|
I've only had a patdown once, but it wasn't "a quick gentle pat" or whatever, it was a very detailed groping of everything including my breasts and genitals. I was wearing jeans, and I was definitely not expecting to feel so much detailed contact with my labia. Gynecologists don't touch you that way, waxers don't touch you that way, laser hair removal techs don't touch you that way, even strange gropers on the subway don't touch you that way. I'd never been touched like that by someone I wasn't in the middle of having sex with. The agent was polite enough and I don't think she was getting off on it, but it was weird as gently caress and way more uncomfortable than I'd expected. I didn't throw a fit or even say anything at the time, but I was rattled, and groping (or caressing?) was the word for it. On the other hand, you are totally allowed to bring wood or metal spikes, over a foot long, about as thick as your pinky, with a nice sharp point on them. They become completely harmless if you also have a ball of yarn in your bag, true fact.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 18:46 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 03:04 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted: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. Alternately, we could remove the TSA and spend their $8.1 Billion budget on anything else and get more social good. The TSA just doesn't provide anywhere near enough benefit to justify its costs.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 18:57 |
|
|
Ingenium posted: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. Well... All a hijacker need to do is go through the security without any problem, and then on the other side assemble weaponry and bombs from available tax-free products, electronics and ect. I can think of several ways to gain slicing weapons and flammable liquids. And if you have trained scientists and engineers like Muhammed Atta, Anwar al Awlaki, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Hasan Karim Akbar and others that have studied physics and chemistry with a intention to stop american warfare. Then I am pretty sure they will have no problem, I assume these people are highly motivated and stroking children on the genitalia wont stop these guys. Also some of them are war veterans, a plane full of people panicking is probably not going to help either. Only things that might help is no refreshments on the plane (it is easy to construct a stabbing weapon from a coke can), no tax free or hand luggage. People should wear special clothes without pockets and get tied to the chair with a sturdy lock. Let's hope none of the stewards or pilots are terrorists... planes should be flown by robots. good luck america :P
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:00 |
|
|
I am perfectly fine with run of the mill pat downs. Being a concert goer in Detroit, Pat downs are quite regular. These pat downs are completely different than TSA patdowns, however. When I get a pat down before entering a concert, it is a simple "unzip jacket, raise arms, keep feet at shoulder length" and they proceed to gently check limbs and waist. The times I have been patted down by the TSA have been full grope mode. One time my privates were literally grabbed. Not patted. Grabbed. I obviously flinched and mumbled "what the gently caress?" which turned into a 45 minute questioning session. gently caress the TSA.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:01 |
|
|
Noni posted: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. Considering anyone in this thread saying "as a parent" is just attempting to shed more light on more POVs regarding this situation, then yes, off to the playroom with you. Just you though. It's not a matter of "I have a kid my opinion matters more". It is a matter of introducing thought processes that may not be shared among people who don't have children. I know I sure as hell didn't think this way until I had neices/nephews and then my own child.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:02 |
|
|
There are dangerous assholes everywhere (an astonishing and original insight, I know), and since I have to deal with them, I'd rather have them be in the position of keeping things off of airplanes rather than bringing them on.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:04 |
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Alternately, we could remove the TSA and spend their $8.1 Billion budget on anything else and get more social good. We could apply that exact same logic ("Well you cannot prove they've stopped anything") to a few other federal agencies too while we're at it. falcon2424 posted:Alternately, we could remove the falcon2424 posted:Alternately, we could remove the I mean why bother with having federal regulations instead of just having rights. All it does is waste money and provide "security theater."
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:08 |
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:There are dangerous assholes everywhere (an astonishing and original insight, I know), and since I have to deal with them, I'd rather have them be in the position of keeping things off of airplanes rather than bringing them on. The goal shouldn't be moving the dangerous assholes from one place to another. This is why the deterrence justification is bullshit. Terrorists don't have it out for airplanes, they're going after Americans. So, even if the TSA weren't an embarrassing joke, their deterrence wouldn't make much of a difference. Literally no one is going to say, "Thank God that the TSA's deterrence made it so those terrorists to attacked a school/ferry/sports-game instead of an airplane." If we have to blow 8.1 billion on security, I'd rather that we give it to the FBI. Then we can catch the assholes, instead of just shifting them from one target to another.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:09 |
|
|
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. I mostly agree, though with the other target options the volume is simply too large to do anything about it. Nobody is going to go through a 20 minute security line to take a 15 minute subway ride. Also, subways and ferries are not isolated environments. Unlike a plane you cannot fully control the situation during a hijacking with a firearm or similar weapon. A subway or ferry is easily accessible by law enforcement, planes are not. Finally, you can't really use a subway or ferry as a weapon, which I think is the real sticking point when it comes to aviation safety. quote:Alternately, we could remove the TSA and spend their $8.1 Billion budget on anything else and get more social good.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:10 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:We could apply that exact same logic ("Well you cannot prove they've stopped anything") to a few other federal agencies too while we're at it.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:12 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:We could apply that exact same logic ("Well you cannot prove they've stopped anything") to a few other federal agencies too while we're at it. The FDA is way more cost-effective than the TSA. That's the difference. We give both agencies a ton of money. And then one of them actually does something useful. Are you confused about the idea of cost effectiveness, in general? Or are you saying that we can't estimate the effects of the FDA's programs?
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:12 |
|
|
Copley Depot posted:But it's easy to see what social good the EPA and FDA are providing. It's much harder to see the social good that the TSA is supposedly providing. Well, apparently they've prevented loaded guns from being carried in hand luggage. I think that's a pretty good thing. Like I've said before, I think the TSA unmistakably goes too far, but security screening is necessary and I don't see why a decentralized mixture of security providers is better than one federal agency.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:15 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:We could apply that exact same logic ("Well you cannot prove they've stopped anything") to a few other federal agencies too while we're at it. This is stupid because the FDA and EPA actually provide services that actually benefit society. The TSA provides no none. PT6A posted:Well, apparently they've prevented loaded guns from being carried in hand luggage. I think that's a pretty good thing. Like I've said before, I think the TSA unmistakably goes too far, but security screening is necessary and I don't see why a decentralized mixture of security providers is better than one federal agency. We didn't need a new federal agency to do something that was already being done. Security screenings existed before the TSA. E: And I can't take an agency seriously when they spend their money on uniforms and badges to make them look like LEOs when they aren't. Pope Mobile fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 19:19 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:16 |
|
|
PT6A posted:Well, apparently they've prevented loaded guns from being carried in hand luggage. I think that's a pretty good thing. Like I've said before, I think the TSA unmistakably goes too far, but security screening is necessary and I don't see why a decentralized mixture of security providers is better than one federal agency. Guns were being apprehended well before the TSA existed. The selective memory in this country is astounding.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:19 |
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:Isn't most of the TSA funded through security fees and taxes from airline tickets, etc? The agency was created after 9/11 to replace and standardize private security contracted through the airlines and airports. Removing the agency would mean we would have to revert to that, which quite frankly is unlikely to be any better. This is further compounded by the fact that private airlines would be even bigger assholes because of the liability now involved in incidents on planes. The first is that, in my opinion, we should really strip the TSA of it's trappings of law-enforcement. So, I'd actually prefer private security to the status quo. The second is that we should re-set the requirements for getting on a plane. The rest of the world seems to do fine with metal detectors and x-rays. The pat-down stuff is just nuts, as are the rules on shoes and liquids. Neither of these things would entirely free up the TSA's budget, but they'd definitely help us kill some of it.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:20 |
|
|
Pope Mobile posted:We didn't need a new federal agency to do something that was already being done. Security screenings existed before the TSA. I'm not an Amercian, so just humour me for a moment: why is it worse that security screening is centralized into a single agency? Like I said, I'm not disagreeing that the TSA and border protection aren't a bunch of utter cunts, I'm just wondering why you and others think that this is caused and/or exacerbated by the fact that they're a federal agency. Is there something about American federal agencies that makes them especially incompetent or wasteful versus state or private organizations?
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:21 |
|
|
Pope Mobile posted:We didn't need a new federal agency to do something that was already being done. Security screenings existed before the TSA. Yes they were handled by private security companies at cost to the airport or airline. This is an objectively worse situation than having a federally regulated agency conduct screenings for the EXACT same reasons that having a private FDA or EPA is. PT6A posted:I'm not an Amercian, so just humour me for a moment: why is it worse that security screening is centralized into a single agency? Like I said, I'm not disagreeing that the TSA and border protection aren't a bunch of utter cunts, I'm just wondering why you and others think that this is caused and/or exacerbated by the fact that they're a federal agency. Is there something about American federal agencies that makes them especially incompetent or wasteful versus state or private organizations? Yes, if you are a moronic right wing shill, not letting private companies take dollars from the state to touch your junk is a horrible violation of your rights. However if it is a private security contractor touching your junk, its the free market at work. TSA is a net improvement over the hodgepodge of private securities that predated it. Anyone arguing for defunding it/removing it rather than reforming it (because it does need reform, but that is largely hampered by the right who want it to fail, and some of the nutbar left who think that new technology is always evil) pretty much wants to gently caress over states, airlines, and passengers more so that some contractor can line its pockets. Red_Mage fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 19:28 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:24 |
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm not an Amercian, so just humour me for a moment: why is it worse that security screening is centralized into a single agency? Like I said, I'm not disagreeing that the TSA and border protection aren't a bunch of utter cunts, I'm just wondering why you and others think that this is caused and/or exacerbated by the fact that they're a federal agency. Is there something about American federal agencies that makes them especially incompetent or wasteful versus state or private organizations? Im pretty liberal and support most large government programs, but the Federal (and state) governments are absolutely poo poo at handling low wage workers. The TSA is a major example of this, the Federal programs are structured around people behaving responsibly and understanding the intent of the regulation they are enforcing. When you pay a lovely salary, give someone way too much authority and a badge and tell them they are in charge you foster napoleon complexes and you get stupid assholes like the one in this video making up imaginary laws to try to control the mother. In a small firm you have a manager or owner on site who can smack that poo poo down, with the Feds the buck has to pass all the way back to Washington for someone to get yelled at and by the time it does everyone involved is already pissed off. Red_Mage posted:Yes they were handled by private security companies at cost to the airport or airline. This is an objectively worse situation than having a federally regulated agency conduct screenings for the EXACT same reasons that having a private FDA or EPA is. This is probably the most clueless thing I've read in this thread, have you ever even worked in a field CLOSE to aviation? The TSA has been incredibly detrimental to air travel without providing even the smallest ounce of increased efficiency. Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 19:31 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:28 |
|
|
Private security also forces the airport management to take responsibility for security. As it is now, the next time something goes wrong, the airport just says ask the TSA, and the TSA just goes 'well we'll replace some policy/train a guy on policy'. Not to mention you'd have to look pretty hard to find a private security company with hiring or training standards as low as the TSA. It's a joke that we seem to be trapped in: a failure occurs in a federal agency or program. The solution: add a new agency or program and watch it fail even harder.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:29 |
|
|
I always, always, ALWAYS get selected for 'random' patdowns or the porno scanner literally every time I fly. I'm sure the fact that I look like this has a little to do with it. I basically just work myself into a boner once I hit the head of the line. Wanna pat me down or look at me naked? Go nuts, but I'm going to make sure you feel pretty inadequate while doing so. 
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:29 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Yes they were handled by private security companies at cost to the airport or airline. This is an objectively worse situation than having a federally regulated agency conduct screenings for the EXACT same reasons that having a private FDA or EPA is.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:31 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Yes, if you are a moronic right wing shill, not letting private companies take dollars from the state to touch your junk is a horrible violation of your rights. However if it is a private security contractor touching your junk, its the free market at work. TSA is a net improvement over the hodgepodge of private securities that predated it. Anyone arguing for defunding it/removing it rather than reforming it (because it does need reform, but that is largely hampered by the right who want it to fail, and some of the nutbar left who think that new technology is always evil) pretty much wants to gently caress over states, airlines, and passengers more so that some contractor can line its pockets. Pleas explain to me how a bunch of low wage workers wearing fake badges, making me take off my shoes and confiscating my shampoo is safer than the way it was before. How is TSA screeners being informed beforehand of under cover agents attempting to smuggle fake bombs/weapons/materials through screening in order to increase their success rate making me safer?
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:36 |
|
|
Copley Depot posted:What would you say are the reasons why a private EPA or FDA wouldn't work? The accountability isn't there. The government is supposed to be (by and large) incorruptible. It isn't in practical terms, but if the FDA isn't doing its job, it has the highest authority in the land looking down on it and breathing down its neck, as well as controlling its purse strings. If we made it so there were private FDAs there would inevitably be one or two that were more than willing to cut corners and do shoddy work to save on costs. Then people would die from contaminated food that is "inspected safe." The free market argument is "well people would stop trusting that inspection company/food maker." An argument that flies in the face of what we know about human nature, and that is of little comfort to those who have lost loved ones. Privatization rarely produces desirable results. The problem of "TSA are acting too much like fake cops" is not "get rid of the TSA and replace them with fake cops/fake military." VV Edit: the point is that private profit driven organizations have more incentives to do bad things to make more money than government orgs do. Private security would be no better than the TSA, and even less accountable VV Red_Mage fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 19:41 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:37 |
|
|
Copley Depot posted:What would you say are the reasons why a private EPA or FDA wouldn't work? This is boggling to me as well. The EPA and FDA are government for the exact same reason that security shouldn't be. A private EPA or FDA would be more profitable if regulations are ignored and kickbacks are collected making them useless as a private organization. A security firm on the other hand loses it's profitability the second an incident occurs meaning they have the most motivation to be courteous and effective.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:37 |
|
|
Pope Mobile posted:Pleas explain to me how a bunch of low wage workers wearing fake badges, making me take off my shoes and confiscating my shampoo is safer than the way it was before. Your second question is just a cheap talking point, you are welcome to take it up with someone else. What you are not seeing is that this would not change if we did away with the TSA. The "fake" badges would change. That's about it. People conflate the TSA with the extremely stringent airport secuity because they both came about in response to 9/11. The thing is that private security would be doing the exact same extreme poo poo to keep the exact same people happy, the only difference is the people doing it are a private contractor now (which historically has meant less accountability). Red_Mage fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 19:42 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:39 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Your second question is just a cheap talking point, you are welcome to take it up with someone else. What you are not seeing is that this would not change if we did away with the TSA. The "fake" badges would change. That's about it. People conflate the TSA with the extremely stringent airport secuity because they both came about in response to 9/11. The thing is that private security would be doing the exact same extreme poo poo to keep the exact same people happy, the only difference is they are a private contractor now (which historically has meant less accountable). How is my second question a "cheap talking point" if it's a standard practice that is a prime example of the TSA being nothing but security theater? This sums up really well why you're wrong. Spaceman Future! posted:This is boggling to me as well. The EPA and FDA are government for the exact same reason that security shouldn't be. A private EPA or FDA would be more profitable if regulations are ignored and kickbacks are collected making them useless as a private organization. A security firm on the other hand loses it's profitability the second an incident occurs meaning they have the most motivation to be courteous and effective.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:43 |
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm not an Amercian, so just humour me for a moment: why is it worse that security screening is centralized into a single agency? Like I said, I'm not disagreeing that the TSA and border protection aren't a bunch of utter cunts, I'm just wondering why you and others think that this is caused and/or exacerbated by the fact that they're a federal agency. Is there something about American federal agencies that makes them especially incompetent or wasteful versus state or private organizations? In this case, I think their shittiness is a combination of being pseudo-law-enforcement, setting the requirements for the scans, and being expected to defend against a mostly non-existent threat. Most agencies set a requirement ("label your drugs") that binds other organizations ("we have to label our drugs now"). This forces some amount of debate about the merits of any given requirement. The TSA, on the other hand, sets the requirements ("3oz of fluids"), and then asks the government for money to enforce them. They can use their law enforcement powers to put critics onto a terrorist watch-list http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qr5EsCoz5s . The result is that we get abusive assholes ("film us and we'll arrest you", in the OP) enforcing an ever-growing body of rules that have no connection to real risks.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:43 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Your second question is just a cheap talking point, you are welcome to take it up with someone else. What you are not seeing is that this would not change if we did away with the TSA. The "fake" badges would change. That's about it. People conflate the TSA with the extremely stringent airport secuity because they both came about in response to 9/11. The thing is that private security would be doing the exact same extreme poo poo to keep the exact same people happy, the only difference is the people doing it are a private contractor now (which historically has meant less accountability). Its called and has been exposed as security theater for a reason, stop avoid the reality that the TSA has been proven time and again as ineffective, wasteful, and abusive.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:46 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:The accountability isn't there. The government is supposed to be (by and large) incorruptible. It isn't in practical terms, but if the FDA isn't doing its job, it has the highest authority in the land looking down on it and breathing down its neck, as well as controlling its purse strings.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:46 |
|
|
falcon2424 posted:In this case, I think their shittiness is a combination of being pseudo-law-enforcement, setting the requirements for the scans, and being expected to defend against a mostly non-existent threat. I agree the TSA is hosed. I don't think that's really under debate. I just think, based partially on the fact that I'm Canadian, that the solution isn't to decentralize the TSA to the states and/or private organizations, but rather to look at the problems that exist and fix them within the context of improving the operation of a federal agency. I agree that it's ridiculous that they're essentially self-policing, and can set rules almost arbitrarily, but I still cannot understand why the genesis of those problems is related to the fact they are a federal agency. It's a complete non-sequitur in my mind.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:46 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Your second question is just a cheap talking point, you are welcome to take it up with someone else. What you are not seeing is that this would not change if we did away with the TSA. The "fake" badges would change. That's about it. People conflate the TSA with the extremely stringent airport secuity because they both came about in response to 9/11. The thing is that private security would be doing the exact same extreme poo poo to keep the exact same people happy, the only difference is the people doing it are a private contractor now (which historically has meant less accountability). Its fairly obvious that they arent keeping people "Happy", unless you came in here to white night an organization that everyone is pleased as punch with. All you're doing is trying to swat down arguments, you have yet to provide a single occurrence where the cost of the TSA, a cost that is inflated by the power of ten to the old systems, has provided anything whatsoever to justify its exorbitant cost? Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 19:55 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:46 |
|
|
Y'know if the government would just follow my suggestion on airport security none of this would be necessary: Every passenger is allowed one (1) carry on weapon. No sharp edges, nothing that fires a projectile. Bats, table legs, crowbars, etc. I see no flaw to this plan. And let's be honest, in this day and age, anyone who stands up on a flight and tries to do anything perceived as threatening is just gonna get the poo poo stomped out of him by everyone else on the plane. haljordan fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 19:50 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:47 |
|
|
Anne Whateley posted:I've only had a patdown once, but it wasn't "a quick gentle pat" or whatever, it was a very detailed groping of everything including my breasts and genitals. I was wearing jeans, and I was definitely not expecting to feel so much detailed contact with my labia. Gynecologists don't touch you that way, waxers don't touch you that way, laser hair removal techs don't touch you that way, even strange gropers on the subway don't touch you that way. I'd never been touched like that by someone I wasn't in the middle of having sex with. If it makes you feel better, you're not being unreasonable. The gropings actually are intended to make you feel violated. http://www.theatlantic.com/national...sistance/65390/ quote:At BWI, I told the officer who directed me to the back-scatter that I preferred a pat-down. I did this in order to see how effective the manual search would be. When I made this request, a number of TSA officers, to my surprise, began laughing. I asked why. One of them -- the one who would eventually conduct my pat-down -- said that the rules were changing shortly, and that I would soon understand why the back-scatter was preferable to the manual search. I asked him if the new guidelines included a cavity search. "No way. You think Congress would allow that?"
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:48 |
|
|
I'm patted down every single time I fly because I wear steel-toed boots that trigger the detector. If I had wanted to, I could have easily concealed a knife inside my boots, they've never told me to take them off. I never travelled to terrorist-fighting USA though. Also I'm not a terrorist.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:55 |
|
|
Pochoclo posted:I'm patted down every single time I fly because I wear steel-toed boots that trigger the detector. Well you would be in for a surprise, we all have to take our shoes off. Why? To prevent a method of terrorism that didn't work! Preventing the unnecessary is like a specialty of the TSA.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:57 |
|
|
Pochoclo posted:I'm patted down every single time I fly because I wear steel-toed boots that trigger the detector. Yeah they make everyone take their shoes off at every airport in the US. Oh and laptops MUST COME OUT OF THE BAG so no hiding any shivs in those either. haljordan fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 19:59 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:57 |
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Its fairly obvious that they arent keeping people "Happy", unless you came in here to white night an organization that everyone is pleased as punch with. All you're doing is trying to swat down arguments, you have yet to provide a single occurrence where the cost of the TSA, a cost that is inflated by the power of ten to the old systems, has provided anything whatsoever to justify is exorbitant cost? PT6A posted:I agree the TSA is hosed. I don't think that's really under debate. I just think, based partially on the fact that I'm Canadian, that the solution isn't to decentralize the TSA to the states and/or private organizations, but rather to look at the problems that exist and fix them within the context of improving the operation of a federal agency. I agree that it's ridiculous that they're essentially self-policing, and can set rules almost arbitrarily, but I still cannot understand why the genesis of those problems is related to the fact they are a federal agency. It's a complete non-sequitur in my mind. This response sums it up better than I could. The TSA is pretty hosed, partly because people (the public writ large, the idiots in charge at some places, its own leadership) expect quick reactions to whatever the incident of the year is. Privatization is not the answer because it just shifts around what idiots are in charge and who is getting what money. The TSA will never be able to "justify its exorbitant cost" to the people who want it defunded, because they are assuming that private security has no coast if they think that the TSA is doing no better than they did, or they think that people should be able to load a few lbs of black powder and some handguns into a carryon. Ideally we'd see a system with mm scans that metal can pass through fine, and an xray of carryon luggage, and you'd be able to board your flight outright. The only thing stopping the TSA from doing that right now is paranoia, both on their part about letting someone who wants to blow up a plane slip through, and on the part of people who are afraid the scanner will cause cancer down the line/violate their 4th amendment rights. Private security wouldn't be any better, I say that as someone who went through it in the in between period, before the TSA but post 9/11, security increased tenfold and wait times with it.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 19:59 |
|
|
haljordan posted:Yeah they make everyone take their shoes off at every airport in the US. Oh and laptops MUST COME OUT OF THE BAG so no hiding any shivs in those either. Yep. In Canada, though, I've only taken off my boots when they have metal in them. Runners are fine. We do have to take laptops out of bags, but tablets are fine. In comparison, travelling through Amsterdam, both laptops and tablets had to be removed from hand baggage. Travelling through Cuba, pretty much nothing has to be removed from hand baggage, even though you're technically not allowed to import GPS equipment (i.e. bring any smartphone or tablet with you, by the letter of the law, though I've never known anyone, Cuban or foreigner, to have a problem with that). PT6A fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 20:04 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:00 |
|
|
Couldn't a dedicated enough terrorist just put a glass blade under his flesh? Gonna hurt like hell but if you're dedicated enough to hijacking a plane it should be possible.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:03 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 03:04 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:This response sums it up better than I could. The TSA is pretty hosed, partly because people (the public writ large, the idiots in charge at some places, its own leadership) expect quick reactions to whatever the incident of the year is. Privatization is not the answer because it just shifts around what idiots are in charge and who is getting what money. The TSA will never be able to "justify its exorbitant cost" to the people who want it defunded, because they are assuming that private security has no coast if they think that the TSA is doing no better than they did, or they think that people should be able to load a few lbs of black powder and some handguns into a carryon. You are missing the point: The TSA is a tool, an ineffective tool, that has failed to stop incidents, desire to take their powers of search and seizure on the road (VIPR), and are a bloated attempt to solve security when in reality their track record gives no hints of ability to even do the job they maintain they can do. Time and again, the capabilities have been proven as faulty and incompetent. Stop trying to take every route to justify them
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:03 |
|
