81 replies to this topic

[TK0001]

Englishgent, on 17 April 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

I know we are far from being perfect in our detection of terrorists. They will always be one step ahead. But in answer to your question, I would rather submit to the procedure than be blown up in mid air!

Why are these the only two options?

And do you believe such invasive procedures are keeping planes from being blown up in mid-air? If so, whatever kept them from being blown up in mid-air before these techniques were employed? And what keeps it from happening today in countries which have a far larger terrorist threat, who do not employ these techniques?

Englishgent, on 17 April 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

I am well aware that for some people it is an embarassing procedure.

Embarrassing for some, a violation of civil rights for all.

Englishgent, on 17 April 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

If you know of better methods for detecting terrorists, why does the government also not know, and if they do know, why do they not use them?

Read what I have written. I have clearly explained why they do not use them.

[Stellar]

Quote

But isnt the odd person being pat down better than a plane of hundreds going down because of an explosive?

But were not talking about the "odd" person being patted down. How many people, not demonstrating any suspicious signs, have been patted down since the TSA implemented the policy?

And to answer your question, no, I don't consider it worth it. I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

I believe that the measures taken by the TSA are too extreme and too loosely controlled. I believe that if a person isn't truly acting suspicious, then his rights should not be infringed. There seems to be some people in the world, however, that would have you believe a "terrorist" would attempt to not act suspicious in order to get by security. As such, non-suspicious behaviour is suspicious behaviour in and of itself, and justifies extreme treatment by the TSA.

[Stellar]

[quote]
I think what people tend to forget is that the type of terrorists we are dealing with would think nothing of secreting an explosive device on their child or granny. I agree that at times they appear to go over the top, but I would rather the kiddy in front of me is searched than not searched and all on board (including me) die as a consequence.
[/quote]

And through very few extra steps I can use that same logic to justify shooting to kill anyone that demonstrates the slightest sign of suspicion or anger at the way they are being treated.

If the "terrorist" knows he's about to get caught through a cavity search, he may just detonate himself on the spot, killing potentially dozens of people. So by that very paranoid logic, if the child or grandmother struggles or acts suspicious, would you rather the kiddy infront of you is shot and killed, preventing him from detonating a potential explosive, or would you rather he is not shot and kills the dozens of people surrounding him (you included)?

This game of "statistics" can be used to justify anything.

[quote]

[sestra15]

I have a friend who works for the TSA in Denver, and she says you wouldn't believe what people say and do at the security checkpoints. People who would never be rude to anyone feel they can abuse the TSA agents. I have never given anyone trouble, taken the full body scan and still have been patted down, but I get through quickly by being fully cooperative. I don't know some people make a fuss. On the other hand, there are extreme cases where greater sensitivity is needed.

[TK0001]

sestra15, on 17 April 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

I have a friend who works for the TSA in Denver, and she says you wouldn't believe what people say and do at the security checkpoints. People who would never be rude to anyone feel they can abuse the TSA agents. I have never given anyone trouble, taken the full body scan and still have been patted down, but I get through quickly by being fully cooperative. I don't know some people make a fuss. On the other hand, there are extreme cases where greater sensitivity is needed.

Maybe people "make a fuss" because they feel like they shouldn't have to be humiliated and treated like a criminal in order to board a plane? Maybe because they feel they are being violated by the State, and aren't real happy about it?

In fact, I'm surprised people don't lash out more often. It's actually alarming how many people just accept a stranger groping them in the name of security. Of course, if they give the TSA any fuss while being groped, they can be detained, so I guess it does make sense.

Still, this is America? The land of the Free?

[Corp]

Well the link isn't working for me but if a pat down upset this woman so much why didn't she just go through the scanner? Takes five seconds.

[TK0001]

Corp, on 17 April 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

Well the link isn't working for me but if a pat down upset this woman so much why didn't she just go through the scanner? Takes five seconds.

The airport she was at might not have had the machines.

Or maybe she opted for the patdown rather than be subjected to harmful levels of radiation.

[Michelle]

TK0001, on 17 April 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

The airport she was at might not have had the machines.

Or maybe she opted for the patdown rather than be subjected to harmful levels of radiation.

And they arbitrarily pick out people to pat down, even after going through the scanners...so that is no guarantee.

[Stellar]

Quote

People who would never be rude to anyone feel they can abuse the TSA agents. I have never given anyone trouble, taken the full body scan and still have been patted down, but I get through quickly by being fully cooperative. I don't know some people make a fuss

Are you saying that they're being patted down because they're rude?

[Michelle]

Stellar, on 17 April 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

Are you saying that they're being patted down because they're rude?

That is completely their prerogative. These under-qualified, under-paid, high school or GED graduates have been given more authority to detain people than they ever should have. Mall cops have had more training than these idiots.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

TK0001, on 17 April 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Or maybe she opted for the patdown rather than be subjected to harmful levels of radiation.

Harmful?
Yes, if you stood in one all day, buck naked. And possibly chewing on one of the elements.

However, passing though one exposes you to about the same amount of radiation as standing too close to an active microwave, outside in the sun. It's the TSA I'd be worried about for radition exposure, being near the blasted things all day. Maybe that's why they're so heavy handed, the radiation from the scanners is frying the part of their brain that says "perhaps physically accosting people is a bad idea".

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Wearer of Hats, on 17 April 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

Harmful?
Yes, if you stood in one all day, buck naked. And possibly chewing on one of the elements.

However, passing though one exposes you to about the same amount of radiation as standing too close to an active microwave, outside in the sun. It's the TSA I'd be worried about for radition exposure, being near the blasted things all day. Maybe that's why they're so heavy handed, the radiation from the scanners is frying the part of their brain that says "perhaps physically accosting people is a bad idea".

Might you have a source I may look into in regards to the amount of radiation given by a scanner vs. Microwave. Thank you in advance.

[ZaraKitty]

I think there should be other options, sexual assault victims would have a panic attack if someone was touching them like that. Put them through a metal detector or a sniffer dog. There needs to be that option.

[lightly]

what... ' terrorists '  have one track minds?  'they' can only exhibit their displeasure by bringing down aircraft?   Why hasn't this terrible menace struck ANY other targets in the U.S. ?

[DKO]

Stellar, on 17 April 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

But were not talking about the "odd" person being patted down. How many people, not demonstrating any suspicious signs, have been patted down since the TSA implemented the policy?

And to answer your question, no, I don't consider it worth it. I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

I believe that the measures taken by the TSA are too extreme and too loosely controlled. I believe that if a person isn't truly acting suspicious, then his rights should not be infringed. There seems to be some people in the world, however, that would have you believe a "terrorist" would attempt to not act suspicious in order to get by security. As such, non-suspicious behaviour is suspicious behaviour in and of itself, and justifies extreme treatment by the TSA.

When I said odd person I meant the occasional person not the weird person. And my comment was to TK0001's one comment not the whole situation. In fact I do think its a bit overboard especially if they are patting down genital areas.