I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want. => Topic started by: MooseMom on November 16, 2010, 12:16:30 AM
-
Anyone been through one of these things at the airport? My son is coming from London for Christmas, and this will be the first time he will be not be travelling as an unaccompanied minor. He's too old, but he is still autistic. He's been travelling on planes back and forth to/from the UK/US since he was 4 months old, so I know he will be OK, but it makes me a bit nervous to think of him going through security by himself. He doesn't process spoken language very well...you have to know just how to talk to him. If you're too wordy, he can't follow what you're saying, and if you bang on too long, he tunes you out after a while. I was today explaining the new security machines to him, and I asked him if he would like me to go through security with him when he leaves O'Hare, and he said "yes", which means that I will have to go through the new machine and they will be able to see all of my lady bits. ::) If any of you have been through one, what was it like, and did you just hate the intrusion? Or did you think it was worth it in order to feel secure?
Anyone opt for the full body pat-down? What was THAT like?
-
Sorry MM, no experience there, altho, I did have to go thru a pat down in 2001. But, could the childs Dr. not send a note with him that would explain the circumstances? Maybe that would help him out.
-
I haven't been through one at the airport. I volunteer at the courthouse, though. I have to go through the metal detector every time, and I invariably set it off, so I get patted down. I didn't think it was a big deal. The guards certainly don't do it to make you uncomfortable - and they mostly just look bored and annoyed that they can't figure what is making it alarm. (Metal detector + underwire bra = BEEEEEEEP!)
-
I got into a conversation with someone on twitter about this last night. They way I figure it, for people like us, or someone like me who's been seen naked by Lord knows how many people since I was 12 years old, people looking at a black and white, cartoonish image of what I may look like underneath my clothes does not bother me. Even if it were more realistic, I don't think it would bother me.
-
I see no Problem, with either one. Right after 911, I Flew and You Walked through the Metal Dectectors, but they did pull Random People aside, for a Pat
Down. Yep, I got pulled. A 62 Year Old Granny. When they told Me what they were going to do, I looked at the TSA Agents and said, " Well, do I get to
choose, the Person, that does it?" They were not Amused.
At this Point in My Life, there is no part of Me, that someone else has not seen. :rofl;
-
What about catheters? Do you think TSA agents are trained to recognize them? I'm afraid that if I go through the body scanner, they'd want to pat me down anyway because they're concerned about that thing "strapped to" my chest.
-
it only takes a second to pull open your shirt and show them what it is. Same goes for PD catheters.
-
Oh, I haven't the slightest concern who sees me naked, but if I flew I would opt out of these idiotic machines every time.
There are...any number of problems with them. The manufacturer will not release test data as to how much radiation they expose you to. The manufacturer has, of course, been caught in lies before. (Claiming the machine has no capability to store scans, after scans stored on the machine had already been released on the internet. "Oh, when we said they can't, what we meant was...") TSA agents have been told to make the pat-downs as unpleasant as possible to "encourage" people not to opt out.
But probably the most important thing is - they don't actually increase security. They are trivially defeated, as are most US "security" measures. In Germany, they find their scanners are being defeated by...pleated or wrinkled clothing. They are expensive set pieces in the elaborate American security theater.
We need to ask ourselves how much freedom and personal dignity we are willing to give up because someone says it will make us safer. What's next?
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-
..
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
That quote sounds good, but what is "Essential Liberty"? It means different things to different people. I think you give up some of those rights when you bought an airline ticket to be seated with hundreds of passengers. I mean, they took away the rights for people to smoke on airliners which I am sure many smokers would have claimed as essential liberty, but most passengers are very glad to have gotten rid off. I have only one suggestion to those who don't want to give up some of these liberties - DON'T FLY or charter your own plane and you can fly alone.
I used to drive a thousand miles to avoid taking a flight because I was in poor health and would have terrible headaches on planes when they fly with lowered cabin pressure. Now I am in better health and airline cabin pressures are better regulated, I am just very thankful to get on any flight and get to my destination.
-
I suspect the majority of passengers won't have a real problem with it, but there will be people who will find it a problem for perfectly valid reasons.
My son lives abroad, and if I want to see him, he has to get here by airplane. There's just not another option. So the whole "if you don't like it, then don't fly" doesn't apply to us all. Furthermore, I'm a bit concerned about the inevitable chaos. I fly quite a lot, and it is getting to be a big pain in the rear; I'm not autistic, so I can cope fairly well, but if a single TSA official gives my kid a hard time, I'm going to be all over his ass, I can tell you. At O'Hare, the security queue in the International terminal is right next to the food court, so I'll be able to watch veeeerrrryyyy closely.
I can guarantee you that if people do stop flying, the entire airline industry is going to go absolutely ballistic, and not by way of an explosive device. Of course, if everyone just stopped flying, then the risk of airplanes exploding in the sky would be reduced drastically...perhaps that's exactly what we should do. Gee...we have email and twitter and iphones and faxes and regular telephones and webcams; why travel at all? :sarcasm;
-
My father believes, and this is probably the only time I agree with him, that flying should be reserved for transcontinental travel. If you don't need to cross an ocean, take a train. Now, for me, that would be one hell of a trip, so if it were done, new tracks would have to be built, or old ones reopened. I looked into it once, and if I wanted to go to NYC from here, I'd have to take a bus to Moncton, NB, because we have no trains on PEI, and then take a train to Ontario and enter the US there. This makes no sense to me, as NB borders Maine. I'm thinking there probably are tracks that go into the US from NB, but are used only for freight, since train travel has gone down so much in recent years.
-
I've always wondered why there is not more transcontinental train travel here in N. America, especially in the flat midwest and southern US. I asked my husband about this when I returned to the US from England, and he told me that the truckers' union had lobbied for freight to be moved by road instead of rail, and at the time, the union was very powerful and they got their way. The result is a lack of rail in the US. I often think it would be nice to have more rail travel and have tracks built in an effort to put people in this country back to work. But I'm sure there are plenty of lobbyists who think that's a bad idea for whatever reason. And if the American people don't want the government to spend money on infrastructure and job creation, we'll just have to sit here and stagnate or fly and let ourselves be either irradiated or felt-up, or, if you're having a really bad day, a bit of both.
-
Oh, I haven't the slightest concern who sees me naked, but if I flew I would opt out of these idiotic machines every time.
There are...any number of problems with them. The manufacturer will not release test data as to how much radiation they expose you to. The manufacturer has, of course, been caught in lies before. (Claiming the machine has no capability to store scans, after scans stored on the machine had already been released on the internet. "Oh, when we said they can't, what we meant was...") TSA agents have been told to make the pat-downs as unpleasant as possible to "encourage" people not to opt out.
But probably the most important thing is - they don't actually increase security. They are trivially defeated, as are most US "security" measures. In Germany, they find their scanners are being defeated by...pleated or wrinkled clothing. They are expensive set pieces in the elaborate American security theater.
We need to ask ourselves how much freedom and personal dignity we are willing to give up because someone says it will make us safer. What's next?
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Whoa! I was concerned about the safety of these machines, and as I consider you quite a reliable source on all things science, rocker, now I am doubly so. I have a flight coming up with two kids (husband can take care of himself). I spent a lot of time last night researching this after Mr. Don't Touch My Junk burst onto the national scene. One news reader (or maybe he was a weatherman) showed video of his 3-year old receiving the pat down and she was screaming to wake the dead. (The guy had a very bizarre reaction, too, saying she was fine and he understands how important this is. Gwyn and I joke that if an agent tried that on our 4-year-old, he would quite literally run the risk of losing that hand. Watch YouTube for footage...) The news man did give one helpful bit of information, though, which I intend to try. With kids, you can ask the ticket agent if your child has been pre-selected for screening. If the agent reports that they are, you can ask that they be deselected. I know Gwyn would volunteer for the feel-up if it would spare the kids and me. (Modern age chivalry!) I will let everyone know if it works.
What I read about the imaging device was that it uses very low-levels of radiation, and it is equivalent to a dental x-ray or 2-minutes at high altitude. I am not by nature the least bit paranoid, but are you saying that this has not been proved? I had medical radiation just recently, and there is a limit to how much you can have in your life. My cousin with brain cancer has already had his lifetime allotment - he can never receive that treatment again. Would that mean he would have to have a grope or not fly to be safe? That seems terribly unfair.
I have read comments by (supposed) ex-TSA higher-ups, I somehow stumbled upon a forum for these people saying that it is an open secret that the TSA is useless. One of them told the story of a guy who said he was a doctor and they let him board with a small pistol in his sock. ??? Perhaps it's not true, but they all seemed to know a good bit of what goes on in that organization and were thoroughly scared for our future.
I'm like you, rocker. Don't give a toss about the looking, but I truly cannot stand to be touched by strangers, especially not any place private. *shudder* It does seem very Gestapo-ish - you're minding your own business, peacefully queuing up, some stranger in a uniform drags you aside and offers you two dire choices.... kind of sounds like dealing with kidney failure now that I think about it....
-
Heh...my feelings on this are based on far more information than can be neatly summarized in a post.
As far as the danger posed by these machines, the point is that we have no independent way to know. As an engineer, I have some idea what's involved to get equipment to meet FDA safety standards - and we don't know that this equipment does. We have only the manufacturer's word "Oh, it's safe." Operational values of equipment can vary wildly between optimal operation by engineers in a lab, and constant operation in the field by minimally trained personnel. Things go out of whack, things wear down - what are the inspection requirements for these machines? What are the safeguards to test the shielding? A hundred things we don't know, but can't know, because someone waves a hand and says "SECURITY!" And at that point, we are to nod and smile and murmur "security" and shuffle through.
How easily are these machines defeated? Think "body cavity." Think "obese person with skin folds."
And again, the larger issue is that this is not security, this is "things to do that look like security." People in the security business call it "security theater." The reaction of the TSA has been comical over the last few years. Some mentally ill guy stuffs something in his shoe, and awkwardly tries to light it with a match on a plane. And so for years, every day, millions of people take off their shoes and put them through an x-ray machine. Even though the odds against lighting a shoe bomb on a plane with a match and getting an actual explosion are astronomical. But it's very important to show we are fighting the last war. Ditto for liquids, ditto for panties.
There are many jokes about what happens to US airport security if someone tries to bring aboard bomb materials in a body cavity. Is it really funny?
Israel, one of the most hated countries in the world, has a far less intrusive airport security system. And somehow, El-Al planes are not dropping from the skies like confetti. Read up on Israeli airport security if you want to know how it's done.
There are many reasons for people to say "Enough is enough" and demand real security. X-ray scanners do little to advance that goal.
-
I agree with what rocker wrote.
As for israel...
Israel does what is illegal to do here in America. Well it isn't really illegal it is called politically correctness gone awry.
Israel PROFILES why??
cause it works if done in the right manner.
-
I agree with what rocker wrote.
As for israel...
Israel does what is illegal to do here in America. Well it isn't really illegal it is called politically correctness gone awry.
Israel PROFILES why??
cause it works if done in the right manner.
It is not illegal to "profile" in America.
It is illegal....and stupid....to profile based on race, or age, or gender, or some other fixed characteristic. People who would want to attack us would be overjoyed if we profiled based on race - simply get someone of a different race and viola! problem solved.
It is certainly not illegal to "profile" (which loses any meaning when you expand it that far) based on behavior. "Your honor, that officer illegally profiled me based only on the fact that I was pointing a gun at the clerk!"
The Israelis do not "profile", they watch for psychological signs (nervousness, inability to answer simple questions) and there is nothing about their methods which would prevent them from being used in the US. Except it's expensive, and lots of people scream about cutting government spending. And it's also, you know...hard. And it's not a corporate welfare program, which seems to be where most of our money goes these days.
- rocker
-
Profiling is illegal in America. Racial profiling is illegal. At least here in Jersey.
As for Israel they do profile, your own answer about looking at there psychological signs peoples nervousness not being able to answer simple questions going abroad with no luggage buying a one way ticket ect ect is all profiling.
There are many different types of profiling.
behavioral profiling
racial profiling
consumer profiling etc.
As for costing more? We have alot of TSA workers who are clueless who could be replaced by a few people who are truly trained at profiling (or whatever one wants to call it) and likely save money.
-
The Israelis do not "profile", they watch for psychological signs (nervousness, inability to answer simple questions) and there is nothing about their methods which would prevent them from being used in the US.
- rocker
This is what concerns me regarding my autistic son. He is high functioning, and you probably wouldn't know he was autistic unless you really sat down to talk to him at great length. If he gets nervous or anxious (which can be the reaction of anyone going through airport security these days), it is hard for him to concentrate on what you might be asking him. That could be interpreted as "suspicious behaviour" that some poorly trained TSA agent would want to investigate more fully. We are thinking seriously of equipping our son with cards that say he is autistic, but at the same time, we don't want to embarrass him. So these upgraded security measures do pose a problem for us. I really don't like the idea of subjecting him to this sort of thing.
-
Israel, one of the most hated countries in the world, has a far less intrusive airport security system. And somehow, El-Al planes are not dropping from the skies like confetti. Read up on Israeli airport security if you want to know how it's done.
There was a guy from El-Al on Countdown with Keith Olbermann tonight and what he said about profiling made sense to me. They interview everybody, from the sounds of things, while they're in line at the ticketing booth. It's probably just simple questions, like they ask when going through Customs. like 'where are you going?' "how long?' or 'business or pleasure?' It seemed so simple.
BTW, we don't have to take off our shoes in Canada unless we're flying into the US. I always wear crazy colored socks when going to the states, just for the TSA people. *L*
-
I hope your son gets through security unscathed... I have a daughter with Aspergers (high functioning autism) and I am not sure how they would react to her answers. She could be completely "on" or seem "rather odd". Good luck to him.
For myself? I think I'd go for the pat down and resist the extreme temptation of being sarcastic. Although, I do like the "Do I get to pick who does it?" comment, lol. I don't need anymore radiation!
-
Paul and Rocker are both right. What you are saying is in Israel if someone is nervous and fidgety boarding a plane with no luggage they can pull them off and it is legal. In the US the person would scream "discrimination" based on color and win. Wheather it is color or not. That is how out of control and ridiculous it has gotton.
-
Quite frankly I almost wish I needed to fly somewhere, just to make a point of refusing both the scanner and the 'enhanced pat-downs'.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Give them one inch, and they WILL take a mile. We've already seen how this 'security theater' has escalated over the last nine years, do you really think they won't push it as far as they can, particularly if there's profit to be made? There's already been casual talk of outfitting each passenger with electro-muscular devices to shock them into submission; would that be okay, too, just to 'feel' safe? What about body cavity searches?
In the meantime there's no accounting for what goes into the cargo hold. Brilliant.
-
Bomb sniffing dogs work cheap.
Train more dogs to sniff explosives instead of drugs.
Seeing a dog makes me feel safer then seeing several zoned out TSA workers.
-
Bomb sniffing dogs work cheap.
Train more dogs to sniff explosives instead of drugs.
Seeing a dog makes me feel safer then seeing several zoned out TSA workers.
I like this idea.
-
Moose Mom call the airline and explain your situation. Most airlines will help your son out. He can be taken through by an aide (like disabled people are - I am not sure if his conditions is considered disabled or not.) By all mean let him take a doctors note with him.
My partner has a machine on his belt with wire leading down to his leg and to his shoe. Both sides of the Atlantic seem to have no problem with it especially if it obvious and out in the open.
Hope your son has a good trip.
-
My son always flies British Airways...they pretty much know him at Heathrow by now. I don't anticipate a big problem over there, but I worry about him here at O'Hare. American Airlines will accompany you if you have a handicap but ONLY if you are in a wheelchair, so the disability has to be a physical one; that's no help to us. I've spoken to BA in the past, and they are willing to keep an eye on him as much as they can, but when we get to O'Hare for his return flight to the UK, there won't be any BA staff (or staff from any airline, actually) that would accompany anyone through security. It is more of a federal/airport situation than an airline problem.
-
Many more airports have a common policy and workforce for help. It was better before when airlines ran their own. We fly American out of Heathrow. We have been to O'Hare. I would call American (is he flying home with AA? or BA if he is flying home with BA) Don't take no for an answer, ask to talk to a supervisor. Physical is not the only type of disability. Mention the Americans with diabilities act if they seem hesitant. Would your son feel funny riding in a wheel chair?
-
I mentioned AA simply because we were trying to find out what their age requirements were for travelling as an unaccompanied minor. They told us that for a traveller as old as my son, the only way they would accompany him is via a wheelchair. BA seemed more amenable to our needs because we have flown exclusively with them since 1985.
My son would be acutely embarrassed if he had to sit in a wheelchair. I wouldn't do that to him. I am hoping that they'll just let me go through security with him, but I don't know if it is up to BA exclusively since he will not be technically an unaccompanied minor. I'll just call BA here and ask them about it, but you know how it goes..someone tells you one thing, but then you get to the airport and they tell you something entirely different. I'm sure it'll get sorted.
-
Mom puts me in a wheelchair when we travel for 2 reasons. 1, I'm not that fast a walker, and because of my eyesight, I have trouble in crowds, and 2, we can get through customs so much faster in a chair than without.
It's odd that they wouldn't treat your son as a unaccompanied minor, because of his disability, even if he's not a minor anymore. If you talk to the right people, exceptions can be made. Make sure if's ok with your son, though. For all I know, he may like the idea of no longer flying as an unaccompanied minor
-
Riki, we've talked to airline people about this, and they are pretty adamant. My son travels at high season, since he is a student, and staffing problems are always a consideration. We have been paying an extra 100 quid for the service, and it has been worth it.
I am pretty confident that my son can make this trip with no problem; he's been travelling back and forth since he was 4 months old. It's nothing new to him. But with the usual chaos that comes with holiday travel PLUS the new security measures, I'm concerned that he will become overwhelmed and confused, particularly if some security guy starts giving him a hard time. And I don't want to embarrass him by having to make some announcement that he is autistic. He knows he is autistic; it's something that we talk about a lot. I try to tell him that everyone has something that makes their life a challenge, and autism is his particular challenge. He's not sensitive about being autistic, per se, but like most kids his age, he is sensitive about being different, and his peer group can be devastatingly cruel.
I think I will just have to tell him that if something happens in security that he doesn't understand immediately, he will simply have to explain to the TSA agent that he is autistic and would the agent mind explaining things again? We want him to lead an independent life, and getting through airport security is part of that, I guess.
-
I don't care about the scans because everyone has to go through and I don't think I have anything more or less that the average man but I will not allow another individual touch my very sacred jewels... :rofl; I'll drive thank you.
-
A friend of mine had bilateral masectomy in 2005 with reconstructive surgery. She flew out of St. Louis this week and said that the scanner showed her implants and they pulled her aside for a "pat down". When she explained, the TSA agent asked her to open her blouse to allow them to see there was nothing outside of her skin. She was livid! She said the "pat down" was more of a "feel up" and she will never fly again as long as these rules are in place.
-
That's crazy.. like the woman they talked about on Countdown.. she was a flight attendant, breast cancer survivor, and she wore a prosthetic breast. She was asked to remove it. She did it, but I would have told them to kiss my ass
-
A friend of mine had bilateral masectomy in 2005 with reconstructive surgery. She flew out of St. Louis this week and said that the scanner showed her implants and they pulled her aside for a "pat down". When she explained, the TSA agent asked her to open her blouse to allow them to see there was nothing outside of her skin. She was livid! She said the "pat down" was more of a "feel up" and she will never fly again as long as these rules are in place.
OMG! That is just ridiculous. Why do they need to do a pat down if they can see with a full body scan? Sounds a little backwards, I mean if thats the case then why have the dang scanners to begin with.
-
TSA security people have no formal experience. They are not law enforcement but yet they have the right to cause such embarrassment. I thought our liberals just told us that our security when flying was the safest it has been in 8 years. If that is true than who's jobs are we providing by accepting this new found invasion techniques.
-
What about catheters? Do you think TSA agents are trained to recognize them? I'm afraid that if I go through the body scanner, they'd want to pat me down anyway because they're concerned about that thing "strapped to" my chest.
Based on this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news#), I'd say that fear is not unfounded. And that it wouldn't be pleasant. This is so completely wrong that I actually don't know what to say.
-
I don't care about the scans because everyone has to go through and I don't think I have anything more or less that the average man but I will not allow another individual touch my very sacred jewels... :rofl; I'll drive thank you.
I guess this disappoints a lot of the ladies out there, not to mention Mrs. Sluff :rofl;
-
Dress it up however you like but it still remains the same. This is an extreme invasion of privacy.
I don't want to be touched, I don't want to be "viewed naked", and I don't want to be unnecessarily exposed to radiation.
Random intense screening is an absurdity, window dressing to show the citizenry that we are doing something about terrorism. Well, while you were feeling up my grandma, and irradiating that randomly selected small child, the terrorists (there's two just in case one gets randomly selected) just passed through the gate. Absurd, ridiculous, ineffective, poorly thought out.
Who is the terrorist now? Where does this road lead? Are random cavity searches next? All this just because I choose to fly?
It is not acceptable and it needs to be fixed!
-
I think the Israeli approach needs to be put in perspective. They have one major airport and five or so minor ones - the US has 100 times as many. But that isn't the main barrier. Consider that the Isralies know a lot more about everyone with an Israeli passport than the the TSA knows about an individual with a state drivers license. The Israeli screening process works because they only have to screen the people who they don't know - for that to work in the US you'd need to be known by the TSA. We'd need national biometric ids for one, that's usually a deal breaker for anyone who cares about state power.
In the last 8 years we've given up a lot more freedom then invasive screening at airports. This is getting attention because the demographics of who flies. In a sense we're lucky that extremists have an aviation fetish. Now that there is little chance they could commandeer an airplane - passengers will fight back, armored cockpit doors - they're limited in how many people an attack can kill at a time and defending against it is relatively easy.
Because these disproportionate fears the public has have been fed rather than quashed, what happens if there is Mumbai style attacks? What Constitutional rights would people be prepared to dispense with then?
As far as the scanners I think there needs to be some sort of independent measurement of the delivered radiation - it's a device controlled by software, how would you ever know if it was delivering 100 times the radiation it is suppose to? Anyone with a history of skin cancer would have to opt out and be groped. I think people living with a transplant or otherwise immune compromised would have to think hard about the additional radiation.
-
I highly doubt there is an invasion of privacy in the matter because people are doing business with the airlines. The airlines are not forcing the would be customers to do business with them. The airlines need stuff put in place to try to protect themselves and their customers.
This is no different than stores no allowing people to carry firearms in their stores. Even though its a Constitutional Right and one may have a CC license, its still doesnt give them the right to carry into a store if the store is posted against having weapons.
I think the Israeli approach needs to be put in perspective. They have one major airport and five or so minor ones - the US has 100 times as many. But that isn't the main barrier. Consider that the Isralies know a lot more about everyone with an Israeli passport than the the TSA knows about an individual with a state drivers license. The Israeli screening process works because they only have to screen the people who they don't know - for that to work in the US you'd need to be known by the TSA. We'd need national biometric ids for one, that's usually a deal breaker for anyone who cares about state power.
A biometric id could be issued to those who wish to go through the process. These people could be fast tracked when they wanted to fly. Those who do not want one would not have to get one, but they would go through extensive screening before being able to fly.
-
I don't care about the scans because everyone has to go through and I don't think I have anything more or less that the average man but I will not allow another individual touch my very sacred jewels... :rofl; I'll drive thank you.
I guess this disappoints a lot of the ladies out there, not to mention Mrs. Sluff :rofl;
I'm married remember? We all know where the sex life goes once you are married. :rofl; Besides what is average? Thats kind of like asking what is normal...
Don't misunderstand me. Im all about keeping our citizens safe, but right now our citizens face more danger in southern Arizona along interstate 8 than the airplane.
-
A biometric id could be issued to those who wish to go through the process. These people could be fast tracked when they wanted to fly. Those who do not want one would not have to get one, but they would go through extensive screening before being able to fly.
There is a card that truck drivers need if they do business at the ports called a TWIC card. If a frequent flyer were able to use something similiar it would clear alot of this up.
-
I highly doubt there is an invasion of privacy in the matter because people are doing business with the airlines. The airlines are not forcing the would be customers to do business with them. The airlines need stuff put in place to try to protect themselves and their customers.
This is no different than stores no allowing people to carry firearms in their stores. Even though its a Constitutional Right and one may have a CC license, its still doesnt give them the right to carry into a store if the store is posted against having weapons.
I think the Israeli approach needs to be put in perspective. They have one major airport and five or so minor ones - the US has 100 times as many. But that isn't the main barrier. Consider that the Israelis know a lot more about everyone with an Israeli passport than the the TSA knows about an individual with a state drivers license. The Israeli screening process works because they only have to screen the people who they don't know - for that to work in the US you'd need to be known by the TSA. We'd need national biometric ids for one, that's usually a deal breaker for anyone who cares about state power.
A biometric id could be issued to those who wish to go through the process. These people could be fast tracked when they wanted to fly. Those who do not want one would not have to get one, but they would go through extensive screening before being able to fly.
I think there is a privacy issue because the search is mandated and conducted by the federal government. If it was up to the airlines to establish their own security procedures then people could choose their airline by the level of assumed risk they were willing to take but that's not the situation.
Since the TSA can't manage to identify flight crews and active duty military I'm skeptical of their ability to identify frequent fliers. Even if they did manage to create a card it still means my 77 year old Mom gets groped every time she flies because she has a pace maker. And little kids get searched in ways we don't normally allow little kids to be searched.
I think this whole airport security theater will look ridiculous in a few years. In the same way preparing for nuclear war by building bomb shelters and practicing duck and cover seem ridiculous today.
-
Yes but the key point is one does not have to fly, people choose to fly.
Not sure its so ridiculous until a better standard comes down the pike.
Something is up for this happen to this extent.
Its doubtful terrorists will try to take a plane by storm again. Seems they will try the method Yousef did in the Philippine Airlines Flight 434 bombing but have several people bring components onto a plane for final assembly.
-
People choose to drive but that doesn't mean that by driving you give up your right to not be searched.
People choose to go to malls but going to a mall doesn't mean that you've given up your right to not be searched.
The forth amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) is pretty clear.
If there are already people in the United States willing to blow themselves up and with the tools to do so and with the ability to go through the sort of metal detectors used up until last month than there are plenty of other places we should be more concerned about. This is a reaction to the underpants bomber, taking off your shoes is a response to an attempt by the shoe bomber and the no fly with fluids rule is a response to an attempt.
A guy had a bomb up his butt and tried to kill someone in Saudi Arabia last year. Preflight security will get to know you in a biblical sense if a butt bomb gets on a plane.
-
Here's A List of US Airports Currently Using Full Body Scanners http://gizmodo.com/5694997/heres-a-list-of-us-airports-currently-using-full-body-scanners?skyline=true&s=i
:o
-
A person driving themselves is not the same as someone doing business through an airline.
A person can certainly charter a private plane and avoid being searched all together.
As to the mall scenario. If the mall says you will be searched before you enter, yes you have given up your right not to be searched if you want to enter the mall.
The Forth Amendment is pretty clear, not sure how it even applies in this matter.
If one wishes to fly commercial they must give consent to being searched in order to fly.
So either one gives consent, thus making the 4th irrelevant or they do not give consent and do not get to fly, thus making the 4th irrelevant again.
-
TSA pat-down leaves Mich. man covered in urine
Mon Nov 22, 1:04 pm ET
ROMULUS, Mich. – A bladder cancer survivor from Michigan who wears a bag that collects his urine said a security agent at a Detroit airport patted him down so roughly, it caused the bag to spill its contents on his clothing.
Tom Sawyer, a 61-year-old retired special education teacher, said the experience left him in tears before he caught a flight to Orlando, Fla., on Nov. 7.
"I was absolutely humiliated. I couldn't even speak," he told MSNBC.com.
Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole said he's concerned about people such as Sawyer who have had uncomfortable experiences with agents.
During an appearance Monday on CBS' "The Early Show," Pistole expressed "great concern over anybody who feels like they have not been treated properly or had something embarrassing" happen.
Sawyer said that once he got through security, he changed his bag, but didn't have time to change his clothing and had to board the plane soaked in urine.
"I was embarrassed to death," he told the Detroit Free Press.
Sawyer was diagnosed with bladder cancer three years ago and had to have a procedure that left him with a urostomy bag to catch rerouted urine.
Claire Saxton, executive director of the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network, said she's concerned Sawyer's story is indicative of a larger trend.
"TSA agents need to be trained to listen when someone tells them they have a health issue, because the one thing that Tom in his account talked about was he tried to explain and they just weren't even interested in listening," Saxton told The Associated Press.
"No one living with an `ostomy' should be afraid of flying because they're afraid of being humiliated," she said.
-
Well, I have only skimmed the responses so far, but am back with a report-from-the-scene so to speak.
I tried asking the ticket agent if she knew about whether my kids were preselected for screening, and she said I would have to ask at security. We were at O'Hare at around 4PM and had to deal with off-site parking and everything, so my husband and I have worked out a semi-complicated system that uses my 8-year-old as a luggage-watcher while we run back and forth from car to airport. We had approximately 10 bags, and this was packing very light. Car seats and any medical or child related equipment are free to check as cargo, so we brought Liot's car seat.
I had a drink in a metal travel cup that I brought with me, thinking I would finish the drink and pop the container into the checked baggage. I forgot to do this, and ended up placing it into my handbag. I thought I'll just take it out at security and place it in a bin. We get to the passport check and I say to one of them "My kids don't have to go through the x-ray machine, right?" Are they purposely as humourless as possible? The person just barked at me "metal detector!" Fine. We take off our shoes, queue up for the metal detector, and the 3 of us get through without incident. Where is my husband? I turn around to see him, arms up in the x-ray machine. Then a very friendly security agent tells me that he has to further check our shoes. He asks if there are any wires in the shoes and I realise that Liot wore his light-up Skechers, one of the great loves of his life. I ask if it was a problem to have him wear those, and he said "Nope! We see it all the time!"
We were in Wales about 2 days before Gwyn pointed out that I forgot to take the metal cup out of my handbag, and they had no way of knowing what was in it. It went through the metal detector, they must have seen this dense cylinder, and no one asked to look in my bag or open it up or anything. They were only concerned with the light-up shoes worn by a 4-year-old.
Passport control in Manchester was painless both in- and outbound. I hate returning to the US. All of these rules - shut your cell phones and cameras off or they will confiscate them, don't say anything wrong. They don't even say 'welcome home' anymore. Retrieving the car at O'Hare was a nightmare, and when we began our scurry back and forth, a cop started yelling at me that he was going to write me a $500 ticket. This after Gwyn asked if it was OK to park there while we loaded our bags. I was sitting in the car with Liot, and Gwyn was grabbing all the bags inside, along with our older child, and the cop started shouting that he could write me a ticket because there was no one in the drivers' seat. I am fairly confident that he pulled that rule straight out of his :sir ken; I was pointing to my husband crossing the road with Aidan and a load of baggage - it was just a further reminder that I live in a paranoid country, blindly devoted to pointless rules at the cost of common sense.
In terms of legality of the searches, I agree with Bill. Businesses are not allowed to override the rights given to you by the constitution. The 4th amendment certainly seems relevant to me. There is no probable cause in searching a 4-year-old. I don't care if they want to look at his shoes - though I think it's stupid - but I do not want them exposed to extra radiation and I sure as hell did not want anyone touching my boys.
-
LOL@Bill's "butt bomb".
-
Here's a little song to make you happy:
Search Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a8jGVXOMsw&feature=player_embedded)
-
Good one Stoday
A good thing about the scanners is that people with pace makers can go through them unlike the metal detectors. My Mom is out visiting. She reports that the full body scanners at O'Hare made her trip through the security line faster. In the past she had to be patted down because of a pace maker but this time she was able to go through one of the full body scanners. THe radiation is absorbed by the skin and things inside are undetected and unimpacted.
If anything she sounded a bit disappointed - I think she was looking forward to being groped.
-
If anything she sounded a bit disappointed - I think she was looking forward to being groped.
Still spunky, lol. :clap;
-
Is it just me or right after 9-11 all these machines that we go thought just appeared out of no where at each airport? think about it had to be ordered and shipped that would take some time for every airport. makes me wonder if this was a plan in the works before 9-11. I mean its like everything was up and running the next day hmmmmmmmmmm
-
Maybe they had some plans in the works, but 9/11 was 9 years ago, so most likely they started planning then.