|
Tommy 2.0 posted:edit: Yes, I know she wasn't patted down. Just illustrating some fears I would have as a parent. As a parent I wouldn't want my child patted down either. I would hope they would let me send her through those mm scanners, since a blurry picture of weird pseudo nakedness flashing once on a screen is pretty insignificant.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 16:03 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 01:51 |
|
|
As a parent, my opinions on topics tangentially related to children are more important than opinions from non-parents. This is why I let everyone know to read my posts by prefacing them with, "As a parent," so they know that they should sit up and pay attention. I know that this must frustrate you non-parents, but the adults are talking now so you should go play in your playrooms for a while and not worry about important parent topics. Good talk, everyone. Good talk.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 16:12 |
|
|
I remember the good ole days before TSA when everyone was allowed to bring weapons onboard planes.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 16:13 |
|
|
Pope Mobile posted:I remember the good ole days before TSA when everyone was allowed to bring weapons onboard planes.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 16:15 |
|
|
I love all the people making excuses as to why we NEED the TSA, when in reality its a bloated and useless agency, who would love nothing more than to even be allowed to inspect vehicles on the highway. The TSA is bad news, don't make excuses for them.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 16:22 |
|
|
SpaceGirlArt posted:I don't understand the freakout over pats. There's nothing wrong with a pat. They're more effective than the metal detector and less intrusive than the scanner. It's like the least offensive thing in the world where someone lightly pats your body. To you and me, but not to other people. Most people take serious issues with strangers violating their personal space. Most parents have serious issues about strangers violating their children's personal space. I can respect that. However, I would let TSA play with my balls and check me for a hernia if it meant that I didn't have to wait 2 hours to get though the loving checkpoint.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 16:28 |
|
|
TSA Blog posted:...more cane swords than you could shake a cane sword at. Neat someone there has a sense of E: Link.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 16:29 |
|
|
Brotax posted:Next time I fly, I'm gonna really focus on getting a boner before being patted down. Awkwardness is a two-way street, pal! If she's hot then it's not that awkward; if she isn't, welp (Yes, I know, hot TSA agents exist? The promo vids say they do!) That said, I've only been to the US once...that was *years* ago back in January 2005. Just how bad are waits at airports due to the TSA now? I think I get a pat down every now and then (I sometimes travel a lot), but I don't know the reality of what happens in the US. I know the media loves to run with a bad case and make it seem like the norm du-jour (With literally everything), but just how bad is it?
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 16:43 |
|
|
Now I really want that watch made to look like an IED component.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 16:46 |
|
|
Maledict posted:If she's hot then it's not that awkward; if she isn't, welp Depends on the airport, day & time of the flight, what part of the year it is, etc. A lot of variables come into play when it comes to wait times.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 16:53 |
|
|
Maledict posted:That said, I've only been to the US once...that was *years* ago back in January 2005. Just how bad are waits at airports due to the TSA now? I think I get a pat down every now and then (I sometimes travel a lot), but I don't know the reality of what happens in the US. I know the media loves to run with a bad case and make it seem like the norm du-jour (With literally everything), but just how bad is it? It depends. I travel a few times a months and in my TOTALLY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE it seems to be better at smaller regional airports. Also there are always "choke times" about 2 hours before common flight departure times that no airport that I have been to seems to staff effectively for. Also, there are some airports (Cleveland, OH for example) that seem to have less trained and more rude agents.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 16:54 |
|
|
WickedIcon posted:I notice that nobody's brought up that the only reason the media gives a gently caress about the TSA is because of manufactured outrage from the Republican party with the intent of blocking them from unionizing. Holy poo poo, somebody finally gets it! Luckily, we got unionized and now the Repubs are in full butthurt mode about it. http://www.federaltimes.com/article...first-agreement http://communities.washingtontimes....greement-puts-/
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 16:54 |
|
|
Maledict posted:If she's hot then it's not that awkward; if she isn't, welp As said, it really varies. Sundays are the worst in my experience as that is peak international travel time with people checking in 90 bags each.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 16:55 |
|
|
By the way, the TSA pre-clear program and the exceptions drawn out for certain people are both terrible policies. But the TSA pre-check program as well as the policies on patting down children were created precisely due to Congressional pressure, which was threatening to change practices via legislation because they were REALLY mad having to get screened just like the rest of the scrubs. (You still occasionally see an entitled Congressman get on the news for creating a scene at a checkpoint) So these blatant, well-published security holes only came about because people bitched about those two specific things, and then when TSA makes a change to avoid legislative action, people bitch that they aren't keeping us safe.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:00 |
|
|
The TSA shouldn't be able to unionize because they shouldn't exist at all. They are completely worthless - they haven't caught a single terrorist nor have they stopped a single terrorist act. You know who has? The same people who did it before the TSA - the CIA, FBI, and law enforcement. Going back to airport security and screenings the way they were before the TSA existed would cause no harm since the REAL protection agencies are still in place, and it would save us money. Nobody should be OK with the TSA being able to touch you or others, especially children, ever.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:01 |
|
for the war effort
|
A welfare agency that employs people without high school degrees and puts them in tinpot dictator positions is terrible, who would have thought. The best part is we're going to be funding this forever. Public sector unions! 
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:02 |
|
|
OlmanRiver posted:Most if not all wheelchairs are specifically fit for the person who uses them. they are not "one size fits all" Sure, but I was talking about about putting them on this hypothetical wheelchair to push them like 5 feet through a scanner. This would fine for probably 95% of people in wheelchairs. You could use a wheelbarrow for gods sake. Don't put the disabled in a plastic wheelbarrow TSA that would be very demeaning.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:07 |
|
|
Pope Mobile posted:I remember the good ole days before TSA when everyone was allowed to bring weapons onboard planes. It's true. You could easily carry guns and knives on planes.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:09 |
|
|
Every single time I've flown since 9/11, I end up being one of the lucky few pulled to the side and end up getting patted down and searched. What I want to know is why? I'm just your run-of-the-mill person with no criminal history and usually just have a small carry-on with nothing suspicious in it. On more than one occasion it's caused me to almost miss a flight.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:11 |
|
|
TSA is caught between the limbo of "unreasonable searches" and "profiling". If you treat everyone equally you get complaints about unfairly treating disabled people. If you make judgments on who needs to be screened and who doesn't, you get complaints about how "they would have screened her if it was a MUSLIM family", etc. Finally, if someone does sneak a bomb concealed in a child's wheelchair, everyone complains that the TSA is incompetent, etc. They can really do no right in the public's eye. This is further compounded by the fact that being a TSA agent is a horrible job so you aren't going to attract the best people to fill positions. This leads to certain agents only making the situation worse by saying or doing stupid things.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:12 |
|
|
I had Homeland Security go though my bag on my way back to Norway, from Hawaii. It turned kinda awkward at LAX when I got pulled aside because they´d found a suspicious object in my checked luggage. Mr Sanchez the DHS man left in a hurry after I told him the ring-like object with metal balls in it that he was manhandling without gloves, was the recently used cockring my girlfriend and I bought in Hawaii. I´m so sorry man but I did double-bag it in two ziplocs for a reason
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:15 |
|
|
While I fully agree that not screening disabled people and children trivializes pretty much everything. Hell, if someone wants to bring down a plain they're riding, I don't doubt they'd be willing to break their arm so they get steel pins through it and a doctor's note. I agree with most of what this thread is saying, but keep this in mind: Flying is an extremely way to travel, and the TSA is pushing more people back on the road, probably causing more deaths than they prevent. Edit: I should check sources, disregard this post. Cymbal Monkey fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 17:40 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:28 |
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:They can really do no right in the public's eye. What is the acceptable number of kids patted down? What is the threshold of para/quadriplegic people forced into public embarassament before it becomes a problem? How many elderly people taken into a private room and searched by their government without cause for suspicion is an okay amount? The fact the TSA does stop the same items that airport security routinely stops everyday throughout the world does not excuse the fact the measures they take violate people's rights. The 4th amendment to the constitution used to mean something and it's shocking and sad that we as a country accept this notion that the constitution is more a set of 'guidelines' than the bedrock principles our nation is founded upon. Maybe now they are branching out and showing up at football games and other public events outside of the airport people will start to rebel against being forced to show their papers at government sanctioned checkpoints. I fly 250k miles a year and I never have a problem going through the TSA checkpoints. For me it is the principle of it that I can't stand.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:32 |
|
|
Cymbal Monkey posted:Flying is an extremely way to travel, and the TSA is pushing more people back on the road, probably causing more deaths than they prevent. Trusting a libertarian think tank to tell us what federal agencies are and aren't necessary sounds like a great idea. Seriously read the sources he uses, and look at his credentials at the bottom of your link. orphean posted:The fact the TSA does stop the same items that airport security routinely stops everyday throughout the world does not excuse the fact the measures they take violate people's rights. The 4th amendment to the constitution used to mean something and it's shocking and sad that we as a country accept this notion that the constitution is more a set of 'guidelines' than the bedrock principles our nation is founded upon. The 4th amendment protects from unreasonable search and seizure. As far as I know most of the government is in agreement that when you are packing into a thin metal tube that zips across the sky with 150 or so other people, making sure you aren't carrying weapons that could endanger everyone aboard is reasonable. Devyl posted:Every single time I've flown since 9/11, I end up being one of the lucky few pulled to the side and end up getting patted down and searched. What I want to know is why? I'm just your run-of-the-mill person with no criminal history and usually just have a small carry-on with nothing suspicious in it. On more than one occasion it's caused me to almost miss a flight. Bad luck or you look nervous I guess. I've been pulled aside and screened before, by the US and by whatever the UK equiv of the TSA is. The UK guys swabbed me and my bag down for explosives, making jokes about how if the swab turned pink some friendly men in black suits would come and "take me for a walk." It is irritating and maybe it isn't catching many terrorists (depending on your definition of terror it probably isn't catching ANY organized terrorists). But the sheer number of idiotic people bringing legit explosives aboard an airplane justifies the TSA's existence pretty handily, even if you believe that having multiple people with guns aboard a plane is a desirable outcome. Red_Mage fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 17:44 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:38 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:The 4th amendment protects from unreasonable search and seizure. As far as I know most of the government is in agreement that when you are packing into a thin metal tube that zips across the sky with 150 or so other people, making sure you aren't carrying weapons that could endanger everyone aboard is reasonable. Is it reasonable to search 3 year old girls in wheelchairs for assault weapons and bombs? Is that really what you are arguing?
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:39 |
|
|
orphean posted:What is the acceptable number of kids patted down? What is the threshold of para/quadriplegic people forced into public embarassament before it becomes a problem? How many elderly people taken into a private room and searched by their government without cause for suspicion is an okay amount? Not to mention: For all the 'items' the TSA stops/siezes and shows off on their blog, they have continuously failed in the past to stop ACTUAL terrorists and failed to prevent illicit items being smuggled past. For all they claim to do, they in actuality do nothing that wasn't being done before them with less violation of constitutionally guaranteed protections
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:39 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Trusting a libertarian think tank to tell us what federal agencies are and aren't necessary sounds like a great idea. Seriously read the sources he uses, and look at his credentials at the bottom of your link. My mistake.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:40 |
|
|
orphean posted:Is it reasonable to search 3 year old girls in wheelchairs for assault weapons and bombs? Is that really what you are arguing? I don't think it is the child they are concerned about, but rather the parents (or adults she is with) which might plant something on her. Why is this beyond the scope of reasonable? If they suddenly started letting seemingly disabled people through security without screening, anyone who wanted to get a weapon through security would be an idiot to not use that avenue.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:45 |
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:I don't think it is the child they are concerned about, but rather the parents (or adults she is with) which might plant something on her. Why is this beyond the scope of reasonable? If they suddenly started letting seemingly disabled people through security without screening, anyone who wanted to get a weapon through security would be an idiot to not use that avenue. Before 9/11 people in wheelchairs still flew on airplanes. Why is it now reasonable to cause the maximum amount of pain in the process? Do you feel safer knowing this is going on? \/\/ I don't know how you thought I was making a general argument when I gave three very specific examples of the behavior I find objectionable. I mean I get it you don't see any problem in all of this but you don't have to move the goalposts. orphean fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 17:51 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:48 |
|
|
orphean posted:Is it reasonable to search 3 year old girls in wheelchairs for assault weapons and bombs? Is that really what you are arguing? Oh so now we are being specific, whereas before your complaint was just the general "my 4th amendment rights are violated because someone looked in my bag." In this specific case its a yes and no situation. "Yes" - it is reasonable to run the girl's luggage & stuffed animal & wheelchair through the detectors. People have provably tried to use childrens toys and wheelchairs to smuggle weapons aboard planes. "No" - it was unreasonable for them to suggest a patdown (it violates the guidelines they have) which is why there was no patdown performed. It was also probably a rights violation to suggest they couldn't be videotaped while doing this, but again that was an employee being wrong, and the people taped anyway. No right was infringed.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:48 |
|
|
orphean posted:Before 9/11 people in wheelchairs still flew on airplanes. Why is it now reasonable to cause the maximum amount of pain in the process? Do you feel safer knowing this is going on? If you are going to let certain people through security because they fall in certain categories, why bother with screening anyone? Anyone who has malicious intent and wants to get a weapon through security will just fit themselves into the category that doesn't get screened. It is also a different environment now, how many shoe, underwear, or other attempted bombing attempts were there on airplanes before 9/11? Not to mention that plane hijackings were common before 9/11, albeit less so in the US domestic market.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:56 |
|
|
Belldandy posted:The really important distinction that 80% of posters in this thread is missing is that since the inception of the TSA and everything else security in the USA post September 11th there has NOT been any documented cases of TSA preventing or catching a single terrorist threat - this is the main charter of and why the TSA was created. TSA does not exist in any other country and in fact are not used in many airports (MCI and SFO come to mind where private security is used, although is it important to note that airports with private security are still regulated by the TSA). Every confiscation and blog post listed shows items that would have been caught by pre-9/11 security measures, the same ones used in basically every other airport in the world. TSA are not experts at weapon and threat identification, they miss as many items as they catch. TSA does not hire arms experts, they hire regular people, often with little or no security background. Also, let us keep in mind it costs us $8B annually to keep TSA around. The general idea is that if you removed the process that "hinder and inconvenience the general public based on past threats" you also remove the backing of your initial statement that "what is the likelihood you would repeat history and try to move contraband concealed in your shoe or in a wheelchair bound child, fully knowing that TSA screens for this action? I bet it isn't very high.". If we don't screen for it anymore, why wouldn't they move contraband the old way? The TSA acts more as a deterrent than a barrier to terrorist actions, as while they are in place no smart terrorist group would be willing to risk passing it. I am not saying that terrorists would be able to repeat 911 at all though, as any plane full of people would likely take down any hijacks quickly, though at the possible cost of human life. I was just annoyed at the inconsistency of your argument.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 18:08 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Oh so now we are being specific, whereas before your complaint was just the general "my 4th amendment rights are violated because someone looked in my bag." In this specific case its a yes and no situation. Is TSA protocol necessary for this situation or does anything they do in particular make their method of finding those weapons more effective than traditional airport security? Cuz I am pretty sure international airports without TSA find the same things and I am pretty sure you can't claim otherwise. Ingenium posted:The general idea is that if you removed the process that "hinder and inconvenience the general public based on past threats" you also remove the backing of your initial statement that "what is the likelihood you would repeat history and try to move contraband concealed in your shoe or in a wheelchair bound child, fully knowing that TSA screens for this action? I bet it isn't very high.". If we don't screen for it anymore, why wouldn't they move contraband the old way? The TSA acts more as a deterrent than a barrier to terrorist actions, as while they are in place no smart terrorist group would be willing to risk passing it. I am not saying that terrorists would be able to repeat 911 at all though, as any plane full of people would likely take down any hijacks quickly, though at the possible cost of human life. I was just annoyed at the inconsistency of your argument. You're wrong. If I am a terrorist organization attempting an attack I am not going to attempt an attack route that was already identified, whether it is not actively looked at or not. This applies to all sorts of security threats - airplane, computer, physical or otherwise. The idea is to attack with the least possibility of failure or detection especially now that most terror cells have serious financial backing. The TSAs methods solely rely on attacks that have been identified and by virtue are no longer relevant for a serious attack, screened for or not. Furthermore, as stated, the people working at TSA are not trained to detect these nor or they arms experts, making them completely ineffective. They are just an annoyance. Belldandy fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 18:13 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 18:08 |
|
|
Belldandy posted:Is TSA protocol necessary for this situation or does anything they do in particular make their method of finding those weapons more effective than traditional airport security? Cuz I am pretty sure international airports without TSA find the same things and I am pretty sure you can't claim otherwise. What difference does it make what the airport security people are called? Am I missing something which differentiates the TSA from traditional airport security? I travel internationally fairly frequently, and no matter what the airport security people are called or where I am, they seem to largely use the same techniques, including patdowns and body scanners. I agree that US security folks and border officers tend to be a lot more assholish than officials in other countries, but I think that's just the us-vs.-them attitude that infects all of the US law enforcement.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 18:23 |
|
|
Belldandy posted:You're wrong. Again, why wouldn't they if there was no active search for the type of attack? What would make it a bad idea to repeat if the odds of it working were to be almost the same as before? The reason you don't repeat something that has been done before is due to response measures. If I had a shop and had someone rob me, but then took no actions to protect me from future robbings what prevents them from doing it again? If they had full knowledge that nothing changed then there would be no reason for them to NOT repeat the action. If your argument is that other measures taken, such as the change to public views of hijacking and secured pilot rooms are enough, then that is a completely different argument.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 18:25 |
|
|
I never really got the huge problem with the TSA. I even fly quite a bit. It's just a bit of a nuisance, and people act like it's some huge imposition on my human rights. Nah.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 18:33 |
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:Why screen at all then? I don't actually see a need to screen. There are a ton of crowded, public spaces that manage to survive without the TSA. Why should we worry more about airplanes than we do about subways, ferries or sporting events?
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 18:38 |
|
|
I just don't understand most of the TSA policies at all. Making us remove our shoes I suppose makes sense since Richard Reid got his explosives all the way onto the plane, but the 3 ounces of toiletries is ridiculous. That policy came into effect AFTER they stopped someone at security with an explosive liquid in a bottle. The system worked, so they decided to change it an make it more invasive/complicated/inconveniencing? I think they're just loving assholes.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 18:41 |
|
|
falcon2424 posted:I don't actually see a need to screen. There are a ton of crowded, public spaces that manage to survive without the TSA. Airplanes are more fragile than all of those things. Additionally almost all those things have security onsite/onboard that can take action, planes are much more hit and miss. You could argue that we could use the TSA's budget to put a air marshal on every plane, but that still doesn't address the fact that an oz of black powder is enough to cause explosive decompression in the cabin and kill everyone aboard.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 18:42 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 01:51 |
|
|
Pick posted:I never really got the huge problem with the TSA. I even fly quite a bit. It's just a bit of a nuisance, and people act like it's some huge imposition on my human rights. Nah. As an able-bodied white guy, I pretty much agree with you that it ain't really affecting my life in a massive way, but the situation might be different if I couldn't easily comply with the demands of security screeners due to physical disabilities, or if I were profiled against regularly (I often am for customs, since I'm a young guy usually travelling alone, and I hate it), or if I had reason to believe the screeners were getting their jollies by patting me down. I agree that some level of screening is necessary (like metal detectors and x-rays), which I have seen in other public places, even outside the US, but the TSA probably takes things unnecessarily far. For example, I don't have to remove running shoes going through airport security in Canada.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 18:46 |
|
