Airport Security is not about Security At All

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:55 am

New airport security measures intrusive - CollegiateTimes.com

The new full body scanners that are the newest draconian toy since the gov't takeover of airport security allows barely-trained TSA agents to see you as you would look naked. If that makes you uncomfortable, you must submit to a full-body "pat down" that is no longer done with the back of the hand, but rather requires the agent to grope and fondle your private parts. These are your only two options.

Or are they?

TSA Holds Security Checks At Orlando Train Station - News Story - WESH Orlando

Trains don't seem to have the stringent security requirements of airports, and Obama/Biden have been pushing for high speed rail systems. Can you smell what I smell?

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:18 am

Yes, there is an agenda.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:52 am

Actually, A high speed train system doesn't sound like that bad of a thing. Might cut down on long range driving for vacations.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:21 am

If all the paranoids stop taking the plane, perhaps I can get to my plane quicker for not having to wait for all the amateur travelers to make their way through the maze.

And I have been advocating trains in the US for decades.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:46 pm

I'm all for trains, too.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:00 pm

Ahso!;1344083 wrote: [QUOTE=LarsMac;1344063][QUOTE=YZGI;1344057]Actually, A high speed train system doesn't sound like that bad of a thing. Might cut down on long range driving for vacations.If all the paranoids stop taking the plane, perhaps I can get to my plane quicker for not having to wait for all the amateur travelers to make their way through the maze.

And I have been advocating trains in the US for decades.[/QUOTE]I'm all for trains, too.
So setting up unnecessary and humiliating procedures to board privately-run aircraft, beyond what any other country is doing for their own state-run airlines, in order to manipulate false demand for rail is fine by ya'll?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:58 pm

I didn't say I agreed with your analysis.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:08 pm

Ghads, only for airplanes. I would say do it for Union Station in DC and let them try out it out first, but then a few times I year I go through there.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:12 pm

Maybe it will be implemented for going in and out of all government buildings. I'd love for congress to have to subject themselves to this each and every day.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:01 pm

Ahso!;1344102 wrote: Maybe it will be implemented for going in and out of all government buildings. I'd love for congress to have to subject themselves to this each and every day.

G'wan, they'd enjoy it - you know they would :wah:

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:06 pm

Ahso!;1344102 wrote: Maybe it will be implemented for going in and out of all government buildings. I'd love for congress to have to subject themselves to this each and every day.

You know, at the Archives the official ones can bypass the scanners and X-rays, they would pass up those scanners and pat downs too.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 6:19 pm

Ahso!;1344098 wrote: I didn't say I agreed with your analysis.You didn't say much of anything, so I had to infer.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 6:23 pm

Ahso!;1344102 wrote: Maybe it will be implemented for going in and out of all government buildings. I'd love for congress to have to subject themselves to this each and every day. :wah:

chonsigirl;1344101 wrote: Ghads, only for airplanes. I would say do it for Union Station in DC and let them try out it out first, but then a few times I year I go through there.Do what? The security scanners??

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:06 pm

Accountable;1344088 wrote: So setting up unnecessary and humiliating procedures to board privately-run aircraft, beyond what any other country is doing for their own state-run airlines, in order to manipulate false demand for rail is fine by ya'll?

Right. AmTrak is at the bottom of the whole TSA thing.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:23 pm

If it makes everyone feel better, I'm flying into Washington in January... that should put those bastards off their feed for a good solid month after experiencing me..:wah:

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:33 pm

Accountable;1344088 wrote: So setting up unnecessary and humiliating procedures to board privately-run aircraft, beyond what any other country is doing for their own state-run airlines, in order to manipulate false demand for rail is fine by ya'll?It's the capitalist pigs that couldn't care less about you or my safety so long as they line their pockets with gold that jeopardizes everyone within an arms length. If it wasn't for the rich and their ability to wage war there wouldn't be terrorists

Nothing has to be "state-run" just increase taxes so that profits can be capped enough to abolish any bit of perspective one might have about the horrid virtue "war is necessary"

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:22 pm

Protests will be ignored until enough celebrities have been patted down and outraged that congress can justify a hearing to have them all in to complain publicly.

The real question is why are we doing this to begin with. If we were really concerned with public safety and national security, all aircraft would have been grounded permanently as that was the last weapon actually used against the public at large.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:41 pm

This could all be a conspiracy funded by plastic surgeons.

dchistoryman · Post by **dchistoryman** » Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:17 am

Flopstock.. Good luck if you are flying into Dulles!!! Actually coming in is ok but going out is a nightmare and I have to say the TSA officials at Dulles are the worst of any of the numerous airports I have experienced in the USA.

I have always been amazed at bothe the lack of security on the trains and the lack of a network in the US. I get the Acela from Dc up to New York occasionally and as it goes right into the heart of NYC it would make an ideal terrorist target.

Love the train.

As far as airport security goes I have no problem, you know it's going to happen so just get there earlier. I am absolutely convinced that it has saved lives.

I think a far bigger problem is the people who use there absolute limit and above of hand baggage, two bags, computer suit carrier etc so every damn overhead is full by the time three people have boarded, just check the stuff it really is not that difficult.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:15 am

koan;1344144 wrote: This could all be a conspiracy funded by plastic surgeons.

:-2 ......................

............................ :yh_think

..........

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:17 am

dchistoryman;1344149 wrote: As far as airport security goes I have no problem, you know it's going to happen so just get there earlier. I am absolutely convinced that it has saved lives.

So has torturing suspects. Do you believe it's necessary to go to this extreme?

dchistoryman · Post by **dchistoryman** » Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:30 am

Torturing suspects....not sure if this is the same thing but I am not sure that despite the protestations of our respective governments torture produces questionable information.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 17, 2010 5:05 am

dchistoryman;1344158 wrote: Torturing suspects....not sure if this is the same thing but I am not sure that despite the protestations of our respective governments torture produces questionable information.
Do you believe it's necessary to go to the extremes that TSA has done?

dchistoryman · Post by **dchistoryman** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:07 am

I beleive it is necessary for the powers that be to take any measure possible that helps us stay safe. I really don't think that any of the agencies involved would do it just for fun of another hidden agenda. Why would they considering the cost involved. Like lots of people on here I fly a lot and yes it's inconvenient but I don't get worked up about it. The people who wish us harm have, are and will continue to try and use aircraft for terrorist activities.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:27 am

Oddly enough, I think I was more disturbed at the attempt to monitor library reading than I am at the prospect of being virtually strip searched.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:27 am

dchistoryman;1344225 wrote: I beleive it is necessary for the powers that be to take any measure possible that helps us stay safe. I really don't think that any of the agencies involved would do it just for fun of another hidden agenda. Why would they considering the cost involved. Like lots of people on here I fly a lot and yes it's inconvenient but I don't get worked up about it. The people who wish us harm have, are and will continue to try and use aircraft for terrorist activities.The people who wish us harm don't have to lift a finger. We're terrorizing ourselves. Put a little bomb material in a shoe, suddenly everybody has to remove their shoes. Put a little in a guy's shorts, suddenly everybody's being groped and examined naked. They're probably in tears laughing from that little bit of genius. They've probably got a few guys running around with C4 shoved up their butts, just waiting to get caught. When they do, get ready for full body cavity searches. Nobody under 12 (until they find a little kid with something) but that 13 year old girl is fair game.

I beleive it is necessary for the powers that be to take any measure possible that helps us stay safe.They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:14 am

Accountable;1344235 wrote: The people who wish us harm don't have to lift a finger. We're terrorizing ourselves. Put a little bomb material in a shoe, suddenly everybody has to remove their shoes. Put a little in a guy's shorts, suddenly everybody's being groped and examined naked. They're probably in tears laughing from that little bit of genius. They've probably got a few guys running around with C4 shoved up their butts, just waiting to get caught. When they do, get ready for full body cavity searches. Nobody under 12 (until they find a little kid with something) but that 13 year old girl is fair game.

True enough. All the knee-jerk reactions to these events are bothersome, to say the least. It is annoying that I cannot take my Makarov with me on the plane, but I can live without it.

Accountable;1344235 wrote: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin
I think Mr Franklin's actual words might be: Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

On the other hand, though, I give up little "freedom" in allowing myself to be subjected to the ministrations of the TSA. It is a simple choice. I can drive where I want to go, or I can take a bus, or I can take the airplane. Or, perhaps, I can hitchhike. All methods of transportation come with certain advantages and disadvantages.

I make the choice.

If you don't like it, don't fly.

If you wish to fly, do the dance.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:21 am

koan;1344228 wrote: Oddly enough, I think I was more disturbed at the attempt to monitor library reading than I am at the prospect of being virtually strip searched.

Exactly. We should pick our battles wisely.

The TSA thing can be a distraction, while they sneak in and take even more precious liberties away.

Has anyone been following the COICA progress?

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:36 pm

Well said ... :yh_clap:yh_clap

I think Mr Franklin's actual words might be: Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

On the other hand, though, I give up little "freedom" in allowing myself to be subjected to the ministrations of the TSA. It is a simple choice. I can drive where I want to go, or I can take a bus, or I can take the airplane. Or, perhaps, I can hitchhike. All methods of transportation come with certain advantages and disadvantages.

I make the choice.

If you don't like it, don't fly.

If you wish to fly, do the dance.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:55 pm

LarsMac;1344240 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1344235]They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin FranklinI think Mr Franklin's actual words might be: Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.I wiped the inexplicable smarm off and checked online (where I found my quote) and found the one you cite as well. Wikiquote (is there nothing that is not Wiki?) says:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

* This was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as:

o Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

+ This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.Benjamin Franklin - Wikiquote

LarsMac wrote: On the other hand, though, I give up little "freedom" in allowing myself to be subjected to the ministrations of the TSA. It is a simple choice. I can drive where I want to go, or I can take a bus, or I can take the airplane. Or, perhaps, I can hitchhike. All methods of transportation come with certain advantages and disadvantages.

I make the choice.

If you don't like it, don't fly.

If you wish to fly, do the dance.Shut up. Don't question. Do the dance.

Has it occurred to you to think about what you're being subjected to, if it is functional, if it is necessary, if it might be simply eyewash to calm a panicked public?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:12 am

I don't think that politicians, their families, diplomats, their families, government officials nor their families can be exempted from this if the concern is truly our security.

IMO no law or regulation should be allowed to exempt anyone in this country. That's what would stop this crap.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:01 pm

Accountable;1344276 wrote:

Shut up. Don't question. Do the dance.

Has it occurred to you to think about what you're being subjected to, if it is functional, if it is necessary, if it might be simply eyewash to calm a panicked public?

I don't see a lot of regular travelers really fretting this thing, much.

Most of the complaints I hear are about the idiot tourists who can't pack all the goodies they got properly and the TSA folks let them slide through with half a dozen packages and suitcased too damned big to fit in the overhead, meaning, first we have to wait for them to get through security with all their crap, THEN we have to wait for them to figure out how to stow all their crap before we can get to our frigging seats.

There are plenty of people up in arms about the security measures. It has become a big stink.

I just don't really care a rat's fart about it.

The only time it is a bother is when I want to get on a plane. Getting through security is just one of the things you deal with, like weather delays, and mechanical delays, and crappy food, and uncomfortable seats, and rude people, and stupid people, and people who never seem to watch where they are going, and lost luggage, and damaged luggage, and slow luggage delivery.

Getting groped by a TSA guy or some 10-buck-an-hour bureaucrat seeing an image of my willy, are so far down the list of things to worry about in my life.

And I can't help but wonder what is getting snuck by us while we are raising a ruckus about this nonsense.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:23 pm

flopstock;1344307 wrote: I don't think that politicians, their families, diplomats, their families, government officials nor their families can be exempted from this if the concern is truly our security.

IMO no law or regulation should be allowed to exempt anyone in this country. That's what would stop this crap.

I agree-but in federal buildings in DC, the government employees regularly bypass the security measures everyone else goes through-X-ray, scanning, metal detector, and documentation of every electronic gadget or item. I just take it for granted-10 extra minutes or more first trip to the Archives, for everything to be searched-employees walk around all scanners and detectors, and any parcel taken in is not even looked at.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:54 pm

LarsMac;1344345 wrote: I don't see a lot of regular travelers really fretting this thing, much.

Most of the complaints I hear are about the idiot tourists who can't pack all the goodies they got properly and the TSA folks let them slide through with half a dozen packages and suitcased too damned big to fit in the overhead, meaning, first we have to wait for them to get through security with all their crap, THEN we have to wait for them to figure out how to stow all their crap before we can get to our frigging seats.

There are plenty of people up in arms about the security measures. It has become a big stink.

I just don't really care a rat's fart about it.

The only time it is a bother is when I want to get on a plane. Getting through security is just one of the things you deal with, like weather delays, and mechanical delays, and crappy food, and uncomfortable seats, and rude people, and stupid people, and people who never seem to watch where they are going, and lost luggage, and damaged luggage, and slow luggage delivery.

Getting groped by a TSA guy or some 10-buck-an-hour bureaucrat seeing an image of my willy, are so far down the list of things to worry about in my life.

And I can't help but wonder what is getting snuck by us while we are raising a ruckus about this nonsense.
Damn, I hope you're in the minority.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:27 pm

Accountable;1344350 wrote: Damn, I hope you're in the minority.

It's called "picking your battles", Brother.

Personally, I feel sorry for the poor TSA agent that has to sit and watch all those images.

You really don't think that he/she is enjoying it, do you?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:01 am

LarsMac;1344506 wrote: It's called "picking your battles", Brother.

Personally, I feel sorry for the poor TSA agent that has to sit and watch all those images.

You really don't think that he/she is enjoying it, do you?The TSA agent's feelings is probably the least important point in this whole issue. This is a battle that should be picked, imo. While commercial air travel is indisputably interstate and international commerce, I believe that the federal gov't providing security for the airlines virtually free of charge is going too far, especially considering that they provide zero security for the airport itself. Each airline should be responsible for their own security. It would then become competitive, which would drive down costs. Airlines could use their security record and process as a marketing tool to make traveling with them more appealing than with the competition.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Nov 21, 2010 8:23 am

Accountable;1344547 wrote: The TSA agent's feelings is probably the least important point in this whole issue. This is a battle that should be picked, imo. While commercial air travel is indisputably interstate and international commerce, I believe that the federal gov't providing security for the airlines virtually free of charge is going too far, especially considering that they provide zero security for the airport itself. Each airline should be responsible for their own security. It would then become competitive, which would drive down costs. Airlines could use their security record and process as a marketing tool to make traveling with them more appealing than with the competition.

BZZZZT!

Wrong answer.

I can see you don't travel much by air.

Having a consistent security policy across the board, when you go to the airport is truly a better option.

I remember before the TSA took over, each airline and each airport DID have responsibility for their own security.

It wa a friggin nightmare after 9/11 you never really knew what you were going to encounter from one week to the next, or from one airline to the next.

Thank you, no.

Now, I know what I am going to deal with when I travel. I have a routine I go through when packing and when I am going through security.

I get through with minimum fuss, and go on my way . It works the same in Beijing, Frankfurt, NYC, Boston, San Francisco, or Tokyo.

Screw all that localized Bull-sh*#.

The only change I would have is that if you don't go tthrough the scanner, you don't get onto the concourse. Period, end of story. Solves all the complaints about being groped.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:40 am

The American taxpayer is not and should not be responsible for the convenience of your travel. That's hardly the stated purpose of the TSA, either.

eta: that's a really selfish outlook you've got there.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:49 pm

Accountable;1344586 wrote: The American taxpayer is not and should not be responsible for the convenience of your travel. That's hardly the stated purpose of the TSA, either.

eta: that's a really selfish outlook you've got there.

Having just returned home, after taking twelve hours to accomplish two and a half hours of actual flight time, I can assure you there is nothing "convenient" about air travel, anymore.

Now, I did try to see it your way, and work up some righteous indignation over these body scanners, but honestly, they were of such little concern compared to all of the other things I was caught up in, today, I just couldn't care less about them.

I did have several opportunities to discuss them with fellow travelers, and there was only one guy who seemed to have any concern over the things. He was the TSA guy that has to stand in front of the thing and manage people entering and exiting the the scanner, and he is not entirely at ease with being exposed to the radiation for hours a day, in spite of the assurance from his management that a full day of standing in the thing would expose you to less radiation that a visit to the dentists.

And you are right. I am somewhat selfish in my point of view here. As I stated before, I disagree with all the hoopla. I don't care what they do for security, I just want to get on the damned plane. (you are the one who has no concern for the TSA agents, though.)

When the process gets to a point where I don't think it is worth going through it to get on the plane, I will quit flying. Simple enough.

Now if you want to change the discussion to something about taxes, I think you should start a new thread.

Thanks, BTW, for the opportunity to have this discussion.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:23 pm

Actually, you may have a point about the airlines taking responsibility for security, though.

If they did, then one of the spiffs for flying regular with one airline would be the airline could have special premium security line for their regular travelers, where you basically verify your ID and they vouch for you being a safe flier.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:30 am

Exactly. Plus the airline isn't violating the 4th amendment when they make security checks a standard part of the travel contract.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:21 pm

I think it's kinda strange that these full pat downs appear to be happening out in the opening.

As awful as these stories are, it was the photo that caught my eye. They don't even do it in private?:-2

TSA's Greatest Hits: 4 Notorious Pat-Downs

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:01 pm

Thankfully, when I flew in September, at both ends of my flight

I entered through extremely small airports. I only had the standard

remove my shoes, go through the metal detector to do.

I think I just won't fly any more if there's a chance I would face

either a full body scanner OR the "pat down". Neither is a very

good option to me. The scanner I don't trust to be safe. Recently

there were several hospital machines that were out of whack

and delivered very large doses of radiation to patients. And I've

seen video of several pat downs, I don't care if it's the back of

someone's hands, nobody I haven't kissed first is sticking

their hands under my breasts or down my butt crack.

I'm for the Israeli model, each and every passenger gets an interview.

And they haven't had an incident in what, 30 years?

I think the current methods here are just to try and placate fearful

passengers. We already know about the lack of oversight for the

cargo industry, so people shouldn't be placated AT ALL. IMHO.

When people can still fly with 16"/18" stainless steel knitting needles

or (Check the TSA allowable items list) a SCREWDRIVER of 7" or less,

then all this other BS might as well be out the window. A screwdriver

used by someone with criminal intent can do quite a bit of damage.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:36 pm

When I was in China, the domestic security there seemed much more efficient.

The metal detectors had a raised floor so your shoes were within the field of the detector, so you don't have to take your shoes off. They also had explosive sniffers.

You are not allowed to carry on any tools, sharp instruments, liquids or gels - including any beverages you might purchase in the concourse. Period. End of story.

kathaksung · Post by **kathaksung** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:36 pm

Full body scan won't assure the security. What if terrorist hide explosives not in their underwear but in their bottom? Here is a news one year old. The high ranking officials may have made money on 'see through machine". So sometime later, they may want to check your annal when they have invested in a new machine "Cavit scanner". They can force public buying their security machine through the law. That's other merchants' dream.

"Terrorist hid explosives in his bottom

Suicide bomber Abdullah Hassan Tali al-Asiri attempted to kill a Saudi prince by detonating explosives hidden in his bottom.

BST 21 Sep 2009

Al-Asiri, 23, managed to blow himself up in the attack in Jeddah, but his target, Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef, escaped with minor injuries.

Security experts said they have not come across a bomber who has concealed explosives in this way.

"We've never heard of anything quite like this before," a source told The Sun.

Prince Nayef is the head of the security service in Saudi Arabia.

Al-Asiri, who was on a local "Most Wanted" list, arranged a meeting with him after insisting he had turned his back on terrorism.

By hiding the explosives in his bottom he managed to pass security checks before entering the prince's office.

It is believed they were detonated electronically.

Mike Yardley, a weapons expert and former soldier, said: "Hiding it in a body cavity was obviously an attempt to defeat scanners and detectors.

Terrorist hid explosives in his bottom - Telegraph