Unutterably Silly Airport security decisions?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

ok, 2.3. seriously. we all have pretty much the same parts here.

move on! nothing new to see!

I was being serious. What about intersex people? Non-op or pre-op transsexuals?

[happy_terd]

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

why be embarassed? there is nothing going on that everyone else is not going through.

all y'all are actually giving the bad guys a win in their column by seeing everyone up in arms. we're all going through the same thing. this should be viewed as working together towards a common goal. keep your head high, lace up your boots and march on. just remember that we all have the same equipment on the scanner screen, and the ones that are different mean harm.

seriously, y'all need to chill

I don't think it's a question of embarrassment, so much as indignity and personal affront. The whole process is pretty much an indignity, actually, but with the scans TSA has overstepped.

If all this "security" is necessary, why doesn't TSA profile? Profiling is the most effective way of dealing with terrorists. Yeah, yeah, I know all about the PC notion that profiling is bad. But so is a warrantless and invasive personal search, which is actually supposed to be forbidden by the 4th Amendment.

If the security problem does as to justify profiling, which is NOT unconstitutional under circumstances like this, then it does not justify the scans & patdowns.

We have allowed the government, through TSA, to assume powers that free people should require be exercised with extreme care and subject to oversight by independent judges. Instead, we get idiotic rules enforced in assembly line circumstances, with no right to challenge or object.

Are we supposed to put up with this crap forever? What comes next? I'll tell you - whatever damnfool thing seems logical to the TSA bureaucrats, without regard for reason or common sense. This sort of relentless extension of regulation is inherent in bureaucratic organizations, and needs to be brought under control.

Personally, I think that the profit motive would do a good job of that - put the responsibility for security on the airlines, and let people who want to fly pay for the cost, and vote with their feet by moving to airlines which reflect the customers' level of concern. You prefer the level of security you think is afforded by scans & patdowns? Fly Big Brother Flights. You think that every plane should have 3 armed guards on board? Fly Air Marshall. You think the best thing to do is issue every passenger a box cutter & see what happens to the next guy who tries to blow up a plane with his shoes? It's the Eyes of Texas Airlines for you (and me.)

[Bikeridr]

All Nude Airways will be my airline of choice
(I consider the link "work safe", no offensive pictures but one topless sketch/drawing)

Ayway, the Germans ar way ahead in this matter:
Nudist Flight (Text only - press release style)

[desertblues]

I'll go with the security measures as I think it's in my interest too to arrive somewhere in one piece.

But I won't embarras myself by letting these measures restrict my freedom of movement. I mean, life in itself sometimes is hard to figure out. So I hope to have enough common sense not to let these threats intimidate me, and as Kindlekitten said ' to chill out'.

This being said; I really am a very private person. I don't like people touching me for other reason than medical, compassion or love.
So yes, I will be embarrassed walking through the bodyscan of let myself be patted down. Also I know there's only two options;but my embarrasment is not a rational thing, I guess.

Also: I'm really very ticklish.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

I was being serious. What about intersex people? Non-op or pre-op transsexuals?

that's why I upped it to 2.3

Originally Posted by Harmon

I don't think it's a question of embarrassment, so much as indignity and personal affront. The whole process is pretty much an indignity, actually, but with the scans TSA has overstepped.

If all this "security" is necessary, why doesn't TSA profile? Profiling is the most effective way of dealing with terrorists. Yeah, yeah, I know all about the PC notion that profiling is bad. But so is a warrantless and invasive personal search, which is actually supposed to be forbidden by the 4th Amendment.
If the security problem does as to justify profiling, which is NOT unconstitutional under circumstances like this, then it does not justify the scans & patdowns.

We have allowed the government, through TSA, to assume powers that free people should require be exercised with extreme care and subject to oversight by independent judges. Instead, we get idiotic rules enforced in assembly line circumstances, with no right to challenge or object.

Are we supposed to put up with this crap forever? What comes next? I'll tell you - whatever damnfool thing seems logical to the TSA bureaucrats, without regard for reason or common sense. This sort of relentless extension of regulation is inherent in bureaucratic organizations, and needs to be brought under control.

Personally, I think that the profit motive would do a good job of that - put the responsibility for security on the airlines, and let people who want to fly pay for the cost, and vote with their feet by moving to airlines which reflect the customers' level of concern. You prefer the level of security you think is afforded by scans & patdowns? Fly Big Brother Flights. You think that every plane should have 3 armed guards on board? Fly Air Marshall. You think the best thing to do is issue every passenger a box cutter & see what happens to the next guy who tries to blow up a plane with his shoes? It's the Eyes of Texas Airlines for you (and me.)

*actually I heard a discussion the other day on NPR where there are proposals for just that sort of deal. compiling a list of known ok fliers and streamlining the security check for those people. I would be fine with that.

**sounds like the airline for me! I would be happy to fly with a visibly armed agent anytime, anywhere!

Originally Posted by desertblues

I'll go with the security measures as I think it's in my interest too to arrive somewhere in one piece.

But I won't embarras myself by letting these measures restrict my freedom of movement. I mean, life in itself sometimes is hard to figure out. So I hope to have enough common sense not to let these threats intimidate me, and as Kindlekitten said ' to chill out'.

This being said; I really am a very private person. I don't like people touching me for other reason than medical, compassion or love.
So yes, I will be embarrassed walking through the bodyscan of let myself be patted down. Also I know there's only two options;but my embarrasment is not a rational thing, I guess.

Also: I'm really very ticklish.

having been subjected to several patdowns due to sporting the latest in titanium accessories, I have to say that there has been nothing remotely sexual or stimulating in the patdowns. the full body scanners are much nicer as they are very quick and efficient. you can't even see the people who are watching the scanners.

[Russell Brooks]

Originally Posted by happy_terd

lololol. Airplane was a classic.

[charonme]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

there has been nothing remotely sexual or stimulating in the patdowns

that is true for the one being groped, but how can you be sure about the masseur?

Originally Posted by Harmon

You think the best thing to do is issue every passenger a box cutter & see what happens to the next guy who tries to blow up a plane with his shoes?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by charonme

that is true for the one being groped, but how can you be sure about the masseur?

Or if the planes has originated from Texas or Idaho.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by charonme

that is true for the one being groped, but how can you be sure about the masseur?

*shrug* if they get their jollies off with the back of their hands then so be it.

I've always been of the opinion that an armed society is a polite society

[BearMountainBooks]

I'm not convinced the "low level" radiation is safe. I've read conflicting reports, but in general, if you have also had other low-level work done (teeth, MRI, c-scans) adding this to it is not a good thing.

I really resent the infringement on my privacy, partly because this was not enacted into law--no one voted on this. The TSA just showed up and put the policy in place. They act outside the Constitution which is a separate problem, but a problem because it speaks to "This would be too hard to pass into law, so we'll create an agency and let them make decisions that may or may not make sense and may actually infringe on the Constitution."

In a word, it's horseshit.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I've always been of the opinion that an armed society is a polite society

Something we can agree on.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I'm not convinced the "low level" radiation is safe. I've read conflicting reports, but in general, if you have also had other low-level work done (teeth, MRI, c-scans) adding this to it is not a good thing.

I really resent the infringement on my privacy, partly because this was not enacted into law--no one voted on this. The TSA just showed up and put the policy in place. They act outside the Constitution which is a separate problem, but a problem because it speaks to "This would be too hard to pass into law, so we'll create an agency and let them make decisions that may or may not make sense and may actually infringe on the Constitution."

In a word, it's horseshit.

oh! like the IRS?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

oh! like the IRS?

Well, the IRS is, at least, constitutional. Took an amendment to do it, though. And about 25 years ago, they were engaged in 4th amendment violations involving tax seizures, & the courts put a stop to it.

Plus, the IRS is a very competent organization, for a government entity, which might be damning with faint praise. Whenever something needs doing right, on the civilian side, Congress assigns it to the IRS, it seems.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

oh! like the IRS?

I was thinking more like the Federal Reserve...