New TSA Security Measures

[Drew]

i think it's time for me to take the dnix route on this thread ;-P

[tschwicht]

I think the problem is that they keep adding things that are supposed to make flying safer. However these things ARE invasive. And I'm supposed to take a bus to Vegas from now on?

This week there were 2 articles saying that the scanners wouldn't even have detected the "christmas bomber." We're continually adding these measures and approving of them because we feel that they're necessary, but they are not. I don't care how you look at it. I didn't mind the long lines for metal detectors, and I wasn't even too bothered by taking off my shoes. We've become so scared and paranoid that we're willing to allow ridiculous things in the name of safety, when they're not effective at it to begin with.

So you're saying that we SHOULD be afraid of little kids bombing airplanes? That's my point, where does it end with this growing fear? There are dangers in driving, buses, walking down the street, and we don't pad ourselves to avoid them. And there have been talks to extend these measures to other forms of transportation as well.

I think the problem with the banking system is that to get a loan for a house they are too invasive. They want to know my entire background, how much money I make, what my bills are, past and current debts, where I work, and a bunch of other stuff. That's an invasion of my privacy! What am I supposed to do, just work until I can pay for a house in cash?

How do you gauge effectiveness of these security measures? You say no one has been caught. I say no skyscrapers have fallen in 8 years. No planes full of people have slammed into a building causing thousands of deaths. I don't think scanning people's bodies for bombs or anything that may cause a problem is "ridiculous". Not being allowed to bring luggage with you is ridiculous. Keeping people strapped in seats is ridiculous. Profiling people based on race is ridiculous. Walking through a scanner is not that much to ask.

I'm not saying anyone should be afraid of anything. This isn't a fear issue. You personally may think a little kid bombing an airplane is ridiculous. Go someplace like Israel or Iraq where they tie suicide vests to little kids and your viewpoint might change. Terrorists aren't just older arab men. They are white, black, tall, short, male, female, old, young, you name it. Kids shouldn't be excluded from security measures just because they are kids. That would be a huge security gap.

As for other modes of transportation, you're right. You can get hurt in a bus or walking down the street. A bus doesn't go 500mph though, a plane does. It's a little different when a bus runs into a building and a plane full of jet fuel does.

I will say this, I value my privacy. I value the freedoms we have in this country. I also trust in certain entities such as a bank or the government with my private information or in this case, an xray of my body because that is required for me to achieve my goals (a loan, flying somewhere). There is a huge difference in willingly giving up your privacy for a good or service and invasion of privacy though. That's where the choice comes in. If you don't want your body scanned or patted down, then you don't have to. If you don't want someone to know your income, you don't have to tell them. You will be taking the bus to Vegas or saving up for a house among other things though, and well, that would just suck.

[NyceGuy]

I think the problem is that they keep adding things that are supposed to make flying safer. However these things ARE invasive. And I'm supposed to take a bus to Vegas from now on?

This week there were 2 articles saying that the scanners wouldn't even have detected the "christmas bomber." We're continually adding these measures and approving of them because we feel that they're necessary, but they are not. I don't care how you look at it. I didn't mind the long lines for metal detectors, and I wasn't even too bothered by taking off my shoes. We've become so scared and paranoid that we're willing to allow ridiculous things in the name of safety, when they're not effective at it to begin with.

So you're saying that we SHOULD be afraid of little kids bombing airplanes? That's my point, where does it end with this growing fear? There are dangers in driving, buses, walking down the street, and we don't pad ourselves to avoid them. And there have been talks to extend these measures to other forms of transportation as well.

I think the problem with the banking system is that to get a loan for a house they are too invasive. They want to know my entire background, how much money I make, what my bills are, past and current debts, where I work, and a bunch of other stuff. That's an invasion of my privacy! What am I supposed to do, just work until I can pay for a house in cash?

How do you gauge effectiveness of these security measures? You say no one has been caught. I say no skyscrapers have fallen in 8 years. No planes full of people have slammed into a building causing thousands of deaths. I don't think scanning people's bodies for bombs or anything that may cause a problem is "ridiculous". Not being allowed to bring luggage with you is ridiculous. Keeping people strapped in seats is ridiculous. Profiling people based on race is ridiculous. Walking through a scanner is not that much to ask.

I'm not saying anyone should be afraid of anything. This isn't a fear issue. You personally may think a little kid bombing an airplane is ridiculous. Go someplace like Israel or Iraq where they tie suicide vests to little kids and your viewpoint might change. Terrorists aren't just older arab men. They are white, black, tall, short, male, female, old, young, you name it. Kids shouldn't be excluded from security measures just because they are kids. That would be a huge security gap.

As for other modes of transportation, you're right. You can get hurt in a bus or walking down the street. A bus doesn't go 500mph though, a plane does. It's a little different when a bus runs into a building and a plane full of jet fuel does.

I will say this, I value my privacy. I value the freedoms we have in this country. I also trust in certain entities such as a bank or the government with my private information or in this case, an xray of my body because that is required for me to achieve my goals (a loan, flying somewhere). There is a huge difference in willingly giving up your privacy for a good or service and invasion of privacy though. That's where the choice comes in. If you don't want your body scanned or patted down, then you don't have to. If you don't want someone to know your income, you don't have to tell them. You will be taking the bus to Vegas or saving up for a house among other things though, and well, that would just suck.

Getting a loan for a house from a bank is not comparable at all to the security measures. You're dealing with credit, the bank has to review your history to decide whether or not they will extend credit to the borrower. Completely different and not at all analogous to this argument.

It's fine if you feel these measures are necessary in today's world. The problem is the measures continually intrude on our basic civil liberties, but only after something in the world has given someone a reason to do so. When they found a guy trying to mix liquids on a plane to try and create some kind of explosive, we then started banning liquids. When someone tried to light a "shoe bomb", we then started taking off our shoes. I get it, but the point is that they're always one step behind.

Nail clippers aren't allowed through TSA checkpoints, but you can buy them at the store right before you board the plane. Where's the logic in that?

You see these as effective measures by pointing out that there hasn't been a plane flown into a building for 9 years. Before that there wasn't a plane flown into a building either. They recently caught someone in the middle east trying to board a plane with something concealed internally, would you then be ok with random cavity searches, in the name of safety?

I'm well aware that the potential threats aren't all bearded men and I never claimed that point at all. But your argument is that we should fear all because we never know who's going to harm us, and I just simply disagree with that stance. The chances of being on a hijacked plane are so low, that you have a better chance of getting hit by lightning, twice.

[NyceGuy]

By the way, I think I'm done with this thread. lol.

[theScott]

Yeah, this thread turned into too much of a debate that I don't think anyone can really win...everyone will have their own privacy to security ratio that they feel comfortable with. And those are two hot topics. Especially when some people have negative personal experience with one or both of those.

[MikeyTantalo]

http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=573

Man ejaculates after pat down..

they get rough...

[BarrelO]

I suppose this was inevitable:

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=2182930

[kimball]

I have been flying to NYC just about every weekend from Detroit. Detroit Metro to Laguardia. I fly Delta no body scaners in Detroit nor the Delta terminal at LGA.

Over the past four weeks I have seen one pat down... was not that big of a deal. I even passed through security with coat, hat and shoes on one night when an extra line opened because of a growing crowd.

I work in the media and we sure pimped this thing over the holiday. People were talking about it... everyone ask me... knowing I was flying if I was patted down or scanned. We're they asking because of the media hype I helped create? Maybe...

Do I think it was a "dog and pony show" not really... but I could be wrong. We've heard through a few people... sources who believed there was a serious creditable threat to warrant the pat-downs. If that's the case or not... who knows. Nothing on that was ever reported as far as I know.

[blibblab]

Yeah, this thread turned into too much of a debate that I don't think anyone can really win...everyone will have their own privacy to security ratio that they feel comfortable with. And those are two hot topics. Especially when some people have negative personal experience with one or both of those.

I think having an open discourse of differing opinions is always a good thing as long as everyone involved can do it in an adult manner... which has pretty much been the case in this thread. Much better debating of points than I've seen elsewhere on the issue.

I have been flying to NYC just about every weekend from Detroit. Detroit Metro to Laguardia. I fly Delta no body scaners in Detroit nor the Delta terminal at LGA.

Over the past four weeks I have seen one pat down... was not that big of a deal. I even passed through security with coat, hat and shoes on one night when an extra line opened because of a growing crowd.

I work in the media and we sure pimped this thing over the holiday. People were talking about it... everyone ask me... knowing I was flying if I was patted down or scanned. We're they asking because of the media hype I helped create? Maybe...

Do I think it was a "dog and pony show" not really... but I could be wrong. We've heard through a few people... sources who believed there was a serious creditable threat to warrant the pat-downs. If that's the case or not... who knows. Nothing on that was ever reported as far as I know.

You also have to consider that many airports over the holiday weekend didn't even use/roped-off the advanced imagery machines - or selected less people to go through the scanners. That could have been a PR ploy by the TSA to force a fizzle of the protest by cutting it at its legs. But that would ask what's the purpose of the machines if their use can be lessened during times of higher volume travel?

I'm guessing that the TSA must be thankful that the news media has latched onto Julian Assange/Wikileaks to get the current heat off their backs in the general, news-making public. We'll see during the Christmas holiday how things proceed...

[kimball]

I never understood the protest. No one buys an airline ticket to try and miss their flight. Slow down security? That was so lame. You want to make that flight you paid $300 for. The people pushing the protest were not flying and I bet don't even fly.

[tschwicht]

Getting a loan for a house from a bank is not comparable at all to the security measures. You're dealing with credit, the bank has to review your history to decide whether or not they will extend credit to the borrower. Completely different and not at all analogous to this argument.

It is not completely different. I'm not comparing getting a loan from a bank to security measures. I'm comparing getting a loan from a bank to flying commercially. They are both services from private industry that are regulated by government. Flying is a privilege, it isn't a right. Just like you don't have a right to a bank loan.

To use these services, you have to go through certain security measures. It isn't an invasion of your privacy because you either willingly go through them or you don't get that service. While having to give up background information isn't the same as going through an xray, it could be construed as the same "invasion of privacy" or even more invasive depending on your point of view. Again, it's not an invasion though because you willingly give it up.

It's fine if you feel these measures are necessary in today's world. The problem is the measures continually intrude on our basic civil liberties, but only after something in the world has given someone a reason to do so. When they found a guy trying to mix liquids on a plane to try and create some kind of explosive, we then started banning liquids. When someone tried to light a "shoe bomb", we then started taking off our shoes. I get it, but the point is that they're always one step behind.

Which basic civil liberties are intruded on? Our basic liberty to pay for a plane ticket and then board that plane under our own terms? That's not a basic civil liberty. I agree, we are always one step behind. It's impossible to predict new methods, but we sure don't want to stop preventing old ones.

Nail clippers aren't allowed through TSA checkpoints, but you can buy them at the store right before you board the plane. Where's the logic in that?

There isn't any. I agree.

You see these as effective measures by pointing out that there hasn't been a plane flown into a building for 9 years. Before that there wasn't a plane flown into a building either. They recently caught someone in the middle east trying to board a plane with something concealed internally, would you then be ok with random cavity searches, in the name of safety?

They caught someone with something concealed internally how? With a random cavity search? I'm pretty sure that is the point of the xray machines. No, I don't agree with random cavity searches. It's not realistic on a large scale. Walking through an xray scanner is.

I'm well aware that the potential threats aren't all bearded men and I never claimed that point at all. But your argument is that we should fear all because we never know who's going to harm us, and I just simply disagree with that stance. The chances of being on a hijacked plane are so low, that you have a better chance of getting hit by lightning, twice.

My argument is not we should fear all. I don't fear anyone. I'm saying you can't discount children simply because they are children. People do use children to carry out bombing plots. The whole "they patted down a child" is just another reason for people to complain. This society has become so sensitive it's ridiculous, but that's a whole other topic.

I'll leave this one alone too, and I agree there is little chance of being on a hijacked plane. I just really am against the stance that this invades privacy, because no one is forced to fly. If you want to, you go through the security measures, but flying isn't some right afforded to everyone (yet another problem with people in this country, sense of entitlement), and just because we have security measures doesn't mean we're headed for a totalitarian state like some like to think.

[NyceGuy]

It is not completely different. I'm not comparing getting a loan from a bank to security measures. I'm comparing getting a loan from a bank to flying commercially. They are both services from private industry that are regulated by government. Flying is a privilege, it isn't a right. Just like you don't have a right to a bank loan.

I'll leave this one alone too, and I agree there is little chance of being on a hijacked plane. I just really am against the stance that this invades privacy, because no one is forced to fly. If you want to, you go through the security measures, but flying isn't some right afforded to everyone (yet another problem with people in this country, sense of entitlement), and just because we have security measures doesn't mean we're headed for a totalitarian state like some like to think.

In response to the argument that flying is not a right:

Supereme Court Case, U.S. v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966):

“In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.”

Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969):

“‘The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized."

United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757:

"This constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of ‘entering and abiding in any State in the Union,’ Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 39, is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional due process or equal protection standards. 1 ‘[T]he right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment.’ United States v. Guest, supra, at 760, n. 17. 2 As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. 3 Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 , it is a virtually unconditional personal right, 4 guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.”

US Code on use of airspace:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/49/VII/A/I/401/40103

"(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit. - (1) The United
States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the
Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals."

Which basic civil liberties are intruded on? Our basic liberty to pay for a plane ticket and then board that plane under our own terms? That's not a basic civil liberty. I agree, we are always one step behind. It's impossible to predict new methods, but we sure don't want to stop preventing old ones.

Which civil liberties is it intruding upon? The fourth amendment.

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

Potential expansion of procedures:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOv8Zh3OvSg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOv8Zh3OvSg[/ame]

They caught someone with something concealed internally how? With a random cavity search? I'm pretty sure that is the point of the xray machines. No, I don't agree with random cavity searches. It's not realistic on a large scale. Walking through an xray scanner is.

Regarding the hidden bomb in terrorists rectum:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._up.html?cat=9

"On August 27, 2009 Abdullah Asieri, one of Saudi Arabia's most wanted men, detonated a pound of explosives apparently hidden in his rectum in an effort to assassinate Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef, head of Saudi Arabia's counter terrorism operations. Although the attempt was unsuccessful it revealed a gaping hole in current security efforts aimed at thwarting terrorist attacks."

Bodyscanners are not effective:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtP8FNdDadI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtP8FNdDadI[/ame]

My argument is not we should fear all. I don't fear anyone. I'm saying you can't discount children simply because they are children. People do use children to carry out bombing plots. The whole "they patted down a child" is just another reason for people to complain. This society has become so sensitive it's ridiculous, but that's a whole other topic.

TSA says that we should teach children that the pat-down is a "game". A tactic used by sexual predators on children.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/a...-abuse-expert/

"How can experts working at the TSA be so incredibly misinformed and misguided to suggest that full body pat downs for children be portrayed as a game?" Wooden asked in an email. "To do so is completely contrary to what we in the sexual abuse prevention field have been trying to accomplish for the past thirty years."

Also, since flying is a privilege, it will drive more people to take to the roads instead which is far more dangerous than flying.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...sa-body-count/

"What is clear from that backlash is that the new enhanced pat-downs have significantly raised the aggravation of flying for many people well above that estimated by Ms. Kessler and Mr. Seeley. The result will be more people opting to drive rather than fly and a higher death toll on the highways."

[bbatt]

The media has really just made a big deal out of this. I fly almost every week, half the time from Chicago which has body scanners and half the Rome from Milwaukee which doesn't. since They were implemented lines are just as long as they were before at chicago.

Even when body scanners are used, they are at less than half of the stations. At Chicago, For every 4 metal detectors, there is one scanner so even with all I travel through there I've only gone through it twice.

Most people who travel often really don't care about this. Its the media and travelers That go on their once a year trip whining.

If they resorted to easier procedures and there was a terrorist attack, surely tsa would be blamed. So where's the balance? I'd rather be safe.

[kimball]

The media has really just made a big deal out of this. I fly almost every week, half the time from Chicago which has body scanners and half the Rome from Milwaukee which doesn't. since They were implemented lines are just as long as they were before at chicago.

Even when body scanners are used, they are at less than half of the stations. At Chicago, For every 4 metal detectors, there is one scanner so even with all I travel through there I've only gone through it twice.

Most people who travel often really don't care about this. Its the media and travelers That go on their once a year trip whining.

If they resorted to easier procedures and there was a terrorist attack, surely tsa would be blamed. So where's the balance? I'd rather be safe.

As the media and someone who has been flying everyweek... I agree.

[tschwicht]

Nyce your post is long so i'm not going to quote the whole thing. I have to say i'm enjoying the debate as well.

United States vs. Guest had nothing to do with flying. Within the hearing the Supreme Court held up the fourteenth amendment which was passed in 1868 which talked about the right to travel. That means I can go from Chicago to New York. It doesn't guarantee a mode of transportation (a plane to fly on). The first commercial flight wasn't until 1914. You highlighted private interference and governmental action. Why? The government isn't interfering with your right to travel from state to state. You can still travel. Just not on a commercial flight. The argument is ridiculous.

You're taking the right to cross state lines (by any means) and trying to make it into the right to board a commercial plane, owned by private industry and regulated by the government, as a right through citizenship. Well, I guess I should be able to just drive without a license too right? In fact, those guys who get caught driving without a license because they have three DUIs should take their case to the Supreme court. After all, they have the right to travel, it's right there!

As far as your quoting of 40103, you are just spinning my argument. Yes, of course citizens have the right to fly. What I meant (and thought I made perfectly clear) was to board a commercial plane you have to go through certain security measures. It's not your RIGHT to hop on Delta flight 43 just because you're a citizen. You have to pay for the flight and meet all of their terms, including passing through security measures. You're taking too broad of an interpretation of these rights and trying to spin them into you can do whatever you want.

The fourth amendment has some key phrases that you're overlooking. To begin lets start out with "unreasonable searches and seizures". Who deems searches reasonable or unreasonable? The court system. If these searches really violated the fourth amendment lawyers would be chomping at the bit to move this through the courts. That's a HUGE case and would make someones career.

I said this before and i'll say it again, no one is forcing anyone into these searches. They do not have to walk through an xray machine, and do not have to be patted down. Just like when I go to a concert, I don't have to let them pat me down. I won't get in, and you won't fly, but no one is FORCING YOU to be searched. The fourth amendment is there so we can't just be randomly stopped on the street, and the police can't just go in our house and invade our privacy on a hunch whether we like it or not. The big difference here? Choice. We have a choice to not go through this process. We just simply can not fly then. That's it. Again, see above, flying is a right, so is traveling from state to state, but hopping on Delta flight 43 is not. You either comply with regulations or you don't, but you do have a choice.

I'll give credit where it's due. They did say the xray didn't catch the explosives. They also mentioned that the machines are of no value "against this threat". It doesn't mean they are useless or of no value. They aren't an entire security solution. They are one measure.

As far as the child thing, my point is that children should go through security measures just like normal people because children are used for carrying out bombing plots in many areas in the world. You can not dispute this, and you didn't with your argument. What you did do is talk about a TSA policy that I said nothing about. It has nothing to do with the validity of children being patted down for security purposes. I don't advocate calling it a game, in fact I think our children are too shielded in this country, but that isn't even a part of this argument. The fact that they are trying to attribute more people driving and dying to xray machines just shows how far people will go to try to spin this. I do enjoy that you posted an article which totally contradicts your argument by stating "flying is a privilege" though.