C before boarding the aircraft...

[Nodak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords Until the Long Beach Tunnel is finished, we Hawaii residents are going to have to keep taking our decongestants and vitamin C before boarding the aircraft...

If I were living in Hawaii I don't know that I'd ever want to go anywhere else.

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodak If I were living in Hawaii I don't know that I'd ever want to go anywhere else.

They have a saying there; something about "another lousy day in Paradise." (like in "and all the Ice Cream you can eat.")

[kyounge1956]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords Quote: Originally Posted by Nodak I always hated flying when I was working; crowded, uncomfortable, and I would regularly come down with a cold or flu after flying. Since retirement I'm never in such a rush that I can't drive or take a train. Until the Long Beach Tunnel is finished, we Hawaii residents are going to have to keep taking our decongestants and vitamin C before boarding the aircraft...

Or you could take your decongestant & vitamin C before boarding the container ship. I wondered why Long Beach before looking on Google maps. I didn't realize how far south Hawaii is, as well as being right out in the middle of the ocean. The library here has a DVD about speculative future engineering projects. One was a high speed rail tunnel across the Atlantic, and I suppose if that could be done, a similar tunnel from Hawaii to the mainland would also be a possibility. High-speed trans-oceanic rail travel—I think I like it!

[RustyShackleford]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyounge1956 High-speed trans-oceanic rail travel—I think I like it!

Uh, we're living in a country that can't even manage to pull off medium-speed terrestrial travel.

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford Uh, we're living in a country that can't even manage terrorist travel.

Fixed it for you...

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover We've had the shoe bomber and the underpants bomber. Does anyone not believe we'll soon have the cavity bomber? I'd argue that the TSA needs to start coming up with a counter strategy and, no, it does not include latex gloves.

I think this is an unfounded risk... first, we have not had any.... ever from what I can see...

Second, I doubt that you could put enough explosives 'up there' to do more than blow you up and get blood all over the place... maybe a few other deaths... I doubt it could bring down a plane...

[Texas Proud]

Wow... out on vacation a week and look what I missed....


My first thought is that we are paying WAY TO MUCH for security as it is... Why not have this same kind of screening on subways buses? Because the cost is not worth it... and I do not think the cost is worth it for airplanes... now, if we were to have a plane blown out of the sky every month... then yes, let's do something.... but we do not... and have not with the screening that we use... and I can only remember a few tries that failed... even if they had succeded I would not want this 'extra security'....


Second, the people who want to give away their rights to feel safe... I just don't get it... like when they were listening in on phone conversations without warrents... I had a lot of family members say 'great, I don't have anything to hide' do not get it...


Then we have the uninteded consequences (sp?)... now more people will drive and we will actually have more people killed then if we had less security and a few planes blow up every 10 years.... we are doing more harm than good with these measures...


Last, England had subway and bus bombs... and they did not change their security measures... it just happens to be part of life that you might be in the wrong place at the wrong time... but even then.... it was a one time deal and it has not happened again...

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Second, I doubt that you could put enough explosives 'up there' to do more than blow you up and get blood all over the place... maybe a few other deaths... I doubt it could bring down a plane...

We on this board are truly blessed to have experts in so many esoteric areas....

[BigNick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyounge1956 Tell that to the two cancer patients whose stories I heard on NPR (last Friday I think it was): the bladder cancer patient with a urostomy bag, which despite his repeated warnings, the agents "examined" so roughly that it split, leaving him drenched in his own urine—the woman whose breast prosthesis they demanded to examine!

Indeed. That's one of the reasons way I am also against these security measures (as I've already said about 20 times(*)). I'm just saying that for the average person on this board without prostheses, we're still at the "annoying" stage.

The fact that you and I think that X is bad, doesn't mean that every argument why X is bad, is a valid argument. It also doesn't mean that if I don't agree with argument A, that I think that X is suddenly good. Not every argument has to be polarised the way the media would like it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Last, England had subway and bus bombs... and they did not change their security measures...

Partly because they had already done so in the 1970s when the IRA was in town, partly because they realised that there is no effective defence on mass transportation. People paying $100 and up for a ticket for a 2-hour journey are prepared to stand still for half an hour to be searched. People paying $2 for a 7-minute subway ride aren't. (The authorities did, however, remove trash cans from more or less every public facility.)