Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Refusing to Fly Because of the TSA

2456710

Posts

  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Melkster wrote: »
    * Is there anyone else out there who refuses to fly because of the TSA and what has your experience been?

    Yeah, um. I have to fly sometimes but I'm considering driving for any distance less than some large number of miles out. I'm transgendered and starting to have ambiguous anatomy and I kind of consider it a big deal to be outed by random TSA agents and possibly have security become a big old thing.

    It's just... not something I want to deal with, you know? If they do their pat down or whatever well then they're going to find stuff that will make everything a lot more difficult for me.

    This isn't a concern for most people, but it's big enough that it's starting to worry me. It's some bullshit that I'll avoid if I can in any way.

  • Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    The worst thing since they put the body scanners in is the huge lines they made at security. If I want to fly anywhere anymore I have to show up 2 hours early because the lines are so damn long and they move so damn slow. This is partly because they're using one scanner in an area that used to have 3 metal detectors, partly because they insist on trying to send EVERYONE through the scanner, and partly because of opt outs.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    This is always interesting to me because I have no idea what everyone's hang up is.

    Every single person on the planet already knows what you look like naked to the fidelity that a body scanner is capable of obtaining. I mean, if an ok artist looked at you in street clothes and drew what she thought you looked like naked chances are the drawing would be way closer to real life.

    LanlaornNinjaSquirrel
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    I've hated the TSA from it's inception (BWOOOOOOONG)

    Sorry

    Anyways I've never been a fan of it because it's a knee-jerk reaction. I mean it's a knee-jerk reaction that I can definitely understand the reasoning behind but it was still stupid response to 9/11. Could our airport security could have been a little better? Sure. But the TSA was and continues to be a ridiculous boondoggle that does very little to increase our safety while costing too much money and more importantly infringing on privacy like whoa.

    The thing that prevents 9/11 the second is 9/11 itself. The hijackings worked because the public had been conditioned to believe if they cooperated they wouldn't be harmed. That's out the window now. The next group that tries to hijack a plane is going to get beaten to death with their own detached limbs.

    HappylilElf on
    QuidEchoshrykeTechnicus RexRhesus PositiveMego ThorDivideByZeroMan in the MistsMuse Among MenGreasyKidsStuff
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Right. Consent is the big thing, and consent to is implied when you buy the ticket and go up to the gate.

    Commercial flight is still a voluntary act, and you still have other options available to you, though almost all of them are some combination of being much more time-consuming, expensive, and uncomfortable.

    Would you agree that police shouldn't need probable cause to search the trunk of your car, then? After all, driving is voluntary, you could walk. The alternative is merely more time consuming, expensive, or uncomfortable.

  • EriktheVikingGamerEriktheVikingGamer Imperial Magistrate of the Mantis Clan Registered User regular
    Marty81 wrote: »
    The worst thing since they put the body scanners in is the huge lines they made at security. If I want to fly anywhere anymore I have to show up 2 hours early because the lines are so damn long and they move so damn slow. This is partly because they're using one scanner in an area that used to have 3 metal detectors, partly because they insist on trying to send EVERYONE through the scanner, and partly because of opt outs.

    This whole thing right here is part of what is all screwy about it. If the intent of implementing such protocols is to prevent a terrorist from setting a bomb off or hijacking an airplane again then as to the former you're kind of not really dealing with the problem because all you've done is move where the crowd is and as to the latter you can just as easily put the money into hiring more Marshals and giving better emergency situation training to on-board staff.

    As to the OP topic: Body scanners, in my opinion, are really on the low end as far as reasons as to why one might not want to interact with the TSA. There really is a metric fuckton(tm) of articles out there as to how the TSA has acted ever since its inception. Now, saying the entirety of the TSA is bad isn't probably accurate (bad apples and all that) but just spend a couple minutes on Google and see where the subject can take you. As with anything though, avoid any article that has the words "Alex Jones" in it.

    Origin ID: RedBeardViking
    Steam ID: MovieStuffs
    BNet ID: VikingErik#1560
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Do I think the X-ray machines are invasive? Yes. Do I care? Not so much.


    Taking a commercial air flight is a lot like a collective action situation; you may just be doing your thing, but there's 200 other people on that plane doing their own thing, and a crew of a dozen people doing their thing to make sure you and everyone else gets where they're going safely and on time.

    You're putting hundreds on people into an omnidirectional high-speed craft loaded with a thousand gallons of explosives and made of sheet metal.


    Commercial flight is a voluntary situation. My right to my own privacy and comfort can withstand a substantial assault before it trumps the safety and security of everyone else on that flight.

    But, the thing is they're not actually all that effective. There have been tons of tests where people have gotten lots of things past them - guns, bombs, knives, etc. If they did provide a real level of high security then sure, but it's really just an illusion of security, making people feel safe

    Illusion of safety/reality of safety, that's not really what this is about. Its about how much privacy violation one should accept before it becomes to much.

    If somebody came up with something that was just as intrusive, but effective. Would you accept the violation of privacy that accompanied it?

    I would still dislike it just as much, but at least it would serve an actual purpose

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Right. Consent is the big thing, and consent to is implied when you buy the ticket and go up to the gate.

    Commercial flight is still a voluntary act, and you still have other options available to you, though almost all of them are some combination of being much more time-consuming, expensive, and uncomfortable.

    Would you agree that police shouldn't need probable cause to search the trunk of your car, then? After all, driving is voluntary, you could walk. The alternative is merely more time consuming, expensive, or uncomfortable.

    That's a curious question, because I generally don't worry about having illegal things on my person that could be seized during a search.

  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    Something I've been wondering.

    If someone high up (whoever has influence on these things) finally decided that, you know what, all this illusion of security is expensive bullshit and the last several times someone's tried to down a plane, it was stopped by the passengers on board, so they're getting rid of all the useless security checks - would there even be a public outrage? Aside from the fake outrage that would come from Fox News and the usual suspects, would the general public actually go into conniptions about letting the terrorists win or such fearmongering like that? Or would people in general be glad to be rid of it?

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Mayabird wrote: »
    Something I've been wondering.

    If someone high up (whoever has influence on these things) finally decided that, you know what, all this illusion of security is expensive bullshit and the last several times someone's tried to down a plane, it was stopped by the passengers on board, so they're getting rid of all the useless security checks - would there even be a public outrage? Aside from the fake outrage that would come from Fox News and the usual suspects, would the general public actually go into conniptions about letting the terrorists win or such fearmongering like that? Or would people in general be glad to be rid of it?

    Fox News would be happy to see the TSA go. The right-wing talking heads have had no good things to say about the body scanners and, despite being a Republican invention, think the TSA is a waste of money.

    spool32
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Mayabird wrote: »
    Something I've been wondering.

    If someone high up (whoever has influence on these things) finally decided that, you know what, all this illusion of security is expensive bullshit and the last several times someone's tried to down a plane, it was stopped by the passengers on board, so they're getting rid of all the useless security checks - would there even be a public outrage? Aside from the fake outrage that would come from Fox News and the usual suspects, would the general public actually go into conniptions about letting the terrorists win or such fearmongering like that? Or would people in general be glad to be rid of it?

    Fox News would be happy to see the TSA go. The right-wing talking heads have had no good things to say about the body scanners and, despite being a Republican invention, think the TSA is a waste of money.

    Unfortunately there's an "unstoppable force meets immovable object" thing going on here regarding their ideology. Security and not spending money on the federal level. Both things would clash. They would run with whatever negative exists. In this case, "Obama is compromising our security!" will become the narrative.

    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
    AtomikaMortiousshrykeDivideByZero
  • Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    Plus it might actually embolden a terrorist strike. Not because having them there would have prevented the strike, but because terrorists like having us inconvenienced and afraid, and the modern security theater is a constant reminder of how afraid we're all supposed to be.

  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    My dad loves the scanners, since he has a knee replacement which always sets off the metal detectors. Used to take 20 minutes of confused patdowns in and around his knee with the wand and whatnot, but now he just gets scanned and away he goes.

    It's always amusing to me since he's basically the only person I know who likes the damned things. I've been selected for screening a couple times in PHL, but mostly due to large lines I was eventually allowed to go through the metal detector each time. That said, I really don't find appeals to slippery slope or constitutionality to be very relevant in this situation. I'd be happy to see them go mostly since they don't really do anything, but that can be said for almost all of the airport security theater.

    aeNqQM9.jpg
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Mayabird wrote: »
    Something I've been wondering.

    If someone high up (whoever has influence on these things) finally decided that, you know what, all this illusion of security is expensive bullshit and the last several times someone's tried to down a plane, it was stopped by the passengers on board, so they're getting rid of all the useless security checks - would there even be a public outrage? Aside from the fake outrage that would come from Fox News and the usual suspects, would the general public actually go into conniptions about letting the terrorists win or such fearmongering like that? Or would people in general be glad to be rid of it?

    Fox News would be happy to see the TSA go. The right-wing talking heads have had no good things to say about the body scanners and, despite being a Republican invention, think the TSA is a waste of money.

    It wouldn't just be Fox, it would be all the 24 hour news networks because fearmongering sells really really well

    Public opinion would probably play along until the next shiny WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE comes along and then promptly forget about it entirely

  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    I dont really give a crap about the scanners, but I'd be happy to dissolve the TSA and hand the whole thing over to the Coast Guard.

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Do I think the X-ray machines are invasive? Yes. Do I care? Not so much.


    Taking a commercial air flight is a lot like a collective action situation; you may just be doing your thing, but there's 200 other people on that plane doing their own thing, and a crew of a dozen people doing their thing to make sure you and everyone else gets where they're going safely and on time.

    You're putting hundreds on people into an omnidirectional high-speed craft loaded with a thousand gallons of explosives and made of sheet metal.


    Commercial flight is a voluntary situation. My right to my own privacy and comfort can withstand a substantial assault before it trumps the safety and security of everyone else on that flight.

    But, the thing is they're not actually all that effective. There have been tons of tests where people have gotten lots of things past them - guns, bombs, knives, etc. If they did provide a real level of high security then sure, but it's really just an illusion of security, making people feel safe

    Illusion of safety/reality of safety, that's not really what this is about. Its about how much privacy violation one should accept before it becomes to much.

    If somebody came up with something that was just as intrusive, but effective. Would you accept the violation of privacy that accompanied it?

    There is a difference between doing something for shits and giggles and doing something that has a noticeable effect though.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
    PLA
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Henroid wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Mayabird wrote: »
    Something I've been wondering.

    If someone high up (whoever has influence on these things) finally decided that, you know what, all this illusion of security is expensive bullshit and the last several times someone's tried to down a plane, it was stopped by the passengers on board, so they're getting rid of all the useless security checks - would there even be a public outrage? Aside from the fake outrage that would come from Fox News and the usual suspects, would the general public actually go into conniptions about letting the terrorists win or such fearmongering like that? Or would people in general be glad to be rid of it?

    Fox News would be happy to see the TSA go. The right-wing talking heads have had no good things to say about the body scanners and, despite being a Republican invention, think the TSA is a waste of money.

    Unfortunately there's an "unstoppable force meets immovable object" thing going on here regarding their ideology. Security and not spending money on the federal level. Both things would clash. They would run with whatever negative exists. In this case, "Obama is compromising our security!" will become the narrative.

    Then look at the bright side: if the right-wingers contradict what they said earlier, it will make for a great Daily Show bit when Jon says, "Roll clip b-12."

    emnmnme on
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular

    Kinda, no, not really. The TSA is going to stop using one vendor of the backscatter machines in airports. The existing machines from that vendor will be re-purposed at other locations. Other backscatter machines will be used along with the millimeter wave machines. It's really an amazing bit of PR though.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Right. Consent is the big thing, and consent to is implied when you buy the ticket and go up to the gate.

    Commercial flight is still a voluntary act, and you still have other options available to you, though almost all of them are some combination of being much more time-consuming, expensive, and uncomfortable.

    Would you agree that police shouldn't need probable cause to search the trunk of your car, then? After all, driving is voluntary, you could walk. The alternative is merely more time consuming, expensive, or uncomfortable.

    That's a curious question, because I generally don't worry about having illegal things on my person that could be seized during a search.

    Nor I. So that settles it, no need for the fourth amendment anymore.

  • CindersCinders Whose sails were black when it was windy Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Mayabird wrote: »
    Something I've been wondering.

    If someone high up (whoever has influence on these things) finally decided that, you know what, all this illusion of security is expensive bullshit and the last several times someone's tried to down a plane, it was stopped by the passengers on board, so they're getting rid of all the useless security checks - would there even be a public outrage? Aside from the fake outrage that would come from Fox News and the usual suspects, would the general public actually go into conniptions about letting the terrorists win or such fearmongering like that? Or would people in general be glad to be rid of it?

    Fox News would be happy to see the TSA go. The right-wing talking heads have had no good things to say about the body scanners and, despite being a Republican invention, think the TSA is a waste of money.

    The right wing doesn't actually give a shit about the invasive security measures, they just want to let private security firms handle the job. See also the hard ass fight the TSA had to wage just to earn the right to unionize.

    Kana
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Right. Consent is the big thing, and consent to is implied when you buy the ticket and go up to the gate.

    Commercial flight is still a voluntary act, and you still have other options available to you, though almost all of them are some combination of being much more time-consuming, expensive, and uncomfortable.

    Would you agree that police shouldn't need probable cause to search the trunk of your car, then? After all, driving is voluntary, you could walk. The alternative is merely more time consuming, expensive, or uncomfortable.

    That's a curious question, because I generally don't worry about having illegal things on my person that could be seized during a search.

    Nor I. So that settles it, no need for the fourth amendment anymore.

    It's a slippery slope argument, but that kind of liberty is always the first thing to go when there's a precedent for violence done under the protection of those rights.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited January 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Right. Consent is the big thing, and consent to is implied when you buy the ticket and go up to the gate.

    Commercial flight is still a voluntary act, and you still have other options available to you, though almost all of them are some combination of being much more time-consuming, expensive, and uncomfortable.

    Would you agree that police shouldn't need probable cause to search the trunk of your car, then? After all, driving is voluntary, you could walk. The alternative is merely more time consuming, expensive, or uncomfortable.

    that's not really a fair comparison.

    a better comparison would be checkpoints on the road. which have been ruled unconstitutional in some cases, unless there is a clear, reasonable justification for it. if there is, it can be allowed to have the cops stop everyone who comes through, regardless of individualized reasonable suspicion or PC.

    also - you do impliedly consent to things when you get a license in drive. in my state, you impliedly consent to a breath test. if you refuse it, basically refusing a search of your person, you are penalized.

    So It Goes on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Fwiw I'm not a fan of implied consent when it comes to driving, either. But good point on checkpoints versus individual searches.

    I just get annoyed because the consent is treated as voluntary, even though it may be only loosely so. Like, if my job needs me to go to Hawaii for business (they regularly do) then what? Hop a freighter?

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    if you don't want to be subject to a pat down, yes. there will still be regulations on whatever boat you take, I assume. unless you sail yourself.

    if there's a valid checkpoint on the road coming up, you can always turn around and go back to avoid going through it. inconvenient, yes, but not forcing you to consent. ultimately that's where the 4th comes into play anyway.



    this is a separate issue of what SHOULD be required, whether the machines are effective at stopping weapons making it on board, etc.

  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    I guess I've just never been someone who placed a huge priority on personal privacy. I mean, I don't want weirdos digging through my trash for my SSN, but if a cop asks to look in my trunk (and has on several occasions), I've never really been one to ask for a warrant because I'm not in the habit of transporting drugs or storing dead hookers in there.

    davidsdurions
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    I guess I've just never been someone who placed a huge priority on personal privacy. I mean, I don't want weirdos digging through my trash for my SSN, but if a cop asks to look in my trunk (and has on several occasions), I've never really been one to ask for a warrant because I'm not in the habit of transporting drugs or storing dead hookers in there.

    c'mon ross, this is a pretty fallacious argument.

    when we're talking about what the constitution does or does not prohibit it's really a nonstarter to say "why would you not want to be searched unless you had something to hide!"

    QuidAManFromEarthmcdermottspool32emp123Muse Among MenSCREECH OF THE FARGTofystedeth
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I guess I've just never been someone who placed a huge priority on personal privacy. I mean, I don't want weirdos digging through my trash for my SSN, but if a cop asks to look in my trunk (and has on several occasions), I've never really been one to ask for a warrant because I'm not in the habit of transporting drugs or storing dead hookers in there.

    c'mon ross, this is a pretty fallacious argument.

    when we're talking about what the constitution does or does not prohibit it's really a nonstarter to say "why would you not want to be searched unless you had something to hide!"

    Oh, I don't disagree that the discussion over violation of 4th is pertinent, I'm just saying that I, personally, have never felt strongly about my own privacy when it comes to official legal authorities.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Cinders wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Mayabird wrote: »
    Something I've been wondering.

    If someone high up (whoever has influence on these things) finally decided that, you know what, all this illusion of security is expensive bullshit and the last several times someone's tried to down a plane, it was stopped by the passengers on board, so they're getting rid of all the useless security checks - would there even be a public outrage? Aside from the fake outrage that would come from Fox News and the usual suspects, would the general public actually go into conniptions about letting the terrorists win or such fearmongering like that? Or would people in general be glad to be rid of it?

    Fox News would be happy to see the TSA go. The right-wing talking heads have had no good things to say about the body scanners and, despite being a Republican invention, think the TSA is a waste of money.

    The right wing doesn't actually give a shit about the invasive security measures, they just want to let private security firms handle the job. See also the hard ass fight the TSA had to wage just to earn the right to unionize.

    That's not really true - the Texas legislature only failed to pass legislation banning the TSA pornoscanners from Texas airports after the DoJ said they'd stop all flights into or out of the state if we took that measure.

    The right wing cares quite a lot about the invasive security measures, and "security theater" is a phrase you will hear frequently if you spend some time looking into the opinions of that slice of the electorate.

    spool32 on
    emnmnme
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    You hear "security theater" pretty much no matter what group of people you're talking to, I think.

    spool32
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I guess I've just never been someone who placed a huge priority on personal privacy. I mean, I don't want weirdos digging through my trash for my SSN, but if a cop asks to look in my trunk (and has on several occasions), I've never really been one to ask for a warrant because I'm not in the habit of transporting drugs or storing dead hookers in there.

    c'mon ross, this is a pretty fallacious argument.

    when we're talking about what the constitution does or does not prohibit it's really a nonstarter to say "why would you not want to be searched unless you had something to hide!"

    Oh, I don't disagree that the discussion over violation of 4th is pertinent, I'm just saying that I, personally, have never felt strongly about my own privacy when it comes to official legal authorities.

    Let's be honest - a large part of that is the p-word in action.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    The TSA has been a punching bag for the right since pretty much the day it was announced. It's a great target, too... pretty much the textbook example of a bloated, pointless waste of taxpayer money that does little or nothing in service to its stated goals while growing basically unchecked.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    If you don't want to have to deal with security, there are preclearances you can get. I don't even think its that expensive.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    The TSA has been a punching bag for the right since pretty much the day it was announced. It's a great target, too... pretty much the textbook example of a bloated, pointless waste of taxpayer money that does little or nothing in service to its stated goals while growing basically unchecked.

    They're wedged in there tight now, too.

    http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/08/5100669/tsa-union-gets-sacramento-airport.html

  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    If you don't want to have to deal with security, there are preclearances you can get. I don't even think its that expensive.

    I think you need to be a frequent traveler of some airline to do that. Regardless, the route I take every summer is not on the list, which is the only way it'd help me personally, so >.>

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    The TSA has been a punching bag for the right since pretty much the day it was announced. It's a great target, too... pretty much the textbook example of a bloated, pointless waste of taxpayer money that does little or nothing in service to its stated goals while growing basically unchecked.

    Plus all you have to do is check the brown suspicious people.

  • Jubal77Jubal77 Registered User regular
    I have always been of the opinion that if you are not an asshole then you won't get bothered. Of all the accounts of the "atrocities" committed by TSA there is always the individual shouting or arguing or just generally being an asshole.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    I have always been of the opinion that if you are not an asshole then you won't get bothered. Of all the accounts of the "atrocities" committed by TSA there is always the individual shouting or arguing or just generally being an asshole.

    This is incorrect.

    When I came home last Christmas, the TSA didn't believe that I was American and hassled me for about twenty minutes before letting me in the country.

    Assholes probably get gigged more often, but it's not a hard and fast rule.

    Lh96QHG.png
    spool32shryke
  • Jubal77Jubal77 Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    I wasnt trying to state it as overall fact it was just my observation. There is always going to be special cases. I actually got pat down on my last flight back from New Mexico. The reason? I forgot to empty one of my pockets. My own fault. I am brown-ish too.

    Jubal77 on
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    emnmnme wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    The TSA has been a punching bag for the right since pretty much the day it was announced. It's a great target, too... pretty much the textbook example of a bloated, pointless waste of taxpayer money that does little or nothing in service to its stated goals while growing basically unchecked.

    They're wedged in there tight now, too.

    http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/08/5100669/tsa-union-gets-sacramento-airport.html
    AFGE National President J. David Cox Sr. said... "There simply are some functions too important to be left to companies that would be unaccountable to the American people, and securing American skies is definitely one of them."

    ROTFL the TSA is the opposite of an agency that is accountable to the American people....

    spool32 on
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    * Is there anyone else out there who refuses to fly because of the TSA and what has your experience been?

    Yeah, um. I have to fly sometimes but I'm considering driving for any distance less than some large number of miles out. I'm transgendered and starting to have ambiguous anatomy and I kind of consider it a big deal to be outed by random TSA agents and possibly have security become a big old thing.

    It's just... not something I want to deal with, you know? If they do their pat down or whatever well then they're going to find stuff that will make everything a lot more difficult for me.

    This isn't a concern for most people, but it's big enough that it's starting to worry me. It's some bullshit that I'll avoid if I can in any way.

    Thank you for sharing this perspective. It's one I hadn't considered before.

    Marty81MelkstershrykelonelyahavaPLA
Sign In or Register to comment.