Mad As Hell: Airport Security Screening Protests Mount

[BERIGAN]

EDIT to put another link back in...

This started after 9-11 of course and I don't blame political parties, but the bureaucracy in place ... this just can't be allowed to continue. How can it in any way, shape or form be legal to have TSA workers put their hands on your genitals???

Mad As Hell: Airport Security Screening Protests Mount

By Samantha Murphy

With the start of the busiest air travel season just a little more than a week away, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been under scrutiny following complaints that the federal government has taken airport security too far, from new intrusive body scans to intensified pat-downs.

Even pilot unions have protested against airport security body-scanner technology — said to be intrusive with radiation-based health concerns — and called the alternative pat-down method too invasive. The issue also made headlines last weekend when 31-year-old passenger John Tyner posted a video on YouTube that he captured with his cell phone recording an argument with a TSA screener.

More

Edited November 17, 2010 by BERIGAN

[Free For All]

I'm flying a bunch over the next couple months- Mr. Johnson is going to be getting more action in the airport than he did back in my college days!

Those polyester pants and latex gloves are a total turn-on!

[BERIGAN]

3 year old probable terrorist being felt up for weapons. Those with families here, looking forward to flights over the holidays?

I'm flying a bunch over the next couple months- Mr. Johnson is going to be getting more action in the airport than he did back in my college days!

Those polyester pants and latex gloves are a total turn-on!

Hey, if the screeners looked like Jessica Beil, or Jessica Alba(I ain't particular) I might not mind, but good grief! This is one time I would look forward to the ACLU jumping into something...what's next, cavity searches????

Edited November 17, 2010 by BERIGAN

[sonnymax]

3 year old probable terrorist being felt up for weapons. Those with families here, looking forward to flights over the holidays?

The narrator of the video asks, "Could there have been a better way...?"

Uh, yeah. The parents could have prepared the child for the process.

The father could have helped, instead of shooting the video.

Seeing that the child was upset, everyone concerned could have taken a time out.

"3 year old probable terrorist"? People have hidden dangerous objects on children before to get through security.

There are many things that can be done to increase our safety at airports while respecting individual rights.

This provocative thread (admittedly tame by Berigan's standards in other forums) isn't one of them.

[Jim Alfredson]

I flew more this year than any other time in my life. It's not that bad. Want to avoid a pat down? Then read and follow directions. They tell you up front that if you have anything in your pockets (metal or not) it will cast a shadow and they'll do a pat down. So empty your pockets. Make sure you remove any outer clothing that doesn't need to be there, like jackets, sweaters, etc. Be cordial and you're less likely to piss somebody off. I never had a single issue going through security this year and only had one pat down.

As for genital touching, it's not like they are fondling you.

How often do you fly, Conrad?

[Guy Berger]

I think the whining about this is silly/stupid and find it ironic that of all the changes in our lives post-9/11, this is the one that has generated the most outrage.

[medjuck]

I'm at an airport right now. I prefer not fly with people who have avoided screening. The guy who didn't want to go through the screener or be patted down must have been worried someone would notice how small his dick was.

[ejp626]

I think the whining about this is silly/stupid and find it ironic that of all the changes in our lives post-9/11, this is the one that has generated the most outrage.

First, I think many of you haven't experienced the upgraded pat-downs, which are significantly more invasive than before. They are starting to touch your junk. There are reports of women having to show their panties...

Second, I don't think the health impacts of the new technology is nearly as innocuous as they say. In fact, there are two different technologies, and one delivers more radition than the other, but the TSA wants both types of scanners to ensure there is more competition. I think this is a problem.

Third and most important, the real question is whether this over-the-top approach (both the nude imaging and the invasive pat-downs) truly adds security or is it "security theatre." I vote for the latter.

I really hoped we would be able to sit back and review some of the post-9/11 changes and undo some of the poor decisions of the TSA under the last administration. Obviously that hasn't happened. I will be flying less until a saner approach to airport security returns. It could be a while.

[mellowT]

Can you fix your link, Conrad? I'd like to read the article.

[Alexander]

Okay...

So, we fix it so the airport security people are not allowed to touch your junk or molest your toddlers.

And then we'll all act outraged when someone hides an explosive device down the front of their pants or on a toddler.

Everybody happy now?

Edited November 17, 2010 by Alexander

[ejp626]

Okay...

So, we fix it so the airport security people are not allowed to touch your junk or molest your toddlers.

And then we'll all act outraged when someone hides an explosive device down the front of their pants or on a toddler.

Everybody happy now?

Since the next wave of attacks is most likely going to involve stuffing an explosive into a body cavity, are you going to be willing to submit to this kind of screening (which does on rare occasions already happen at border crossings) for all air travel passengers? I, for one, am not. I would rather take the miniscule risk of being blown up than putting up with this. This is The Fear talking and taking over the country. There are better ways to prevent these attacks than adding more layers of absurd security that 100% of air passengers must submit to. This would involve much greater attention on looking at unusual transactions. It might mean there is a larger class of frequent travelers (and pilots) who get extra attention periodically but then bypass the scanners on the majority of their trips. Most of all, it means being smart about security rather than over-reacting.

[Free For All]

Andy Warhol was more right than he knew. Now everyone's junk is going to be famous for 15 minutes.

[BERIGAN]

I flew more this year than any other time in my life. It's not that bad. Want to avoid a pat down? Then read and follow directions. They tell you up front that if you have anything in your pockets (metal or not) it will cast a shadow and they'll do a pat down. So empty your pockets. Make sure you remove any outer clothing that doesn't need to be there, like jackets, sweaters, etc. Be cordial and you're less likely to piss somebody off. I never had a single issue going through security this year and only had one pat down.

As for genital touching, it's not like they are fondling you.

How often do you fly, Conrad?

Jim, check out this blogger's story...it's basically what brought this to the forefront. The TSA is still after him, and might try to fine him $11,000. Though it would be a P.R. nightmare if they did at this point.

http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

As to how often I fly, my Mom worked for Delta, I used to fly 2-3 times a year back in the day, when it was free for us to fly. I could go on like someone's Grandpa about how easy it was to go through airport screenings, how one time I nearly freaked out as I realized I had a little knife in my back pocket and I had already passed the screening area. I know 9-11 changed things...but, it's one thing to have to take your shoes off...it's quite another to have to submit to full body scans that do give low doses of radiation(Still a safe amount after someone has had an MRI, chest and dental X-rays the same year?) And it is an invasion of privacy, and an assumption of guilt to have to go through one.

Do they make everyone get out of their cars in NYC after that one clod attempted to blow a car up several months ago??

Okay...

So, we fix it so the airport security people are not allowed to touch your junk or molest your toddlers.

And then we'll all act outraged when someone hides an explosive device down the front of their pants or on a toddler.

Everybody happy now?

Since the next wave of attacks is most likely going to involve stuffing an explosive into a body cavity, are you going to be willing to submit to this kind of screening (which does on rare occasions already happen at border crossings) for all air travel passengers? I, for one, am not. I would rather take the miniscule risk of being blown up than putting up with this. This is The Fear talking and taking over the country. There are better ways to prevent these attacks than adding more layers of absurd security that 100% of air passengers must submit to. This would involve much greater attention on looking at unusual transactions. It might mean there is a larger class of frequent travelers (and pilots) who get extra attention periodically but then bypass the scanners on the majority of their trips. Most of all, it means being smart about security rather than over-reacting.

Exactly! It's still infinitely safer to fly than to drive a car, but we don't insist on driving monstrosities that could withstand a 80 MPH crash with another car going 80. There is always going to be some risk in life...no way to avoid that...sane and sensible measures should rule the day.

And it won't matter what we have in place if security is less stringent overseas...

[Noj]

I just flew and had to go through the TSA screenings. Took off my shoes, took all the metal out of my pockets, took my laptop out and put in its own tray, etc. Got patted down, went through a metal detector...whole thing took like three minutes. Second time through I knew what to expect. I carried less in my pockets and wore flip flops, and had my laptop ready to take out. Easy peasy give my lemon a squeezey.

[papsrus]

Retina scans.

They have this now in some countries for international travel. You go for an interview, fork over an application fee, they do a background check, scan your retina and issue you a card. When you travel, you go to a separate, much shorter line when boarding international flights. They scan the old retina, probably wave a wand over you and look through your carry-on bags, and off you go while the hoi polloi waits in long lines for their body cavity searches.

No reason I can see why they couldn't offer the same sort of thing for domestic air travel.

Some would undoubtedly complain about privacy issues -- I'm sure you are entered into a database and monitored in some fashion. But if you want faster, less intrusive security measures at the checkpoint, this may be one way to go.

[Jim Alfredson]

I read the blog. I still say the whole thing is an over-reaction by both parties.

The civil suit is stupid. If the guy refuses to go through the scanner, the should allow him to go through the metal detectors or else they should take them out completely. What good are they if you can or cannot chose to use them? Either make it a choice that everyone can make or get rid of them altogether.

Alexander's right. The next time there's a successful terrorist attack, everyone will be up in arms that security isn't stringent enough. I find the outrage at this to be laughable considering the rights that the previous administration shredded (oops, just made it political, sorry!)

[jlhoots]

I'm a retired gastroenterologist.

Maybe I could volunteer to do colonoscopies on reluctant passengers.

[Christiern]

They have now scratched toddlers off the fondle list.

[Dave Garrett]

[Noj]

Is that the whole fist, officer?

[Chuck Nessa]

That might change some minds.

[Jazzmoose]

In answer to the question posed in the topic, no, we cannot leave politics out of this. How can we when it was politics that created the problem?

[Guy Berger]

Alexander's right. The next time there's a successful terrorist attack, everyone will be up in arms that security isn't stringent enough.

Yes.

One question about the radiation issue - how substantive is this scientifically? How does it compare to the radiation you incur flying around on an airplane?

Guy

[Man with the Golden Arm]

Easy peasy give my lemon a squeezey.

you didn't mention the turn and cough part.

[Christiern]

They should have consulted Issac Yeffet, former Director of Security for El Al, before spending all that money and making such fools of themselves. Does it not seem logical to ask for advice from people who are successfully addressing this security problem? The following link takes you to Mr. Yeffet's appearanjce on yesterdays Olbermann show. I tried to parse it down to the interview, but wasn't ab;e yo, so this is the whole segment, commercials and animated fluff included. Just move the "Play" indicator forward to 3:14

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/40244871#40244871