Way to go, TSA

[Serafina]

So yes, passengers will act to subdue Bad Guys.

That depends. You already pointed out that those instances were suicide bombers. Psychologically, a suicide bomber represents a much different thread than several guys pointing guns at you - namely, you won't be dead the instant you do something (especially in those cases, where the bomb wasn't ready to blow).
Of course, actually getting several people with guns on an airplane is utterly impossible these days, but i just wanted to point out that these situations are not equal.

[Skgoa]

... and people with guns are defeated by armored and locked cockpit doors.

I still don't get why people don't worry more about terrorists simply getting maintenance jobs and sabotaging aiplanes. Or any one of dozens of ideas I could name of the top of my head. In Germany, we have had people threatening to put poison into food at specific supermarkets, why is no one calling for porn scanners in that case? Hell, why do we allow people to be unsupervised AT ALL? With modern AI and computer vision, we could automate the system. Just have the SecuNet stop the heart of anyone who is doing something suspicious.

[Akhlut]

If we're worried about explosives, why not train more explosive-sniffing dogs? Everyone but the caniphobic are going to be more or less okay with it, and people who don't like dogs or who have religious objections to it can be searched by a handheld explosives detector! Holy shit, we don't have to expose people to possible sexual assault or degrading procedures and we can still be protected to a high extent. And, to catch people with such fun things as knives and guns with traditional metal detectors.

[Master of Ossus]

According to what? Every HR person I've ever spoken to has said the only thing they're allowed to confirm is whether or not the person worked there and for how long; anything negative leaves them open to lawsuits.

Merely drug testing at all exposes them to lawsuits because the legality of workplace drug tests hasn't been nailed down, yet. Every single employer does it, and to cover themselves the forms that they have you sign as a condition of employment commonly include clauses that allow company employees and HR access. They also permit people to share this information in the offchance it gets out, even if it's not company policy to commonly disclose this sort of information, because corporate law firms like to put in as many redundant legal protections as possible.

Did you even do the math on how much you're paying out to cover TSA before you cried bullshit? You're looking at well over a billion dollars for all the TSA screeners, assuming a bare minimum salary of $20,000 per year with more than 67,000 employees. Air Marshals are likely to fly more than one flight per day as it is. Given 30,000 flights per day on average we're looking at around 17,000 Air Marshals to make sure everything is fully covered. If the concern is over what someone will do once they're on a plane then all the extra screening at the airport is pretty meaningless.

Oh, so you're advocating air marshals instead of pre-screening? That is the most retarded safety idea that I have ever heard. You're just letting anyone onto planes and then putting them up in the air without any proactive security at all.

[Chardok]

Okay, I'll say it: What the hell is the problem? They're being searched. There COULD be a something hidden anywhere. I COULD have a gun stashed in my undies against my taint. Someone COULD put a knife in their prosthetic breast (I guess; I mean if it looks weird on the scanner, what exactly is the issue with checking it out?).

Yes, how silly - asking a woman to remove her breast in public The problem is that people with prostheses are wearing them either to conceal a body defect, or to fill in for a non-functioning or absent body part. The are frequently custom made and custom fitted, and far more personal than your underwear. Also, replacing them isn't always a matter of just slapping them here or there on your body, replacing a prosthesis (depending on what it is) can take some time and involve more undressing than anyone should be called upon to do in public. Granted, a breast prosthesis is probably one of the least cumbersome of such, but the woman's point is valid - there are millions of women who will now be expected to remove their fake breast(s) in order to get onto an airplane, and apparently they are expected to do this in full view of the public. Do you seriously think not one of those bystanders will have a cutting or rude remark for the woman in question? Multiply that by everyone else who has a replacement body part.

I will totally grant you that it is somehwat invasive and that DBs will certainly make cutting and insensitive remarks/jokes remarks. (In my defense I do concede that this type of search should be performed in at least semi-private later in my comment) But it doesn't change the fact that the prosthetic *should* be searched.

If the TSA agents are following protocol, then they're absolutely right: Ms. Kiss can elect to NOT FLY.

In other words, many jobs will be off limits to her without her consenting to what, under almost any other circumstances, would be sexual assault. She can just forget about vacationing on any continent but North America. Instead of taking a few hours to go from New York to California she can just STFU and drive, never mind it would take at least a week.

Essentially, yes. I'm sorry, but again, we're living in a world where fear-driven paranoia is the rule, not the exception. I do not feel that checking a strange thing to make sure that the thing doesn't have a weapon in it or is not itself a weaponis not overly invasive.

Restricting a person's ability to fly is a de facto restricting of their ability to travel, to go places, and in many case a restriction of their professional life. Inability to fly closes off careers. People should not have to submit to humiliation to hold down a job.

Look - I can sympathize, I really can, but again, this is the world in which we live. I disagree that it is defacto restriction, however, as their option is either submit or don't travel. Again - I don't feel that searching a person because of a strange prosthesis constitutes a violation of human rights. In fact - I see it as ensuring the human rights of ALL the passengers on Airline X.

People need to wake up and realize that this is a different world. They fly, they're getting searched. When I fly, I EXPECT to be searched, I'm HAPPY to be searched,

I'm not.

In fact, I find it appalling. Worse yet, it won't keep people safe in the way they think it will. It's punishing the innocent in order to inconvenience - but not stop - the bad guys.

I respect your feelings on this, I really do - but it doesn't change the fact that the reality is that that bit of inconvenience may just be the determining factor on whether or not a terrorist plot is carried out.

Okay, that's a bit of a stretch - but honeslty, the revailing climate dictates that we take these extreme measures, lest we be viewed as not having done ANYTHING to prevent something terrible from happening. Let me ask you this - assume we do not do our checks on flights, and terrorist X hops on a plane bound for paris and flies the thing into the eiffel tower, what does France ask the US?

I'd be glad to have my balls cupped for a few seconds, if even by a fat, ugly bald chick.

I'm tired of hearing this shit - there is NO way you'd be searched by a woman. I'm tired of this bullshit hur, hur, get my balls felt by a chick I keep hearing every time this subject comes up. You'll get your balls felt up by a fat, ugly, bald GUY.

Which, by the way, does bring up the issues of pre-operative transsexuals. There's no way in hell they can go through the "pornoscanners" without being outed. It gives me a very bad chill to think that someone who looks, acts, walks, and in every way appears to be a feminine woman is likely going to get her crotch groped by that same fat, ugly, bald guy who just felt YOU up, Chardock, simply because she either hasn't been able to afford, or hasn't yet scheduled, a particular surgery. Cause, you know, pre-op transwomen are just aching to be outed in public, the fact they still have a penis and testicles made public, and groped by a total stranger. Probably in front of all those other passengers, some of which will undoubtedly be homophobic or trans-hating. Way to set someone up for assault.

To your first point - I was being a sillyboy about the ballcupping - but if I'm completely honest, I'm not really all that picky about the gender of the ball cupper, long as they're cupped.

RE: Transgendered people, I cannot feel bad for them. they're going to be initially searched by a same-sex who, let's be honest, when they get down to the crotch area, are probably[/]i going to understand what's up pretty quickly and either hand the pat-down off to a male, or just continue. I seriously doubt they're going to scream "HOLY CRAP A DICKINAMINISKIRT" to the entire airport.

I've accepted that this shit happens now. I'm not *scared* of them damn turrists, but I recognize that a lot of people are and DON'T want to ride on a plane with them. Fine. There's a law, it's not ZOMG OPPRESSION,

Yes, it IS oppression, you're just too stupid and numb to realize it.

Bull fucking shit. there's precedent for requiring a search before getting on a plane and simply saying "la la la can't hear you cause you're dumb la la la." doesn't change that. We're not talking about taking away the right to vote, we're talking about ensuring the safety of a hundred people who are, for all intents and purposes, captive for X hours in a sealed tube at 30,00 feet.

you're not being forced into a religionn you don't believe in

Actually, there ARE religions that would have great issue with a woman being forced to even partially undress in public. [/quote]

Then they can ride their puritain asses on a horse a buggy. Flying is not a right. If Sally Seikh appears to have something funny in her skirt, I want her checked out as readily as I'd want Albert Atheist. If I form a religion whose tenets include smoking crack in McDonalds, I wouldn't be able to go in front of a judge and say "RAR PERSECUTION" and expect to escape jail time.

you're not being jailed for no reason,

Actually, there is a man currently facing a court date because he opted to walk away rather than submit to crotch groping. It seems once you're in the security line you no longer have an option and yes, you potentially COULD be jailed if you change your mind and decide you don't want to fly badly enough to submit to sexual assault.

Stop calling it sexual assault. It's not. It's a fucking PAT DOWN and only turns into "Sexual assault" when something weird is noted.

I'd rather it be because of mechanical failure, not because some rube with a steak knife shanked the pilot and is now flying the thing into a daycare.

Since 9/11, there have been several instances of passengers overwhelming people who even just appeared to be a threat, including a couple instances of suspected hijackers being killed by a mob before they ever got close to the cockpit door. It will probably be at least a generation, if not longer, before that ever happens again. Regardless of what security is or isn't occurring before people board.

I've not heard that. If true, then stupid. But, as agent K said "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals and you know it."

I will grant that if you're going to squeeze a boob, you should probably do it behind a screen or enclosure, but honestly, Give me a break.

It's not a matter of squeezing a boob - it's a matter of asking a woman to remove her boob. In full view of the public. You don't see something amiss with that?

Sure I do. Which is why I suggest if it even goes as far as boob squeezing, it should be behind a thing, curtain, enclosure, whatever. But boobs ain't gonna get squeezed if something strange is not noted beforehand.

This smacks of impotent whining. "OMG it was the most humiliating thing evarz." "ZOMG I get teh rapezored by the mean agents who manhandle me by lightly brushing my pantsleg and crotch." "zomg teh scarey Radiations will melt me!" "Oh no! They're going to rub a cotton swab on my asscrack!" Whining fucking maggots. Jesus Christ what bunch of pussies.*shrug*

Remember that when they move on to full body cavity searches and some guy the size of a gorilla with hands like a baseball mitt is pulling on the plastic gloves and getting out the jar of lube.

I forsee full-on, total recall-style xrays happening before that.

[General Zod]

Merely drug testing at all exposes them to lawsuits because the legality of workplace drug tests hasn't been nailed down, yet. Every single employer does it, and to cover themselves the forms that they have you sign as a condition of employment commonly include clauses that allow company employees and HR access. They also permit people to share this information in the offchance it gets out, even if it's not company policy to commonly disclose this sort of information, because corporate law firms like to put in as many redundant legal protections as possible.

Again, according to what? You keep stating this as fact without backing it up.

Oh, so you're advocating air marshals instead of pre-screening? That is the most retarded safety idea that I have ever heard. You're just letting anyone onto planes and then putting them up in the air without any proactive security at all.

Because the TSA's been so effective at catching criminals so far right? Can you name a single high-profile terrorist that was caught as a result of TSA efforts and not other law enforcement agencies?

[Master of Ossus]

A big difference is that you can stop taking drugs. You can not stop being an amputee

Taking illegal drugs makes you a criminal. Being an amputee should not make you a criminal

Nor does it. At most it exposes you to additional screening procedures.

I also, still, think you're exaggerating the level of humiliation involved and you're ignoring the fact that people don't have a right to jobs that are absolutely free of humiliation.

Also, piss-tests for drugs are done in private - at most you have one observer. These people are being asked to remove their body parts in full view of the public.

Drug testing results are shared with others, but again, you're exaggerating the level of embarrassment involved. Many people with prosthetics don't mind removing them in public. That some people would is more of a personal choice than anything else.

So the statement implying there aren't religious objections is inaccurate.

The statement was one about the screening procedure's violation of the Establishment Clause--something that it very obviously does not do.

[snip totally unrelated nonsense]So yes, passengers will act to subdue Bad Guys.

So in other words, your statement that "Since 9/11, there have been several instances of passengers overwhelming people who even just appeared to be a threat, including a couple instances of suspected hijackers being killed by a mob before they ever got close to the cockpit door" was total bullshit. Concession accepted.

At a certain point the searching and security becomes ridiculous for the 99.9999999% of people who are utterly harmless passengers.

I agree. The country has to have a serious discussion about what level of security we want and the costs of providing that security. I cannot agree that air marshals represent a cost-effective alternative to screening, I don't agree that the scanners are invasive at all, and I don't agree that the screening procedures here being discussed are unreasonable except possibly insofar as that they are not cost-effective in comparison to other measures that we could be taking and because we haven't properly complemented them with effective means of discriminating between passengers and identifying passengers who are more risky and therefore require more detailed screening than others. In other contexts, a pat-down search is considered an essential law enforcement tool for ensuring safety of individual police officers, let alone the literally hundreds of people who could be endangered by a smuggled weapon.

What are we going to do when the first Bad Guy tries to blow up an airplane with C4 shoved up his ass or surgically implanted in his gut?

I don't know, but I'd much rather force the guy to do that than to have to wear it close to his body. Surgically implanting enough PETN to blow up an airliner is much more difficult than concealing it in baggy clothes.

[General Zod]

RE: Transgendered people, I cannot feel bad for them. they're going to be initially searched by a same-sex who, let's be honest, when they get down to the crotch area, are probably[/]i going to understand what's up pretty quickly and either hand the pat-down off to a male, or just continue. I seriously doubt they're going to scream "HOLY CRAP A DICKINAMINISKIRT" to the entire airport.

You give far too much credit to the average TSA knuckledragger.

Stop calling it sexual assault. It's not. It's a fucking PAT DOWN and only turns into "Sexual assault" when something weird is noted.

I'm totally sure genuine rape victims forced to go through it would agree with you.

[Thanas]

So has anybody ever presented proof these things are effective? At all? Because if people like reporters, who do not have any kind of terrorist training, can smuggle stuff through with ease, then what value is there to these screenings?

[Master of Ossus]

Again, according to what? You keep stating this as fact without backing it up.

This is pretty typical. It recommends that employers who engage in drug testing to require employees to sign consent forms. And then there's this:

Does it violate confidentiality laws to release the test results to TWC?

No. Many employers misunderstand the laws in this regard. Even highly-regulated and otherwise restrictive DOT testing procedures allow employers to release the results to courts, government agencies, or arbitrators dealing with claims arising from the drug test, and drug testing labs are required to release the results to employers upon request in such situations (see DOT regulation 49 C.F.R. 40.323 (PDF)). There is simply no substitute for the specific drug test results in an unemployment claim. Employers with lingering doubts on this issue should call the employer commissioner's office at TWC at 1-800-832-9394.

It also permits employers to release this information to courts and other agencies.

Because the TSA's been so effective at catching criminals so far right? Can you name a single high-profile terrorist that was caught as a result of TSA efforts and not other law enforcement agencies?

Again, what you're saying is that these measures aren't influencing terrorists' costs in carrying out attacks--something which is demonstrably untrue, since Al Qaeda operatives beginning with Richard Reed have continuously had to modify their behavior in planning and carrying out attacks against airplanes since the September 11 attacks. You cannot ignore this in evaluating security procedures.

[General Zod]

No. Many employers misunderstand the laws in this regard. Even highly-regulated and otherwise restrictive DOT testing procedures allow employers to release the results to courts, government agencies, or arbitrators dealing with claims arising from the drug test, and drug testing labs are required to release the results to employers upon request in such situations (see DOT regulation 49 C.F.R. 40.323 (PDF)). There is simply no substitute for the specific drug test results in an unemployment claim. Employers with lingering doubts on this issue should call the employer commissioner's office at TWC at 1-800-832-9394.

Courts and government agencies. Not other employers.

Again, what you're saying is that these measures aren't influencing terrorists' costs in carrying out attacks--something which is demonstrably untrue, since Al Qaeda operatives beginning with Richard Reed have continuously had to modify their behavior in planning and carrying out attacks against airplanes since the September 11 attacks. You cannot ignore this in evaluating security procedures.

I don't see how Richard Reid is a relevant example. He didn't even board at an American airport.

[Serafina]

RE: Transgendered people, I cannot feel bad for them. they're going to be initially searched by a same-sex who, let's be honest, when they get down to the crotch area, are probably[/]i going to understand what's up pretty quickly and either hand the pat-down off to a male, or just continue. I seriously doubt they're going to scream "HOLY CRAP A DICKINAMINISKIRT" to the entire airport.

From all I've read, i wouldn't trust the TSA with being that sensible. Heck, i wouldn't be surprised if they pull a pre-OP transwoman for extra searches, question the legality of her papers and all other kind of harassment, just because she is transsexual.

I would most likely be searched by a woman (if i had any reason to go to the USA), given that my outward appearance is female and my papers will soon be. But when she gets down to that certain area, she will still find male genitalia until i get my SRS.
However, i am an exception due to being from Germany - other countries have other laws and you don't get the gender entry on your passport until you have SRS (this was the case in Germany until a few years ago as well). So yes, it is entirely possible that for a transwoman to get groped"searched" by a man - and not just in the crotch area.

[Keevan_Colton]

So has anybody ever presented proof these things are effective? At all? Because if people like reporters, who do not have any kind of terrorist training, can smuggle stuff through with ease, then what value is there to these screenings?

They make ignorant people feel safer. I can think of several ways around the current array of security measures, even factoring in the body image scanners and enhanced pat downs. The fact is that most reporters are generally smarter than the average terrorist, and I say that as someone who does not have that high an opinion of most reporters.

As to MoO's shit about drug testing, it's a pointless derailment of the thread since:

1) it is not relevant to the topic at hand;
2) is openly admitted to be of dubious legal standing and thus not a justification even in analogy for the TSA procedures;
3) is purposfully distorted since "every employer" does NOT employ such tests and;
4) in most countries employers are legally barred from doing so outside areas where there is a direct health and saftey risk imposed by drug impairment.

[Master of Ossus]

Courts and government agencies. Not other employers.

Conceded.

I don't see how Richard Reid is a relevant example. He didn't even board at an American airport.

True: forcing terrorists off of domestic flights is in and of itself a benefit of increased screening procedures, but Al Qaeda's methods of attacking airliners has obviously changed continuously since increased security implemented after 9/11 became effective. From the boxcutters, they had to go to trying to make bombs (which is much harder to do), and they've had to go to increasingly difficult and costly methods of sneaking the bombs onto aircraft. Finally, and assuming that the thing with the toner cartridges was actually Al Qaeda, they effectively had to abandon efforts to target passenger planes at all and had to use parcel services to deliver their explosives. You can quibble about the costs and it's easy to attack particular methods of screening, but realistically getting to the point where Al Qaeda and its ilk abandon efforts to attack passenger planes is a big success.

[General Zod]

True: forcing terrorists off of domestic flights is in and of itself a benefit of increased screening procedures, but Al Qaeda's methods of attacking airliners has obviously changed continuously since increased security implemented after 9/11 became effective.

Except you haven't forced them off of anything at all. The Times Square bomber almost left the country without a hitch.

From the boxcutters, they had to go to trying to make bombs (which is much harder to do), and they've had to go to increasingly difficult and costly methods of sneaking the bombs onto aircraft. Finally, and assuming that the thing with the toner cartridges was actually Al Qaeda, they effectively had to abandon efforts to target passenger planes at all and had to use parcel services to deliver their explosives. You can quibble about the costs and it's easy to attack particular methods of screening, but realistically getting to the point where Al Qaeda and its ilk abandon efforts to attack passenger planes is a big success.

So what, we add increasingly prohibitive restrictions to every possible thing the Al Qaeda can use to attack us? That's absurd. What's to stop them from stealing or even renting a small Cessna and flying it into a crowd of people during a major holiday event? They don't need to use passenger planes when there's plenty of other methods they can use to blow things up.

[Elfdart]

You'll get your balls felt up by a fat, ugly, bald GUY.

Sigged!

So has anybody ever presented proof these things are effective? At all? Because if people like reporters, who do not have any kind of terrorist training, can smuggle stuff through with ease, then what value is there to these screenings?

They make ignorant people feel safer. I can think of several ways around the current array of security measures, even factoring in the body image scanners and enhanced pat downs. The fact is that most reporters are generally smarter than the average terrorist, and I say that as someone who does not have that high an opinion of most reporters.

It also depends on what you mean by "effective". Just as torture "works" by making people confess to things they didn't do or that did not happen, the groping, pornoscanners and other bullshit inflicted on air passengers is "effective" for the reasons the late George Carlin spelled out over a decade ago:

[aerius]

So has anybody ever presented proof these things are effective? At all? Because if people like reporters, who do not have any kind of terrorist training, can smuggle stuff through with ease, then what value is there to these screenings?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/18/ts ... lans-year/
Excerpt:

But the TSA says keeping passengers safe is its top priority, and the new measures are necessary.

"This year alone, the use of advanced imaging technology has led to the detection of over 130 prohibited, illegal or dangerous items," TSA spokesman Greg Soule told FoxNews.com. The TSA would not disclose exactly what those items were, but it said they included weapons like ceramic knives and various drugs -- including a syringe filled with heroine hidden in a passenger’s underwear.

Now here's the fun part, I was and still keep pretty informed on knives since it's one of my interests. The only ceramic knives which are available to the public are kitchen knives, and all of them have a chunk of metal embedded in them so they'll show up on airport x-rays and metal detectors. The only fully ceramic knives are sold to the military for EOD so that it won't set off magnetic mines, good luck trying to get your hands on one.

Take out the ceramic kitchen knives since they would be found anyway, take out the drugs, and I'd be surprised if there's more than a half dozen weapons that are actually dangerous. Most of the "weapons" are likely nail files or something of that sort if what I'm seeing at work is anything to go by. Half a dozen weapons in a full year, you can get much better results simply by adopting the Canadian system.

[Broomstick]

I will totally grant you that it is somehwat invasive and that DBs will certainly make cutting and insensitive remarks/jokes remarks. (In my defense I do concede that this type of search should be performed in at least semi-private later in my comment) But it doesn't change the fact that the prosthetic *should* be searched.

No - asking a woman to remove a breast prosthesis in FULL VIEW OF THE PUBLIC is NOT "somewhat invasive", it's completely humiliating and absolutely outrageous. Why don't they have at least a screened off area for this? Do they get their fucking jollies out of doing this shit? It's NOT acceptable and it's NOT reasonable. At a minimum peopel should be granted at least some visual privacy.

In other words, many jobs will be off limits to her without her consenting to what, under almost any other circumstances, would be sexual assault. She can just forget about vacationing on any continent but North America. Instead of taking a few hours to go from New York to California she can just STFU and drive, never mind it would take at least a week.

Essentially, yes. I'm sorry, but again, we're living in a world where fear-driven paranoia is the rule, not the exception. I do not feel that checking a strange thing to make sure that the thing doesn't have a weapon in it or is not itself a weaponis not overly invasive.

I think telling someone "I'm glad you survived cancer but you can no longer be permitted to fly" is fucking sick. A breast prosthesis is not a "strange thing", they're actually fucking common on a certain level.

It's not just about being able to keep a job, though that is an important part of it. OK, you're not allowed to fly anymore because they don't like people with your prosthetics, thinking about taking a train? The TSA wants to institute the exact same security on Amtrak. And on inter-urban buses. In the end this means the disabled aren't allowed to go places any more.

Restricting a person's ability to fly is a de facto restricting of their ability to travel, to go places, and in many case a restriction of their professional life. Inability to fly closes off careers. People should not have to submit to humiliation to hold down a job.

Look - I can sympathize, I really can, but again, this is the world in which we live.

In that case I find "this world" UNACCEPTABLE. Except it's NOT "this world", it's "the USA" - most of the rest of the world seems to cope without this level of police-state hysteria.

I disagree that it is defacto restriction, however, as their option is either submit or don't travel.

How is "submit to something that under any other circumstances would be sexual assault, and submit in full view of the public, or don't travel" an "option"? Even an able-bodied person such as myself might get groped and frankly, from what I've seen on videos clips and from descriptions there is no way that could be done to me without it being horribly intrusive and utterly humiliating. I'd want to shower for about two days just to feel clean again. I do not find it acceptable to have a total stranger rummaging around my genitals. Period.

Again - I don't feel that searching a person because of a strange prosthesis constitutes a violation of human rights. In fact - I see it as ensuring the human rights of ALL the passengers on Airline X.

So... in order to insure passenger rights we have to humiliate people? And what they're talking about - insulin pumps, false tits, and so forth - those are not "strange'. They've been around quite some time and shouldn't cause surprise in security people. And for god's sake they DON'T have to do this shit out on an open floor! That's just fucking stupid and lazy!

I respect your feelings on this, I really do - but it doesn't change the fact that the reality is that that bit of inconvenience may just be the determining factor on whether or not a terrorist plot is carried out.

Oh, horseshit - reinforced cockpit doors are the only REAL security advance made since 9/11. The rest is just window-dressing to make it look like the government gives a fuck about people.

Okay, that's a bit of a stretch - but honeslty, the revailing climate dictates that we take these extreme measures, lest we be viewed as not having done ANYTHING to prevent something terrible from happening.

I'd rather we spend time and effort on EFFECTIVE security, stuff that will actually make a difference, rather than the current dog-and-pony show that just serves to inconvenience and humiliate the flying public. NONE of this prevent terrorists from either chartering a large plane, or outrigh buying a large plane with which to wreak havoc.

Let me ask you this - assume we do not do our checks on flights, and terrorist X hops on a plane bound for paris and flies the thing into the eiffel tower, what does France ask the US?

I'd expect that if someone attempts to hijack a plane en route to somewhere the passengers will take matters into their own hands the moment Mr. Bad Guy yells "Allu Ahkbar!"

RE: Transgendered people, I cannot feel bad for them. they're going to be initially searched by a same-sex who, let's be honest, when they get down to the crotch area, are probably[/]i going to understand what's up pretty quickly and either hand the pat-down off to a male, or just continue. I seriously doubt they're going to scream "HOLY CRAP A DICKINAMINISKIRT" to the entire airport.

I do not have that much faith in the average TSA employee.

If a penis shows up on a pornscan of an apparent woman she's not going to be searched by a woman, she's going to be searched by a man. Having worked in a clinic where supervised drug testing was done I regret to say that all too many people DO run down the hallway screaming "SHE'S GOT A DICK!" or the equivalent.

Bull fucking shit. there's precedent for requiring a search before getting on a plane and simply saying "la la la can't hear you cause you're dumb la la la." doesn't change that. We're not talking about taking away the right to vote, we're talking about ensuring the safety of a hundred people who are, for all intents and purposes, captive for X hours in a sealed tube at 30,00 feet.

You know, a fucking bog-standard metal detector would have picked up the boxcutters used on 9/11 - no need for fancy pornscanners. Keep guns and knives off the goddamned plane, keep the fucking cockpit door locked, and use bombsniffing dogs for the rest. It's cheap, probably just as realiable as this fancy expensive high-tech shit, and doesn't involved systematic humiliation of the general public.

Actually, there is a man currently facing a court date because he opted to walk away rather than submit to crotch groping. It seems once you're in the security line you no longer have an option and yes, you potentially COULD be jailed if you change your mind and decide you don't want to fly badly enough to submit to sexual assault.

Stop calling it sexual assault. It's not. It's a fucking PAT DOWN and only turns into "Sexual assault" when something weird is noted.

The footage I've seen of the "pat-down" sure as hell looks like a stranger sticking their hands into someone's crotch and genitals. Doing so without my consent IS sexual assault. So, as I see it, either I consent to sexual assault or I don't fly commercial. Yes, you can go through the pornscanner, which I personally would find less invasive, but if they find anything "unusual" - and there are reports that can be as simple as a sanitary napkin, which do show up on those scans, then you're hauled out of line and molested. You don't have an option at that point to say "I've changed my mind - rather than be assaulted I'll go home". No, at that point you have NO choice, you MUST submit or be fined or even arrested, or detained. In other words, they're treating innocent people like criminals, and demanding people submit to being assaulted. This is outrageous.

I will grant that if you're going to squeeze a boob, you should probably do it behind a screen or enclosure, but honestly, Give me a break.

It's not a matter of squeezing a boob - it's a matter of asking a woman to remove her boob. In full view of the public. You don't see something amiss with that?

Sure I do. Which is why I suggest if it even goes as far as boob squeezing, it should be behind a thing, curtain, enclosure, whatever. But boobs ain't gonna get squeezed if something strange is not noted beforehand.[/quote]
Except they DON'T do it being a curtain or enclosure. What kind of fucking stupid asshole instituted this procedures without even considering the bare minimum of privacy? And, as I said, a breast prosthesis is not "strange", they're fairly standard items on a certain level. If a woman says to a TSA agent "I have a breast prosthesis" then, if the agent needs to see the actual item she should have the fucking common sense to provide a modicum of privacy.

[Serafina]

I think the guys here (or some of them) didn't understand what Broomstick is talking about when she says "breast prosthesis". First, we are not talking about breast augmenting implants (you can't take those out just like that anyway).
What we ARE talking about is a complete "fake" breast. You don't wear those over your real breasts - they are a replacement for breasts lost due to accidents and mostly breast cancer. A couple of links (might be NSFW in prude places). And from all i've heard, taking those off an putting them on again is a long procedure.

Anyway - where do you draw the line? You are already demanding extensive searches on everyone with a prosthetic limb or breast - and you can't really investigator either of those very well without destroying them. What about other medical devices, such as pacemakers? Or artificial hearts and similar devices, which which we already have? Or someone who has metal assistance for his bones?
Are those different from prosthetic limbs, other than being less obvious visually? All of them could be just as potentially dangerous as prosthetics. By your logic, everyone with such a device will be subject to an extensive search which ultimately achieves nothing. Effectively, this IS discrimination against people with such conditions, because it has no rational basis.

[Broomstick]

A big difference is that you can stop taking drugs. You can not stop being an amputee

Taking illegal drugs makes you a criminal. Being an amputee should not make you a criminal

Nor does it. At most it exposes you to additional screening procedures.

Bullshit. My spouse has been denied boarding because security agents would not accept his explanation of why he set off their metal detectors. He truly does have an "unusual prosthesis". He can not fly commercial because of having had surgery to successfully prevent the amputation of his right leg. There is apparently NOTHING the TSA will accept to get him past their security line. So no, it's not JUST "additional screending procedures", there really are people who are no longer permitted to fly on commercial airlines who have done NOTHING wrong. Just as there are people whose names just happen to resemble that of a suspected terrorist who can no longer get on an airplane in this country.

Maybe YOU don't give a shit about the collateral damage in this so-called "war on terror" but I do. Then again it's easy not to give a shit when it doesn't affect you or anyone you care about.

I also, still, think you're exaggerating the level of humiliation involved and you're ignoring the fact that people don't have a right to jobs that are absolutely free of humiliation.

Since WHEN is humiliation a part of anyone's job description?

The only people allowed to touch my crotch are my spouse and my doctor. That's it.

Also, piss-tests for drugs are done in private - at most you have one observer. These people are being asked to remove their body parts in full view of the public.

Drug testing results are shared with others, but again, you're exaggerating the level of embarrassment involved.

I'm not talking about the results of a test, I'm talking about performing the test. You will never be asked to pee in a cup in front of the general public. Now, though, you will be subjected to sexual assault/molestation in front of the general public, and in some cases people are asked to remove prosthetics are are normally worn UNDER their clothes. That is not OK.

Many people with prosthetics don't mind removing them in public.

And some would

That some people would is more of a personal choice than anything else.

No, I don't think people "choose" to be embarrassed or not, we're talking about a feeling, not a rationally thought-out statement of fact.

[snip totally unrelated nonsense]So yes, passengers will act to subdue Bad Guys.

So in other words, your statement that "Since 9/11, there have been several instances of passengers overwhelming people who even just appeared to be a threat, including a couple instances of suspected hijackers being killed by a mob before they ever got close to the cockpit door" was total bullshit. Concession accepted.

Concession not given. I know it's hard for your little pea brain to comprehend, but since I don't live in mama's basement like you do I actually had to go to work today and didn't have time to look up the details on the incidents that occurred on a Saudi airliner and another one in India, and without those details you would not accept those examples.

Nonetheless - both the shoebomber and the underwear bomber WERE subdued by passengers, not by air marshals. So yes, my point that passenger WOULD act is entirely confirmed.

I don't agree that the scanners are invasive at all,

Personally, neither do I. However, unlike most people here I can at least see where some people WOULD find them invasive.

I, on the other hand, find the idea of a stranger putting their hand in my crotch to be so unacceptable as to cause me actual nausea. Which might be why I don't fly commercial anymore. On the other hand, unlike 99% of the American public I have a pilot's license so if I DID want to fly some where I could do so by renting an airplane.

In other contexts, a pat-down search is considered an essential law enforcement tool for ensuring safety of individual police officers, let alone the literally hundreds of people who could be endangered by a smuggled weapon.

Normal law enforcement pat-downs - and I have been subjected to them - do NOT involve a stranger sticking their hands in your underwear and rearranging your crotch hairs. When such drastic measures are called for in law enforcement they are done IN PRIVATE, not in public. What the TSA is now routinely doing is something law enforcement is not permitted to do!

What are we going to do when the first Bad Guy tries to blow up an airplane with C4 shoved up his ass or surgically implanted in his gut?

I don't know, but I'd much rather force the guy to do that than to have to wear it close to his body. Surgically implanting enough PETN to blow up an airliner is much more difficult than concealing it in baggy clothes.

But if they DO perform such surgery and pull off the hit the victims will still be just as dead. And what horrible thing will the public be subjected to next after that?

[General Zod]

Anyway - where do you draw the line? You are already demanding extensive searches on everyone with a prosthetic limb or breast - and you can't really investigator either of those very well without destroying them. What about other medical devices, such as pacemakers? Or artificial hearts and similar devices, which which we already have? Or someone who has metal assistance for his bones?
Are those different from prosthetic limbs, other than being less obvious visually? All of them could be just as potentially dangerous as prosthetics. By your logic, everyone with such a device will be subject to an extensive search which ultimately achieves nothing. Effectively, this IS discrimination against people with such conditions, because it has no rational basis.

What is this line you speak of? But hey, he could've hid a knife in there. I guess.

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A sick teenager said an over-zealous security screener at Orlando International Airport put his life in danger. After Channel 9 started making calls, the TSA opened an investigation into the matter.

James Hoyne, 14, has a feeding tube in his stomach and carries a back-up in a sealed clear plastic bag. Hoyne said two weeks ago a TSA officer insisted on opening the sterile equipment, contaminating his back-up feeding up tube which he later needed.

"I said 'Please don't open it' and she said 'I have to open it whether you like it or not. If I can't open it, I can't let you on the plane,'" Hoyne said of his conversation with the TSA screener.

TSA officials apologized to James and said they're looking into the incident to see what corrective steps need to be taken.

[Cecelia5578]

What is this line you speak of? But hey, he could've hid a knife in there. I guess.

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A sick teenager said an over-zealous security screener at Orlando International Airport put his life in danger. After Channel 9 started making calls, the TSA opened an investigation into the matter.

James Hoyne, 14, has a feeding tube in his stomach and carries a back-up in a sealed clear plastic bag. Hoyne said two weeks ago a TSA officer insisted on opening the sterile equipment, contaminating his back-up feeding up tube which he later needed.

"I said 'Please don't open it' and she said 'I have to open it whether you like it or not. If I can't open it, I can't let you on the plane,'" Hoyne said of his conversation with the TSA screener.

TSA officials apologized to James and said they're looking into the incident to see what corrective steps need to be taken.

So much of the TSA bullshit would be solved by personnel who would apply just a little bit of common sense, decency, and the ability to not jump to conclusions and assume everyone is a threat, i.e. not needlessly escalating situations that needn't be escalated.

[The Yosemite Bear]

hey I can just mentally see some guy returning from deployment in condition simular to the song "My Son John" and being harrassed by these fascists after sacrificing for the whole of the country, becoming unemployable due to the economy and our shitty VA/GI Bill policy for the current wars. Yes TSA this pisses off everybody.

[Akhlut]

What is this line you speak of? But hey, he could've hid a knife in there. I guess.

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A sick teenager said an over-zealous security screener at Orlando International Airport put his life in danger. After Channel 9 started making calls, the TSA opened an investigation into the matter.

James Hoyne, 14, has a feeding tube in his stomach and carries a back-up in a sealed clear plastic bag. Hoyne said two weeks ago a TSA officer insisted on opening the sterile equipment, contaminating his back-up feeding up tube which he later needed.

"I said 'Please don't open it' and she said 'I have to open it whether you like it or not. If I can't open it, I can't let you on the plane,'" Hoyne said of his conversation with the TSA screener.

TSA officials apologized to James and said they're looking into the incident to see what corrective steps need to be taken.

American citizens don't need dignity anyway!

A retired special education teacher on his way to a wedding in Orlando, Fla., said he was left humiliated, crying and covered with his own urine after an enhanced pat-down by TSA officers recently at Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

“I was absolutely humiliated, I couldn’t even speak,” said Thomas D. “Tom” Sawyer, 61, of Lansing, Mich.

Sawyer is a bladder cancer survivor who now wears a urostomy bag, which collects his urine from a stoma, or opening in his stomach. “I have to wear special clothes and in order to mount the bag I have to seal a wafer to my stomach and then attach the bag. If the seal is broken, urine can leak all over my body and clothes.”

On Nov. 7, Sawyer said he went through the security scanner at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. “Evidently the scanner picked up on my urostomy bag, because I was chosen for a pat-down procedure.”

Due to his medical condition, Sawyer asked to be screened in private. “One officer looked at another, rolled his eyes and said that they really didn’t have any place to take me,” said Sawyer. “After I said again that I’d like privacy, they took me to an office.”

Sawyer wears pants two sizes too large in order to accommodate the medical equipment he wears. He’d taken off his belt to go through the scanner and once in the office with security personnel, his pants fell down around his ankles. “I had to ask twice if it was OK to pull up my shorts,” said Sawyer, “And every time I tried to tell them about my medical condition, they said they didn’t need to know about that.”

Before starting the enhanced pat-down procedure, a security officer did tell him what they were going to do and how they were going to it, but Sawyer said it wasn’t until they asked him to remove his sweatshirt and saw his urostomy bag that they asked any questions about his medical condition.

“One agent watched as the other used his flat hand to go slowly down my chest. I tried to warn him that he would hit the bag and break the seal on my bag, but he ignored me. Sure enough, the seal was broken and urine started dribbling down my shirt and my leg and into my pants.”

The security officer finished the pat-down, tested the gloves for any trace of explosives and then, Sawyer said, “He told me I could go. They never apologized. They never offered to help. They acted like they hadn’t seen what happened. But I know they saw it because I had a wet mark.”

Humiliated, upset and wet, Sawyer said he had to walk through the airport soaked in urine, board his plane and wait until after takeoff before he could clean up.

“I am totally appalled by the fact that agents that are performing these pat-downs have so little concern for people with medical conditions,” said Sawyer.

Sawyer completed his trip and had no problems with the security procedures at the Orlando International Airport on his journey back home. He said he plans to file a formal complaint with the TSA.

When he does, said TSA spokesperson Dwayne Baird, “We will review the matter and take appropriate action if necessary.” In the meantime, Baird encourages anyone with a medical condition to read the TSA’s website section on assistive devices and mobility aids.

The website says that travelers with disabilities and medical conditions have “the option of requesting a private screening” and that security officers “will not ask nor require you to remove your prosthetic device, cast, or support brace.”

Sawyer said he's written to his senators, state representatives and the president of the United States. He’s also shared details of the incident online with members of the nonprofit Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network, many of whom have offered support and shared their travel experiences.

“I am a good American and I want safety for all passengers as much as the next person," Sawyer said. "But if this country is going to sacrifice treating people like human beings in the name of safety, then we have already lost the war.”

Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network executive director Claire Saxton said that there are hundreds of thousands of people living with ostomies in the United States. “TSA agents need to be trained to listen when someone tells them have a health issue and trained in knowing what an ostomy is. No one living with an ostomy should be afraid of flying because they’re afraid of being humiliated at the checkpoint.”

Eric Lipp, executive director of Open Doors Association, which works with businesses and the disability community, called what happened to Sawyer “unfortunate.”

“But enhanced pat-downs are not a new issue for people with disabilities who travel," Lipp said. "They've always had trouble getting through the security checkpoint."

Still, Lipp said the TSA knows there’s a problem. “This came up during a recent meeting of the agency’s disability advisory board and I expect to see a procedure coming in place shortly that will directly address the pat-down procedures for people with disabilities.”

But, hey, it's not like there are alternate methods for finding metal weapons or explosives, so I guess we'll just have to happily accept being covered in urine, being outed in public, being forced to remove prosthesis, or possibly have our children felt up by a child molester.

[Broomstick]

The website says that travelers with disabilities and medical conditions have “the option of requesting a private screening” and that security officers “will not ask nor require you to remove your prosthetic device, cast, or support brace.”

Well, we know THAT is horseshit - far too many instances of people being asked to do just that. In public.