quite a few of these search procedures are unnecessary since they cut off access to the cockpit. All you really need now are bomb sniffing dogs and x-ray scanners for weapons in luggage.
Keeping enough trained dogs in rotation to do the job properly at a major airport would be next to impossible though and computer sniffing equipment isn't quite there yet.
3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
You can use bomb sniffing bees instead.
Seriously. Too bad I'm phone posting so I can't cite that they are capable of it >.>
I also am on the "no searches" side of the argument, but I also recognize that people will have irrational fears and need some kind of security to make them feel better. So what is the minimum amount of security that will make you feel safe, Atomic Ross, since that is truly the purpose of the TSA. It's not there to make you safe, it's just there to make you feel safe.
As I said, I personally don't need anything particular, just a reasonable assurance that safety protocols are being followed to the maximum level of efficiency and fairness in a way that the large majority of travelers can agree upon. I just don't happen to really care what form that takes. If the studies say we need scanners that take pictures of our genitals, than so be it; if all we need is a wave from the metal detector and a luggage scan, that's cool for me, too.
And the fear of having your plane hijacked by crazy people and blown the fuck up isn't an "irrational fear," so stop saying that; it may not happen often, but it does happen and protocols need to be in place to assure people we're doing the best we can to prevent it. The fear of your plane being attacked by spacemen or the fear of your plane filling with Jell-o pudding, those are "irrational fears."
I'm more afraid of someone igniting a bomb while I'm in the security line.
Europe doesn't make you take your shoes off, IIRC.
I had to in London and Edinburgh. I won't forget that, because it was winter and I had the most impossible pair of boots on.
The only time I've had to take my shoes off in the past little while while flying is to/from the US. Canada -> Europe and back, nope. Domestic flights, nope, only when going to the US
The to/from is important, yes. The FAA makes entry for commercial international flights into US airspace contingent upon certain security requirements that they've negotiated with the government authorities that run the airports on the originating side. Recall that every incident of terrorism that's involved airtravel in the US since 9/11 involved a flight that originated outside of the US. The "shoebomber" who is responsible for making you take off your footwear boarded a flight bound to the US from Paris. The underwear bomber who didn't realize apparently that you need a container to explosively detonate a combustible material incinerated his testicles in Detroit, but he boarded that plane in Amsterdam.
Our government is responsible for most of the shit you have to deal with when flying overseas into an American airport. Although I happen to think that there's some more reasonable grounds for putting you through this: that's where we've seen attempted terrorist activity.
Well at a non-Canadian airport I doubt they have a whole section cordoned off just for US flights. I'm pretty sure that when I boarded my plane in Italy I saw a couple US destination flights along the way to my gate, and I don't recall having to take my shoes off
I also am on the "no searches" side of the argument, but I also recognize that people will have irrational fears and need some kind of security to make them feel better. So what is the minimum amount of security that will make you feel safe, Atomic Ross, since that is truly the purpose of the TSA. It's not there to make you safe, it's just there to make you feel safe.
As I said, I personally don't need anything particular, just a reasonable assurance that safety protocols are being followed to the maximum level of efficiency and fairness in a way that the large majority of travelers can agree upon. I just don't happen to really care what form that takes. If the studies say we need scanners that take pictures of our genitals, than so be it; if all we need is a wave from the metal detector and a luggage scan, that's cool for me, too.
And the fear of having your plane hijacked by crazy people and blown the fuck up isn't an "irrational fear," so stop saying that; it may not happen often, but it does happen and protocols need to be in place to assure people we're doing the best we can to prevent it. The fear of your plane being attacked by spacemen or the fear of your plane filling with Jell-o pudding, those are "irrational fears."
I'm more afraid of someone igniting a bomb while I'm in the security line.
I also am on the "no searches" side of the argument, but I also recognize that people will have irrational fears and need some kind of security to make them feel better. So what is the minimum amount of security that will make you feel safe, Atomic Ross, since that is truly the purpose of the TSA. It's not there to make you safe, it's just there to make you feel safe.
As I said, I personally don't need anything particular, just a reasonable assurance that safety protocols are being followed to the maximum level of efficiency and fairness in a way that the large majority of travelers can agree upon. I just don't happen to really care what form that takes. If the studies say we need scanners that take pictures of our genitals, than so be it; if all we need is a wave from the metal detector and a luggage scan, that's cool for me, too.
And the fear of having your plane hijacked by crazy people and blown the fuck up isn't an "irrational fear," so stop saying that; it may not happen often, but it does happen and protocols need to be in place to assure people we're doing the best we can to prevent it. The fear of your plane being attacked by spacemen or the fear of your plane filling with Jell-o pudding, those are "irrational fears."
I'm more afraid of someone igniting a bomb while I'm in the security line.
This is a very real threat.
We'll need a security check point prior to line entrance, then.
But then there may be a line for that check point...
I also am on the "no searches" side of the argument, but I also recognize that people will have irrational fears and need some kind of security to make them feel better. So what is the minimum amount of security that will make you feel safe, Atomic Ross, since that is truly the purpose of the TSA. It's not there to make you safe, it's just there to make you feel safe.
As I said, I personally don't need anything particular, just a reasonable assurance that safety protocols are being followed to the maximum level of efficiency and fairness in a way that the large majority of travelers can agree upon. I just don't happen to really care what form that takes. If the studies say we need scanners that take pictures of our genitals, than so be it; if all we need is a wave from the metal detector and a luggage scan, that's cool for me, too.
And the fear of having your plane hijacked by crazy people and blown the fuck up isn't an "irrational fear," so stop saying that; it may not happen often, but it does happen and protocols need to be in place to assure people we're doing the best we can to prevent it. The fear of your plane being attacked by spacemen or the fear of your plane filling with Jell-o pudding, those are "irrational fears."
I'm more afraid of someone igniting a bomb while I'm in the security line.
This is a very real threat.
Yeah, if you think about it, an airplane isn't such a great target given a large bomb is not going to be easy to get on board in any case, it's just very dramatic. But if some group detonated bombs in airports scattered across the country, that would be way more effective than any number of shitty underwear bombs
I also am on the "no searches" side of the argument, but I also recognize that people will have irrational fears and need some kind of security to make them feel better. So what is the minimum amount of security that will make you feel safe, Atomic Ross, since that is truly the purpose of the TSA. It's not there to make you safe, it's just there to make you feel safe.
As I said, I personally don't need anything particular, just a reasonable assurance that safety protocols are being followed to the maximum level of efficiency and fairness in a way that the large majority of travelers can agree upon. I just don't happen to really care what form that takes. If the studies say we need scanners that take pictures of our genitals, than so be it; if all we need is a wave from the metal detector and a luggage scan, that's cool for me, too.
And the fear of having your plane hijacked by crazy people and blown the fuck up isn't an "irrational fear," so stop saying that; it may not happen often, but it does happen and protocols need to be in place to assure people we're doing the best we can to prevent it. The fear of your plane being attacked by spacemen or the fear of your plane filling with Jell-o pudding, those are "irrational fears."
I'm more afraid of someone igniting a bomb while I'm in the security line.
This is a very real threat.
Yeah, if you think about it, an airplane isn't such a great target given a large bomb is not going to be easy to get on board in any case, it's just very dramatic. But if some group detonated bombs in airports scattered across the country, that would be way more effective than any number of shitty underwear bombs
The reason why airplanes are targets have more to do with the fact that one the bomb explodes, they most likely will not stay in the air, and all that fuel is rather combustible.
Hijacking the plane is obtaining the bomb they want to use. It's not the end-goal.
This is not a threat anymore. Between 9/11 and locked cockpits, using planes as weapons themselves simply doesn't work anymore.
It could still be feasible for hostage taking if the hostages don't immediately overrun the terrorists for fear of attempts of using the plane as a weapon, but deterring that doesn't require random searches or extensive detainment after people are already past the scanners/metal detectors.
Don't like it? Vote for someone who will make it go away.
I don't think that's a particularly valid rhetorical position, however. Democracy, as they say, isn't three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
.
And we stop abuse in our democracy by using the constitution and case law, which is pretty clear on this point.
So the way to stop searches at airports is to convince 51 percent of the population that they are being irrational(Edit:Or an amendment I suppose) . Not just complain that they are being irrational so their vote doesn't count.
rockrnger on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The fear of a hijacking is just as irrational as the fear of falling through the chair you're sitting on. Both have a non-zero chance of happening, but the odds are so small that neither warrant a second thought
I also am on the "no searches" side of the argument, but I also recognize that people will have irrational fears and need some kind of security to make them feel better. So what is the minimum amount of security that will make you feel safe, Atomic Ross, since that is truly the purpose of the TSA. It's not there to make you safe, it's just there to make you feel safe.
As I said, I personally don't need anything particular, just a reasonable assurance that safety protocols are being followed to the maximum level of efficiency and fairness in a way that the large majority of travelers can agree upon. I just don't happen to really care what form that takes. If the studies say we need scanners that take pictures of our genitals, than so be it; if all we need is a wave from the metal detector and a luggage scan, that's cool for me, too.
And the fear of having your plane hijacked by crazy people and blown the fuck up isn't an "irrational fear," so stop saying that; it may not happen often, but it does happen and protocols need to be in place to assure people we're doing the best we can to prevent it. The fear of your plane being attacked by spacemen or the fear of your plane filling with Jell-o pudding, those are "irrational fears."
I'm more afraid of someone igniting a bomb while I'm in the security line.
This is a very real threat.
Yeah, if you think about it, an airplane isn't such a great target given a large bomb is not going to be easy to get on board in any case, it's just very dramatic. But if some group detonated bombs in airports scattered across the country, that would be way more effective than any number of shitty underwear bombs
I think people are drastically over estimating the number of people who would die if you exploded a bomb in a security line. It seems somewhat comparable to a subway, but generally less packed, and the London Underground bombing had 4 separate explosions and killed 52 people with approximately 700 injuries. If you got a bomb on a plane and bring it down that's easily 200 people dead. There's also the fact that you can't reasonably secure all the places that have large crowds like the aforementioned subways, concerts, sporting event, etc and thus there are plenty of targets regardless of if you attempted to secure the security line.
It does seem to me that you could go back to something like pre-911 security where your only looking for bombs and large weapons/guns though because no one is going to allow a plane hijacking anymore.
The fear of a hijacking is just as irrational as the fear of falling through the chair you're sitting on. Both have a non-zero chance of happening, but the odds are so small that neither warrant a second thought
This is a ridiculous and unhelpful statement.
At this point I'm not even worried about terrorists so much as I am idiot Libertarians and conservatives using second amendment solutions to make sure that damn Muslim doesn't do anything funny.
I also am on the "no searches" side of the argument, but I also recognize that people will have irrational fears and need some kind of security to make them feel better. So what is the minimum amount of security that will make you feel safe, Atomic Ross, since that is truly the purpose of the TSA. It's not there to make you safe, it's just there to make you feel safe.
As I said, I personally don't need anything particular, just a reasonable assurance that safety protocols are being followed to the maximum level of efficiency and fairness in a way that the large majority of travelers can agree upon. I just don't happen to really care what form that takes. If the studies say we need scanners that take pictures of our genitals, than so be it; if all we need is a wave from the metal detector and a luggage scan, that's cool for me, too.
And the fear of having your plane hijacked by crazy people and blown the fuck up isn't an "irrational fear," so stop saying that; it may not happen often, but it does happen and protocols need to be in place to assure people we're doing the best we can to prevent it. The fear of your plane being attacked by spacemen or the fear of your plane filling with Jell-o pudding, those are "irrational fears."
I'm more afraid of someone igniting a bomb while I'm in the security line.
This is a very real threat.
We'll need a security check point prior to line entrance, then.
But then there may be a line for that check point...
My god. We're doomed.
We should just put security checkpoints at everyone's doorstep.
I also am on the "no searches" side of the argument, but I also recognize that people will have irrational fears and need some kind of security to make them feel better. So what is the minimum amount of security that will make you feel safe, Atomic Ross, since that is truly the purpose of the TSA. It's not there to make you safe, it's just there to make you feel safe.
As I said, I personally don't need anything particular, just a reasonable assurance that safety protocols are being followed to the maximum level of efficiency and fairness in a way that the large majority of travelers can agree upon. I just don't happen to really care what form that takes. If the studies say we need scanners that take pictures of our genitals, than so be it; if all we need is a wave from the metal detector and a luggage scan, that's cool for me, too.
And the fear of having your plane hijacked by crazy people and blown the fuck up isn't an "irrational fear," so stop saying that; it may not happen often, but it does happen and protocols need to be in place to assure people we're doing the best we can to prevent it. The fear of your plane being attacked by spacemen or the fear of your plane filling with Jell-o pudding, those are "irrational fears."
I'm more afraid of someone igniting a bomb while I'm in the security line.
This is a very real threat.
We'll need a security check point prior to line entrance, then.
But then there may be a line for that check point...
My god. We're doomed.
Israel checks your car prior to entering airport grounds in Tel Aviv.
They actually have a pretty decent setup. Rather than focusing on technology, they focus on looking for passengers who are acting suspicious. If they aren't sure about you, a trained ex military interrogator pulls you aside for a friendly chat (not a euphamism) and he watches to see how you react to being in close proximity with an authority figure. You don't have to takeoff your shoes. You don't go through anything more invasive than a (edit) metal detector. No backscatter xrays.
I'm sure Hamurabi wouldn't enjoy flying out of there, though. One thing about technology (and one of the reasons we like it so much) is no one ever accused a backscatter xray of being racist. People accuse ex IDF officers of racism 24/7, and not without cause.
I also am on the "no searches" side of the argument, but I also recognize that people will have irrational fears and need some kind of security to make them feel better. So what is the minimum amount of security that will make you feel safe, Atomic Ross, since that is truly the purpose of the TSA. It's not there to make you safe, it's just there to make you feel safe.
As I said, I personally don't need anything particular, just a reasonable assurance that safety protocols are being followed to the maximum level of efficiency and fairness in a way that the large majority of travelers can agree upon. I just don't happen to really care what form that takes. If the studies say we need scanners that take pictures of our genitals, than so be it; if all we need is a wave from the metal detector and a luggage scan, that's cool for me, too.
And the fear of having your plane hijacked by crazy people and blown the fuck up isn't an "irrational fear," so stop saying that; it may not happen often, but it does happen and protocols need to be in place to assure people we're doing the best we can to prevent it. The fear of your plane being attacked by spacemen or the fear of your plane filling with Jell-o pudding, those are "irrational fears."
I'm more afraid of someone igniting a bomb while I'm in the security line.
This is a very real threat.
We'll need a security check point prior to line entrance, then.
But then there may be a line for that check point...
My god. We're doomed.
Israel checks your car prior to entering airport grounds in Tel Aviv.
They actually have a pretty decent setup. Rather than focusing on technology, they focus on looking for passengers who are acting suspicious. If they aren't sure about you, a trained ex military interrogator pulls you aside for a friendly chat (not a euphamism) and he watches to see how you react to being in close proximity with an authority figure. You don't have to takeoff your shoes. You don't go through anything more invasive than a (edit) metal detector. No backscatter xrays.
Which is actually an interrogation method that results in many more false positives than actual positives because people aren't actually good at "reading" other people in high stress situations. Even people trained to do it.
I also am on the "no searches" side of the argument, but I also recognize that people will have irrational fears and need some kind of security to make them feel better. So what is the minimum amount of security that will make you feel safe, Atomic Ross, since that is truly the purpose of the TSA. It's not there to make you safe, it's just there to make you feel safe.
As I said, I personally don't need anything particular, just a reasonable assurance that safety protocols are being followed to the maximum level of efficiency and fairness in a way that the large majority of travelers can agree upon. I just don't happen to really care what form that takes. If the studies say we need scanners that take pictures of our genitals, than so be it; if all we need is a wave from the metal detector and a luggage scan, that's cool for me, too.
And the fear of having your plane hijacked by crazy people and blown the fuck up isn't an "irrational fear," so stop saying that; it may not happen often, but it does happen and protocols need to be in place to assure people we're doing the best we can to prevent it. The fear of your plane being attacked by spacemen or the fear of your plane filling with Jell-o pudding, those are "irrational fears."
I'm more afraid of someone igniting a bomb while I'm in the security line.
This is a very real threat.
We'll need a security check point prior to line entrance, then.
But then there may be a line for that check point...
My god. We're doomed.
Israel checks your car prior to entering airport grounds in Tel Aviv.
They actually have a pretty decent setup. Rather than focusing on technology, they focus on looking for passengers who are acting suspicious. If they aren't sure about you, a trained ex military interrogator pulls you aside for a friendly chat (not a euphamism) and he watches to see how you react to being in close proximity with an authority figure. You don't have to takeoff your shoes. You don't go through anything more invasive than a (edit) metal detector. No backscatter xrays.
Which is actually an interrogation method that results in many more false positives than actual positives because people aren't actually good at "reading" other people in high stress situations. Even people trained to do it.
All I know is they've had only one security breach. A dude with a knife tried unsuccesafully to hijack an airplane.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I also am on the "no searches" side of the argument, but I also recognize that people will have irrational fears and need some kind of security to make them feel better. So what is the minimum amount of security that will make you feel safe, Atomic Ross, since that is truly the purpose of the TSA. It's not there to make you safe, it's just there to make you feel safe.
As I said, I personally don't need anything particular, just a reasonable assurance that safety protocols are being followed to the maximum level of efficiency and fairness in a way that the large majority of travelers can agree upon. I just don't happen to really care what form that takes. If the studies say we need scanners that take pictures of our genitals, than so be it; if all we need is a wave from the metal detector and a luggage scan, that's cool for me, too.
And the fear of having your plane hijacked by crazy people and blown the fuck up isn't an "irrational fear," so stop saying that; it may not happen often, but it does happen and protocols need to be in place to assure people we're doing the best we can to prevent it. The fear of your plane being attacked by spacemen or the fear of your plane filling with Jell-o pudding, those are "irrational fears."
I'm more afraid of someone igniting a bomb while I'm in the security line.
This is a very real threat.
We'll need a security check point prior to line entrance, then.
But then there may be a line for that check point...
My god. We're doomed.
Israel checks your car prior to entering airport grounds in Tel Aviv.
They actually have a pretty decent setup. Rather than focusing on technology, they focus on looking for passengers who are acting suspicious. If they aren't sure about you, a trained ex military interrogator pulls you aside for a friendly chat (not a euphamism) and he watches to see how you react to being in close proximity with an authority figure. You don't have to takeoff your shoes. You don't go through anything more invasive than a (edit) metal detector. No backscatter xrays.
Which is actually an interrogation method that results in many more false positives than actual positives because people aren't actually good at "reading" other people in high stress situations. Even people trained to do it.
All I know is they've had only one security breach. A dude with a knife tried unsuccesafully to hijack an airplane.
Well, yeah. When you arrest everybody who looks remotely suspicious, you tend to not have many security breaches.
You also arrest a lot of people.
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+1
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I've got no real complaints about the TSA. In the dozen or so times I've traveled since 9/11 they were relatively efficient and friendly...even the time I lost my ID on the outbound trip and had to go through security with a faxed police report from my State Police that I reported my license as lost.
Now, I'm dubious at how much the security checkpoints really do to increase safety, but they do provide a deterrent. Since we don't have the people or funding (or political climate) to adopt security policies similar to the Israeli's, the security checkpoints we use now seem adequate to defend against most likely threats. This is evident in the lack of attempted bombings / hijackings that originate in the United States, and the (ineffective) methods that the few terrorists we've seen have used. Theater and placebos can be effective in many circumstances.
Nobody denies that the security line, or any of a million other places where people mass together could possibly be attractive targets for terrorists. So far though, most terrorism in America has focused on airliners. Arguing that screenings are pointless because terrorists could just hit X and kill people isn't backed up by reality. Other than OKC and the WTC car bombings (which were addressed in other ways), pretty much every major terrorist attack on US soil has been on airliners. So of course air travel will get the most attention.
The one claim I have to disagree with is that we are forever safe from hijackings because after 9/11 the passengers are going to stop them instead of sit and wait. I wouldn't bet my life on that claim, considering that multiple terrorists on a single flight - underbooked or not - could 'easily' control the choke point at the front of a plane long enough to get access to the cabin, even if the passengers are trying to fight back. If that's the case, the odds are much better if they are unarmed.
@zagdrob: My issue is that the body scanners are not even as effective as the old metal detectors. As a taxpayer, I'm pissed off that my tax dollars went towards such an obvious political boondoggle. When you add in the privacy and safety concerns, however slight, it's a complete loss.
Our military always prepares to fight the last war. I think this maxim applies to the TSA as well. The next wave of bombings (if there is one) won't target airplanes.
Our military always prepares to fight the last war. I think this maxim applies to the TSA as well. The next wave of bombings (if there is one) won't target airplanes.
There have been numerous attempted airplane bombings since 9/11. For whatever reason, after an attempted Christmas day "underwear bombing" ended in a spectacular failure because of some obvious technical issues in 2009, Al Qaeda's franchise in Yemen was somehow persuaded to attempt to try the same thing a second time.
I think it's totally fair to say the TSA jumped the gun on deploying this technology for financial as well as personal privacy reasons, but let's not get ahead of ourselves and say there isn't evidence of any security threats to commercial commuter air travel.
+2
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
edited January 2013
Next up is surgically implanting bombs in people.
Giggles_Funsworth on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I feel like I read about something like this in a Tom Clancy novel. Which is exactly how I felt on 9/11 when I saw someone intentionally crash a commercial airline into a government building in Washington, D.C., actually.
This is going to bother me all day, where did I first see that happening in fiction... was it a series plot on Nip/Tuck?
So if you choose to enter an airport and fly, you give up any rights?
That's good to know.
The TSA is clear to do actual strip searches now, and strap remote shock collars on all passengers now.
Extend this logic to everything.
You choose to walk outside. Therefore you have no right to not be searched.
Or shot for that matter.
Police can just shoot suspects now.
I mean, they chose to look suspicious.
I really fucking hate pro big brother apologia.
that is not what anyone in this thread has said.
you impliedly consent to have your person and your bag searched, the point people are making. others are saying even if it is a warrantless search, it is not unreasonable nor unconstitutional given the context.
come on now.
Consenting to having your person and bag search is consent to be x-rayed, viewed nude, why not cavity searched or strip searched too?
An arbitrary line is drawn, and it is pushed just as far as the government thinks it can get away with.
I feel like I read about something like this in a Tom Clancy novel. Which is exactly how I felt on 9/11 when I saw someone intentionally crash a commercial airline into a government building in Washington, D.C., actually.
This is going to bother me all day, where did I first see that happening in fiction... was it a series plot on Nip/Tuck?
Please tell me you're not thinking of Donal Logue in The Dark Knight.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
So if you choose to enter an airport and fly, you give up any rights?
That's good to know.
The TSA is clear to do actual strip searches now, and strap remote shock collars on all passengers now.
Extend this logic to everything.
You choose to walk outside. Therefore you have no right to not be searched.
Or shot for that matter.
Police can just shoot suspects now.
I mean, they chose to look suspicious.
I really fucking hate pro big brother apologia.
that is not what anyone in this thread has said.
you impliedly consent to have your person and your bag searched, the point people are making. others are saying even if it is a warrantless search, it is not unreasonable nor unconstitutional given the context.
come on now.
Consenting to having your person and bag search is consent to be x-rayed, viewed nude, why not cavity searched or strip searched too?
An arbitrary line is drawn, and it is pushed just as far as the government thinks it can get away with.
Why not cut me in half and dig through my stomach contents?
Better yet, why let me on the plane at all, ever?
This has been your lesson on Slippery Slope Fallacies.
Atomika on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I feel like I read about something like this in a Tom Clancy novel. Which is exactly how I felt on 9/11 when I saw someone intentionally crash a commercial airline into a government building in Washington, D.C., actually.
This is going to bother me all day, where did I first see that happening in fiction... was it a series plot on Nip/Tuck?
Please tell me you're not thinking of Donal Logue in The Dark Knight.
Europe doesn't make you take your shoes off, IIRC.
I had to in London and Edinburgh. I won't forget that, because it was winter and I had the most impossible pair of boots on.
The only time I've had to take my shoes off in the past little while while flying is to/from the US. Canada -> Europe and back, nope. Domestic flights, nope, only when going to the US
The to/from is important, yes. The FAA makes entry for commercial international flights into US airspace contingent upon certain security requirements that they've negotiated with the government authorities that run the airports on the originating side. Recall that every incident of terrorism that's involved airtravel in the US since 9/11 involved a flight that originated outside of the US. The "shoebomber" who is responsible for making you take off your footwear boarded a flight bound to the US from Paris. The underwear bomber who didn't realize apparently that you need a container to explosively detonate a combustible material incinerated his testicles in Detroit, but he boarded that plane in Amsterdam.
Our government is responsible for most of the shit you have to deal with when flying overseas into an American airport. Although I happen to think that there's some more reasonable grounds for putting you through this: that's where we've seen attempted terrorist activity.
Well at a non-Canadian airport I doubt they have a whole section cordoned off just for US flights. I'm pretty sure that when I boarded my plane in Italy I saw a couple US destination flights along the way to my gate, and I don't recall having to take my shoes off
When I was flying home from Australia (in 2005), they had an impromptu checkpoint right at the gate where they checked a few things that the primary checkpoint had ignored.
So if you choose to enter an airport and fly, you give up any rights?
That's good to know.
The TSA is clear to do actual strip searches now, and strap remote shock collars on all passengers now.
Extend this logic to everything.
You choose to walk outside. Therefore you have no right to not be searched.
Or shot for that matter.
Police can just shoot suspects now.
I mean, they chose to look suspicious.
I really fucking hate pro big brother apologia.
that is not what anyone in this thread has said.
you impliedly consent to have your person and your bag searched, the point people are making. others are saying even if it is a warrantless search, it is not unreasonable nor unconstitutional given the context.
come on now.
Consenting to having your person and bag search is consent to be x-rayed, viewed nude, why not cavity searched or strip searched too?
An arbitrary line is drawn, and it is pushed just as far as the government thinks it can get away with.
Why not cut me in half and dig through my stomach contents?
Better yet, why let me on the plane at all, ever?
This has been your lesson Slippery Slope Fallacies.
The point is that you may implicitly consent to a reasonable search. What is reasonable changes based on the context, but there is room for disagreement, and precedent for the government to go pretty far in this particular one.
For example, did you know that in a US airport you can have any computer equipment taken from you, sent to a separate facility, and investigated for an indeterminate amount of time without the government needing to demonstrate any probable cause? The only "reasonableness" that comes into play is that it's a lot of work on their part, not that it isn't arbitrary.
What, exactly, is reasonable under the circumstances will always be the question.
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Well, the argument is that being put through body scanners might not be as reasonable to everyone as you think.
As a white male, I find flying to be largely painless. I'm hardly bothered by anyone unless it's to make a point of the process being somewhat randomized, and I've been so desensitized by my military processing that I honestly could give a shit who sees me naked.
But that's not true for all people, and I wouldn't want to argue that it should be. If someone finds that distressing, their experience is just as valid as mine.
What I do find distressing is that airports have been turned into places where authorities may act arbitrarily (at least until a line is drawn that hasn't been drawn yet). Arbitrariness is the enemy of the rule of law, and under such conditions I understand the hesitancy to fly because of that may outgrow whatever existed beforehand.
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
+1
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
I guess I've just never given it that much thought. People talk about the radiation, but you're going to get more radiation during the flight than the machine is going to give you. I really never cared of the TSA saw my junk. I just go through the motions and get on my plane. For me, the bigger pain is the wait, not the actual search.
I know there have been some very embarrassing incidents for people (the lady with the "personal pleasure device" in her bags), but in most cases that came down to the individual professionalism of the TSA agent, not the procedures.
I guess I've just never given it that much thought. People talk about the radiation, but you're going to get more radiation during the flight than the machine is going to give you. I really never cared of the TSA saw my junk. I just go through the motions and get on my plane. For me, the bigger pain is the wait, not the actual search.
I know there have been some very embarrassing incidents for people (the lady with the "personal pleasure device" in her bags), but in most cases that came down to the individual professionalism of the TSA agent, not the procedures.
I see this a lot and from what I remember the difference, though still tiny, is being focused and absorbed by the skin, which, while yes you get that same dose from being in the upper atmosphere, the process is still different enough to be of concern for people who are either: cancer survivors (and thus more prone to relapse), or immunocompromised (HIV, transplant) which makes them immensely susceptible to cancers, even the medication they caution you to douse yourself in sunscreen for even 5 minutes in the sun.
Has there been any conclusion that the radiation is worse/different, even if it is less? Like I said, last I heard was that it basically was less, but more dangerous in the way they pelt you with it.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Posts
Keeping enough trained dogs in rotation to do the job properly at a major airport would be next to impossible though and computer sniffing equipment isn't quite there yet.
Seriously. Too bad I'm phone posting so I can't cite that they are capable of it >.>
Well at a non-Canadian airport I doubt they have a whole section cordoned off just for US flights. I'm pretty sure that when I boarded my plane in Italy I saw a couple US destination flights along the way to my gate, and I don't recall having to take my shoes off
This is a very real threat.
We'll need a security check point prior to line entrance, then.
But then there may be a line for that check point...
My god. We're doomed.
Yeah, if you think about it, an airplane isn't such a great target given a large bomb is not going to be easy to get on board in any case, it's just very dramatic. But if some group detonated bombs in airports scattered across the country, that would be way more effective than any number of shitty underwear bombs
The reason why airplanes are targets have more to do with the fact that one the bomb explodes, they most likely will not stay in the air, and all that fuel is rather combustible.
This is not a threat anymore. Between 9/11 and locked cockpits, using planes as weapons themselves simply doesn't work anymore.
It could still be feasible for hostage taking if the hostages don't immediately overrun the terrorists for fear of attempts of using the plane as a weapon, but deterring that doesn't require random searches or extensive detainment after people are already past the scanners/metal detectors.
And we stop abuse in our democracy by using the constitution and case law, which is pretty clear on this point.
So the way to stop searches at airports is to convince 51 percent of the population that they are being irrational(Edit:Or an amendment I suppose) . Not just complain that they are being irrational so their vote doesn't count.
This is a ridiculous and unhelpful statement.
I think people are drastically over estimating the number of people who would die if you exploded a bomb in a security line. It seems somewhat comparable to a subway, but generally less packed, and the London Underground bombing had 4 separate explosions and killed 52 people with approximately 700 injuries. If you got a bomb on a plane and bring it down that's easily 200 people dead. There's also the fact that you can't reasonably secure all the places that have large crowds like the aforementioned subways, concerts, sporting event, etc and thus there are plenty of targets regardless of if you attempted to secure the security line.
It does seem to me that you could go back to something like pre-911 security where your only looking for bombs and large weapons/guns though because no one is going to allow a plane hijacking anymore.
At this point I'm not even worried about terrorists so much as I am idiot Libertarians and conservatives using second amendment solutions to make sure that damn Muslim doesn't do anything funny.
We should just put security checkpoints at everyone's doorstep.
That'll solve the problem.
Israel checks your car prior to entering airport grounds in Tel Aviv.
They actually have a pretty decent setup. Rather than focusing on technology, they focus on looking for passengers who are acting suspicious. If they aren't sure about you, a trained ex military interrogator pulls you aside for a friendly chat (not a euphamism) and he watches to see how you react to being in close proximity with an authority figure. You don't have to takeoff your shoes. You don't go through anything more invasive than a (edit) metal detector. No backscatter xrays.
I'm sure Hamurabi wouldn't enjoy flying out of there, though. One thing about technology (and one of the reasons we like it so much) is no one ever accused a backscatter xray of being racist. People accuse ex IDF officers of racism 24/7, and not without cause.
Racism.
Which is actually an interrogation method that results in many more false positives than actual positives because people aren't actually good at "reading" other people in high stress situations. Even people trained to do it.
All I know is they've had only one security breach. A dude with a knife tried unsuccesafully to hijack an airplane.
Well, yeah. When you arrest everybody who looks remotely suspicious, you tend to not have many security breaches.
You also arrest a lot of people.
Exactly.
Now, I'm dubious at how much the security checkpoints really do to increase safety, but they do provide a deterrent. Since we don't have the people or funding (or political climate) to adopt security policies similar to the Israeli's, the security checkpoints we use now seem adequate to defend against most likely threats. This is evident in the lack of attempted bombings / hijackings that originate in the United States, and the (ineffective) methods that the few terrorists we've seen have used. Theater and placebos can be effective in many circumstances.
Nobody denies that the security line, or any of a million other places where people mass together could possibly be attractive targets for terrorists. So far though, most terrorism in America has focused on airliners. Arguing that screenings are pointless because terrorists could just hit X and kill people isn't backed up by reality. Other than OKC and the WTC car bombings (which were addressed in other ways), pretty much every major terrorist attack on US soil has been on airliners. So of course air travel will get the most attention.
The one claim I have to disagree with is that we are forever safe from hijackings because after 9/11 the passengers are going to stop them instead of sit and wait. I wouldn't bet my life on that claim, considering that multiple terrorists on a single flight - underbooked or not - could 'easily' control the choke point at the front of a plane long enough to get access to the cabin, even if the passengers are trying to fight back. If that's the case, the odds are much better if they are unarmed.
Our military always prepares to fight the last war. I think this maxim applies to the TSA as well. The next wave of bombings (if there is one) won't target airplanes.
There have been numerous attempted airplane bombings since 9/11. For whatever reason, after an attempted Christmas day "underwear bombing" ended in a spectacular failure because of some obvious technical issues in 2009, Al Qaeda's franchise in Yemen was somehow persuaded to attempt to try the same thing a second time.
I think it's totally fair to say the TSA jumped the gun on deploying this technology for financial as well as personal privacy reasons, but let's not get ahead of ourselves and say there isn't evidence of any security threats to commercial commuter air travel.
Oh, we're there.
I wasn't joking.
I feel like I read about something like this in a Tom Clancy novel. Which is exactly how I felt on 9/11 when I saw someone intentionally crash a commercial airline into a government building in Washington, D.C., actually.
This is going to bother me all day, where did I first see that happening in fiction... was it a series plot on Nip/Tuck?
Consenting to having your person and bag search is consent to be x-rayed, viewed nude, why not cavity searched or strip searched too?
An arbitrary line is drawn, and it is pushed just as far as the government thinks it can get away with.
Please tell me you're not thinking of Donal Logue in The Dark Knight.
Why not cut me in half and dig through my stomach contents?
Better yet, why let me on the plane at all, ever?
This has been your lesson on Slippery Slope Fallacies.
That wasn't Donal Logue, it was just a fat guy.
When I was flying home from Australia (in 2005), they had an impromptu checkpoint right at the gate where they checked a few things that the primary checkpoint had ignored.
The point is that you may implicitly consent to a reasonable search. What is reasonable changes based on the context, but there is room for disagreement, and precedent for the government to go pretty far in this particular one.
For example, did you know that in a US airport you can have any computer equipment taken from you, sent to a separate facility, and investigated for an indeterminate amount of time without the government needing to demonstrate any probable cause? The only "reasonableness" that comes into play is that it's a lot of work on their part, not that it isn't arbitrary.
What, exactly, is reasonable under the circumstances will always be the question.
Agreed, but making an appeal to histrionics isn't helpful unless there's sound evidence that it's at all plausible.
Yes, random cavity searches would be horrible and indefensible. Good thing no one is suggesting we be okay with that.
As a white male, I find flying to be largely painless. I'm hardly bothered by anyone unless it's to make a point of the process being somewhat randomized, and I've been so desensitized by my military processing that I honestly could give a shit who sees me naked.
But that's not true for all people, and I wouldn't want to argue that it should be. If someone finds that distressing, their experience is just as valid as mine.
What I do find distressing is that airports have been turned into places where authorities may act arbitrarily (at least until a line is drawn that hasn't been drawn yet). Arbitrariness is the enemy of the rule of law, and under such conditions I understand the hesitancy to fly because of that may outgrow whatever existed beforehand.
I know there have been some very embarrassing incidents for people (the lady with the "personal pleasure device" in her bags), but in most cases that came down to the individual professionalism of the TSA agent, not the procedures.
I see this a lot and from what I remember the difference, though still tiny, is being focused and absorbed by the skin, which, while yes you get that same dose from being in the upper atmosphere, the process is still different enough to be of concern for people who are either: cancer survivors (and thus more prone to relapse), or immunocompromised (HIV, transplant) which makes them immensely susceptible to cancers, even the medication they caution you to douse yourself in sunscreen for even 5 minutes in the sun.
Has there been any conclusion that the radiation is worse/different, even if it is less? Like I said, last I heard was that it basically was less, but more dangerous in the way they pelt you with it.