<!--quoteo(post=1810684:date=Nov 26 2010, 04:34 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Nov 26 2010, 04:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1810684"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you have some juvenile hypersensitivity about people touching you then use the machine, if you don't then choose the search.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or if you're a teenage girl who was raped by your father as a child and getting fondled by a stranger undoes years of therapy and causes you to break down in the queue.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
Or you voluntarily go through the scanner but it picks up your urostomy bag and you're selected for a pat down as well and then <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news" target="_blank">end up covered in urine after staff ignore what you say and break the bag making you take a flight stinking of piss because there's no time to clean up.</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1809130:date=Nov 23 2010, 11:42 AM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Nov 23 2010, 11:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1809130"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The attitude of the personnel described irks me. When I last went through airport security earlier this year (in Sweden), they were all very dispassionate about it; it was just part of how things were, something that nobody liked but needed to be done. It sounds like the TSA people (especially the teenagers mentioned in passing early on, those should be fired) think it's funny.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm with that.
People just need to get real and stop thinking "they're so special". He did it because he could, not because he was actually thinking of anyone who could be in the position he was saying he could be in (ie. victim of a previous rape).
Eventually, human nature, someone's going to get that annoyed they're going to say "Fine, Sod it, Go on", two and a half hours is a damn stupid irresponsible waste of everyone's time.
If you really had any severe problem, you'd highlight it on your outward journey and with planned travel you'd take some form of proof to highlight the problem; because that is unfortunately the type of mistrusting world we live in that any person who really wanted to continue their planned journey with as much co-operation as possible would do in the current and modern world.
<!--quoteo(post=1810809:date=Nov 26 2010, 02:47 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 26 2010, 02:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1810809"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your choices are the following: You can get scanned by an x-ray machine that is not operated by a trained radiologist, a machine whose long-term and frequent-exposure effects are untested, and whose manufacturers will not let third parties independently verify its safety. Or you can get groped. Those are not options, that's a choice between plague and cholera. And just to make sure you understand my point, I am not literally equating it with two horrible, deadly diseases, I am using something called a metaphor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And it's really annoying, it devalues the stuff you compare it to and it doesn't support the argument, by comparing it to cholera and the plague (which you <i>are</i> doin by the way, that's what a metaphor is, you use appropriate standins to illustrate a point, the key being <i>appropriate</i>) you are suggesting that a minor dose of radiation or a contact search are somehow equatable to easily terminal and amazingly horrible diseases. And they aren't, unless you have a serious lack of perspective.
<!--quoteo(post=1810809:date=Nov 26 2010, 02:47 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 26 2010, 02:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1810809"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now it's fine that getting groped by strangers doesn't bother you. That's great, everyone has different tastes. But most people find it offensive to have others fondle their groin or breasts without permission, and if you happen to not be a TSA employee doing so will get you charged with sexual harassment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty sure not if you volunteer for it, I mean people volunteer for it every day when they go to the doctors or go to some nightclubs or any other instance where searches are performed. You do have to agree to the contact search I assume? You don't just get jumped by security guards at random and molested without any notification in advance. You use the machine or do the search, or you don't use the airline, it is entirely elective.
<!--quoteo(post=1810809:date=Nov 26 2010, 02:47 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 26 2010, 02:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1810809"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What ISN'T fine is that you don't think travel is a basic human right, because it is. And no, "you can travel as long as you let us zap you with this untested x-ray machine or grope you" isn't the same as respecting that right, it's putting an unreasonable restriction on it. It's like saying "we respect your right to free speech as long as you only exercise it in areas away from the public eye." Luckily, we haven't gotten to the point of "free speech zones" quite y-.. OH WAIT.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Being able to walk around is a right most countries afford their citizens, and is probabaly in the human rights charter somewhere.
However not being blown up is also a basic human right, perhaps more importantly, it is the right of the airline company to enforce rules about what you can carry on their airplanes, it is also the obligation of the government to try to protect its ciitzens against people taking potentially dangerous items into the country, and to police its airways so people can't hijack planes and fly them into ######.
The thing about rights is that they aren't simply about you, if you want to do something that puts other people at risk, you generally aren't allowed to do it. You aren't allowed to get wasted and drive around like an idiot, so the police can pull you over if they think you might be doing that, they're also allowed to prevent you from starting to drive if they know you're drunk. Similarly, the airline company and government are probably going to take objection to you wandering onto a vehicle when you might be carrying something that could turn it into a dangerous weapon to be used against its citizens.
The idea that liberty should be for everyone and shouldn't be restricted at all is childish and obviously impractical, by that logic we shouldn't have any laws at all, and what we'd have is anarchy, which would then form into autocracy when someone realised that nobody was stopping them from getting a load of armed people together and ruling all the powerless people. Laws exist to protect the people who can't protect themselves, unless you plan to hand out anti aircraft missile launchers to every household and air-safe handguns to everyone who gets on an aircraft, and train everyone to use them, and want to trust that those methods will kill fewer people than a government program to enforce air safety, this is probably the best approach you're going to get.
Now I personally don't really think the measures are neccesary, they will probably save some lives because they will make air travel safer, but they do make travel somewhat inconvenient and life is kind of annoying if you fill it with safety-related inconvenience. Also it probably helps that I haven't left the country in a decade so I'm not really at risk from unsafe air travel, but I'm not in government, so I can afford to think entirely selfishly.
If I was in governement I would be negligent to throw away the lives of the people who I am supposed to serve just to make their lives a bit more convenient on the occasion they decide to use an airplane.
As to health concerns of the X ray machines, as far as I know they are just that, x ray machines, and we know what x rays do, they cause tissue damage because x rays are ionising radiation, I imagine if you sat in front of one for long enough you'd end up with skin cancer. However they are obviously very low power X ray machines, otherwise they'd take pictures of your skeleton. Most people would be very hard pressed to reach a dangerous dose from a backscatter machine, unless they fly every week or something.
I wouldn't use them normally because there's not really any reason to, but if I was in a hurry or just curious I'd give them a go sure.
<!--quoteo(post=1811019:date=Nov 27 2010, 02:54 AM:name=Scythe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scythe @ Nov 27 2010, 02:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811019"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Or if you're a teenage girl who was raped by your father as a child and getting fondled by a stranger undoes years of therapy and causes you to break down in the queue.
Or risk cancer.
Hmm...
--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then you need to go to a psychologist because having that severe a phobia of physical contact and an inability to take context into account suggests you are severely mentally disturbed and need help before you hurt yourself or someone else. I wouldn't let someone that unwell onto a plane anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=1811040:date=Nov 27 2010, 05:48 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Nov 27 2010, 05:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811040"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]you are suggesting that a minor dose of radiation or a contact search are somehow equatable to easily terminal and amazingly horrible diseases. And they aren't, unless you have a serious lack of perspective.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, that is what I EXPLICITLY said that I am not suggesting.
<!--quoteo(post=1811041:date=Nov 27 2010, 03:53 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 27 2010, 03:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811041"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, that is what I EXPLICITLY said that I am not suggesting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I say I'm not doing something and then do it that doesn't rewrite reality to make it so that I didn't do it.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1811040:date=Nov 27 2010, 04:48 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Nov 27 2010, 04:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811040"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then you need to go to a psychologist because having that severe a phobia of physical contact and an inability to take context into account suggests you are severely mentally disturbed and need help before you hurt yourself or someone else. I wouldn't let someone that unwell onto a plane anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
reactionimage.jpg
I know the rules say we're supposed to give a more reasoned response to posts in the discussion forum, but <i>damn.</i>
I know the rules say we're supposed to give a more reasoned response to posts in the discussion forum, but <i>damn.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If someone freaks out by being touched how exactly are they going to fare on a cramped airplane? How is everyone else going to react if they go into hysterics? People are on edge on airplanes anyway, that's why air rage is a problem.
Throwing someone who has difficulty controling their reactions and with an aversion to physical contact into a cramped, badly ventilated, uncomfortable and inescapable aircraft filled with slightly annoyed people is <i>asking</i> for trouble.
Someone in that position needs help to overcome their problems. Immediate help.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1811048:date=Nov 27 2010, 05:07 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Nov 27 2010, 05:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811048"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If someone freaks out by being touched how exactly are they going to fare on a cramped airplane? How is everyone else going to react if they go into hysterics? People are on edge on airplanes anyway, that's why air rage is a problem.
Throwing someone who has difficulty controling their reactions and with an aversion to physical contact into a cramped, badly ventilated, uncomfortable and inescapable aircraft filled with slightly annoyed people is <i>asking</i> for trouble.
Someone in that position needs help to overcome their problems. Immediate help.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't quite get why you think "flying on an airplane sitting in cramped conditions" or "being in a crowded area" is comparable to "a stranger explicitly feeling your primary/secondary sexual organs in a situation you don't have complete control over".
Unless the area you live in is basically one non-stop orgy and you have to penis-vault your way through crowds of naked people simply to get to the shop, you have an incredible misunderstanding of different levels of physical contact.
I know most people are able to tell the difference between simply being touched somewhere and sexual assault.
If someone sitting next to me on the bus wants something out of their coat pocket and ends up rubbing their hand on my arse in the process, that's not sexual assault, and I probably wouldn't think twice about it except maybe to avoid laughing.
If some girl I don't like decides she wants to fondly my arse for fun, I'll be rather annoyed with her and tell her to go the hell away.
Similarly if someone is trying to make sure I haven't strapped a bomb to my ######, I'll happily let them check, because god knows I wouldn't want people wandering around with explosive nutsacks. If someone is simply coming onto me physically and <i>really</i> won't take the hint I'm not interested, I'll punch them in the face.
It's not even what you touch, any part of the body can be sexual, and you can sexually assault someone without going anywhere near their sexual organs. It's the intent behind it that makes it sexual or not sexual.
Context is everything when it comes to interacting with other people, not being able to understand context is a pretty serious problem.
Now if the dude was actually commiting a sex crime on the girl <i>that</i> is entirely different, that means he needs to get fired and probably arrested as well if possible. I assume groped is simply another use of a creative euphemism for 'performed a thorough contact search' as that is sort of how it's been used throughout the thread.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
I don't get how you can repeatedly insist "context is everything" and then, in the same argument, declare that sex abuse victims should basically "get over it or go away".
Context *is* everything. Not just the context of the situation, but the context of the people *in* the situation. Some people don't like to be touched at all. Some people don't mind it. Some people don't want to be seen "naked" in any form. Some people don't mind it.
You seem to not care about people messing with your genitals provided that they think you've got a bomb. That's fine. That's your gig. Other people do mind. Some people simply don't like the idea, some people have events in their past that put them off it even more. Saying they need to "get over it" is just silly, like telling someone with arachnophobia to just "get over it" (and before you claim you never said "get over it" I'm using the phrase to summarise the argument you made in response to scythe's post and I'm not retyping it all every time I want to say it).
In fact, I'd go so far as to say most people don't like having their genitals messed with in a non-sexual way. You bring up the example of going to a doctor for an exam, but that is pretty irrelevant. You go to a doctor specifically for that, in order to find out if anything's wrong. To use a deliberately extreme example, this week I had a testicular ultrasound; my doctor recommended it, I went to the hospital and had it done. It wasn't the most pleasant experience but, y'know, it was necessary. But if I was told I have to go through the same procedure to get on the flight I've booked and paid for, or go home, I'd be pretty damn annoyed and would not at all be willing to do it. Y'know, context.
The entire damn issue with this thing is context, and you're missing a lot of it. The scans and pat downs are fairly invasive. As a society we accept a level of invasion for certain things, like you said yourself. Laws are somewhat invasive. Police stops are invasive. But we all draw a line somewhere. For example, having mandatory weekly house searches by authorities for everyone in the country would do a lot more to stop terrorism than the new TSA procedures, but we don't accept that. It'd save hundreds, thousands of lives, but we don't accept that. We don't want it. Monitoring chips on every person would save lives, but we don't want that. Some people are willing to accept different levels of invasion, as it were. I don't care much about the CCTV coverage in the UK that other people repeatedly claim is "big brother", for example. Clearly the level at which you personally would say "no" is lower than the TSA things, but for most people it's not.
But the *main* bit of context here is that the new procedures don't really do anything to make people safer than they were. They're a pointless level of security that forces people to jump through hoops that people are not willing to jump through. People are *scared* of travel, people are cancelling travel plans because they don't want to go through this.
This would be an acceptable outcome if there was any serious benefit to the security, but there really isn't.
It is very individual, personally I don't see this as being at all a problem, as long as you recognise that context is important and that this is simply an extension of existing ideas, but you don't neccesarily agree with extending the ideas that far, I can't really argue against that because it's personal preference.
I have issue with people who scream about liberty being everything and governments being evil and how everything is about the man trying to take over our lives and all that nonesense, because that demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the different elements in play. I don't think it's really a very intelligent standpoint, and I also think it's mainly just people spouting ideas they find romantic in some way without really thinking about what would actually happen if the world worked that way.
I also object to hyperbole and similar stupid debating methods, calling a body search 'groping' is stupid, if you could beat the body search by sticking whatever you want to hide in your arse crack or in your cleavage it wouldn't be a very good body search, suggesting that everyone who performs one is a lecherous sex offender is insulting to people who are probably doing a job they don't really want to do, and also to my intelligence. Equating a really quite minor inconvenience with slavery and living in a dictatorship is so silly I don't even know where to begin objecting to it.
I suppose I'm playing devil's advocate to try and illustrate the reasoning behind the system. Like I said I don't personally see it doing enough good to warrant the inconvenience, but that's because I'm thinking about me and it isn't really my job to look after the country and its people, if it was my job I'd probably be the one suggesting the idea in the first place.
But yeah, if you just think this is too inefficient in terms of benefit/invasiveness, I can see the logic there, I agree with it to some degree although for me it would just be benefit/inconvenience.
I do however object somewhat to you summarising my viewpoints on sex abuse as 'get over it'. Phobias and PTSD and similar things are serious illnesses that are very harmful, the only way you should 'get over it' is in the way you 'get over' any serious illness and that's by seeing a doctor about it and getting it fixed. Until then I would suggest you don't put yourself in situations where your condiiton is going to be a problem. Like I won't drive because I have trouble sleeping and wouldn't be fit to operate a vehicle most mornings. Stuff like that is a responsibility everybody has to the people around them.
<!--quoteo(post=1811094:date=Nov 27 2010, 10:14 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Nov 27 2010, 10:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811094"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I also object to hyperbole and similar stupid debating methods,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except when it suits your purposes, apparently:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->calling a body search 'groping' is stupid, if you could beat the body search by sticking whatever you want to hide in your arse crack or in your cleavage it wouldn't be a very good body search, suggesting that everyone who performs one is a lecherous sex offender is insulting to people who are probably doing a job they don't really want to do, and also to my intelligence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Suggesting that everyone who tries to fly has a bomb up their arse crack is quite insulting too, but I don't see you championing those people's cause.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Equating a really quite minor inconvenience with slavery and living in a dictatorship is so silly I don't even know where to begin objecting to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're also really good at refuting arguments nobody ever made.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I do however object somewhat to you summarising my viewpoints on sex abuse as 'get over it'. Phobias and PTSD and similar things are serious illnesses that are very harmful, the only way you should 'get over it' is in the way you 'get over' any serious illness and that's by seeing a doctor about it and getting it fixed. Until then I would suggest you don't put yourself in situations where your condiiton is going to be a problem. Like I won't drive because I have trouble sleeping and wouldn't be fit to operate a vehicle most mornings. Stuff like that is a responsibility everybody has to the people around them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The difference is that your condition puts you in a situation where it can reasonably be expected to be a detriment. You have reduced ability to concentrate, so you don't drive a car. The girl has an aversion to people touching her genitals without permission, so she doesn't go to bondage clubs. But she can't take a plane, because apparently having people touch your genitals is now a necessary part of that procedure. Why? The argument is that this doesn't do much for safety, so why does she have to present her genitals for inspection? Why?
<!--quoteo(post=1809310:date=Nov 23 2010, 01:02 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 23 2010, 01:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1809310"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->SOME pilots get paid quite a lot of money. Others make less than 30k $ annually. Anecdotally I've heard of some being paid as little as 20k. That's not a lot of money when you factor in that they also took out loans to finance their education. It's not TOO far fetched that some of those pilots might be susceptible to offers to make a little money "on the side."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The low payed pilots are not the ones flying for the major airlines.
The ones making $25-30k a year are working for the airline's regional partners like Compass or Colgan airlines that fly with a Major airlines name on the plane but are separate companies. These companies generally do not much international flying and certainly not transoceanic flying so I think the risk of them smuggling is low. These are also people that have put a lot of work into getting to where they are and know that any violation, even a DUI can kill their career overnight. Not something many like to risk.
Edit: Just found this
it may not really belong here but... <center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sYcARF1-JDg"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sYcARF1-JDg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
Imho the only problem seems to be lack of competition/options:
If you had the choice between flying from a groping airport and from a non groping airport, where would you rather fly from? Even better: How much is not being groped worth to you? 5 Bucks? Driving an additional 50 miles to the non groping airport?
The whole points is: If I wanted to detonate a bomb I would do so at the airport in the security line. You know, lots of people standing around in a small, confined space. What mayor advantage do you have when detonating the bomb inside the plane? The guarantee that 200+ people die, instead of only 50? Considering that your goal is to strike fear and thus cost money and not to kill people it seems the better solution to me. Hijacking planes can be pretty much prevented by securing the cockpit, making blowing the plane up the only viable option for terrorists. A standard issue hand-grenade has a kill radius of 16 meters. Even better in crowds, cause bones will shatter and add to the fragmentation.
Again: Why try preventing them from blowing up planes? It's certainly not because of the people, but rather because planes are ###### expensive and blowing up 200 tourists at the security check in causes less monetary loss than blowing up a 0.2 Billion Euro airplane. TSA is protecting airline property and not people and if someone wants to touch my private parts in order to save some cooperation money, he better pay me up-front.
Thus said: There will be a non groping entrance and a groping entrance at my next party. Using the non groping entrance requires an additional entry fee. Or the other way around, depending on which entrance is more popular.
Out of curiosity: If you are wearing a protective cup they won't be able to touch your junk. What happens next? Do you have to undress somewhere? How much time would that take? 2-3 Minutes? If so, it should be enough for for 10% of all travelers to wear such cups in order to basically halt the complete security procedure.
At any rate: Next time I fly over to the US i will make sure to wear a cup and be it to just use this golden line:
*TSA doing the pat down.* *TSA touching my cup.* TSA: Sir, what is that? Me: Those are my Balls of Steel.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
Just to make a point:
there is a difference between what this guy did and what Fas just suggested.
This guy was calm, rational and clear. At no point did he break the law, nor attempt to interfere in the working of the system.
If you go in wearing a cup they are most likely going to want a strip search, if they are within their authority to ask for this, I dono, but a cup would be a perfect place to hide something (if you were an idiot, and not all terrorists/smugglers are exactly the cream of the crop).
That said, my take on all of this is such:
1) The guy isn't a hero, he is, as some one else put it, thinking. He objects to the procedures and tested them in a rational and polite way.
2) I take issue with the way the TSA conducts itself in general.
My primary objection is that the implemented systems are really infective. Sure, this will probably stop some one from boarding the plane with a loaded gun (they are kinda hard to hide), however if we take the Israeli security guy at his word they would not stop some one dead set on blowing up the plane. We also know that you can carry a pair of 12 inch razor blades through the backscatter machine (and I assume metal detector...) and not get them caught: <center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q3yaqq9Jjb4"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q3yaqq9Jjb4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
This doesn't make me feel safe. It also makes me even more angry at the 'security' systems in place. The term "Security Theater" gets tossed around a bunch, but I have to say that this makes a perfect example of it.
The classic, and oft misused, Franklin quote is: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The key being that we ARE giving up an essential liberty (the privacy of our bodies as well as a good shot at out health) for a temporary, if that, safety.
That is my objection.
Stick makes an excellent example. He is willing to give up some degree of privacy and comfort to make sure that he is healthy. He has reasonable assurances that his privacy will only be breached by properly trained and qualified individuals, and only where directly necessary to check on his health.
The TSA does not provide any reasonable assurances that the procedures they follow: 1) Do not invade our privacy any more than is reasonable. 2) Do not damage our health. 3) Stop serious threats.
Side note: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unless the area you live in is basically one non-stop orgy and you have to penis-vault your way through crowds of naked people simply to get to the shop, you have an incredible misunderstanding of different levels of physical contact.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is probably one of the greatest mental images ever created, well done.
<!--quoteo(post=1813006:date=Dec 3 2010, 10:17 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Dec 3 2010, 10:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1813006"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Stick makes an excellent example. He is willing to give up some degree of privacy and comfort to make sure that he is healthy. He has reasonable assurances that his privacy will only be breached by properly trained and qualified individuals, and only where directly necessary to check on his health.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not to mention that the procedure is voluntary. Nobody's forcing him to have his junk ultra-sounded. His doctor recommended it, Stickman says it was necessary. But "necessary" as in "to ensure his continued good health." He's free to not go through it, he'll just have to roll the dice and live with the potential consequences.
Anyway, the TSA is up to new craziness. This one I can only describe as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101202/17372012098/tsa-told-to-tell-children-that-groping-them-is-game-horrifying-sex-abuse-experts.shtml" target="_blank">searingly facepalmy.</a> Honestly, if you think about that one for five seconds you'll see what an utterly horrible idea it is.
<!--quoteo(post=1812536:date=Dec 2 2010, 06:16 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Dec 2 2010, 06:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1812536"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh for ######'s sake. Let's just jack up global warming to the point where clothing becomes unnecessary and then make nudity mandatory.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought global warming was supposed to change the Earth in a way which makes it globally, lower by temperature as a whole.
<!--quoteo(post=1813315:date=Dec 4 2010, 10:59 AM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Dec 4 2010, 10:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1813315"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I thought global warming was supposed to change the Earth in a way which makes it globally, lower by temperature as a whole.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe they have started calling it Global Climate Change in respect of that fact that we just don't have any idea what's going on or what will happen.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->December 3, 2010 Full Body Scanners: What's Next?
Organizers of National Opt Out Day, the Wednesday before Thanksgiving when air travelers were urged to opt out of the full-body scanners at security checkpoints and instead submit to full-body patdowns -- were outfoxed by the TSA. The government pre-empted the protest by turning off the machines in most airports during the Thanksgiving weekend. Everyone went through the metal detectors, just as before.
Now that Thanksgiving is over, the machines are back on and the "enhanced" pat-downs have resumed. I suspect that more people would prefer to have naked images of themselves seen by TSA agents in another room, than have themselves intimately touched by a TSA agent right in front of them.
But now, the TSA is in a bind. Regardless of whatever lobbying came before, or whatever former DHS officials had a financial interest in these scanners, the TSA has spent billions on those scanners, claiming they're essential. But because people can opt out, the alternate manual method must be equally effective; otherwise, the terrorists could just opt out. If they make the pat-downs less invasive, it would be the same as admitting the scanners aren't essential. Senior officials would get fired over that.
So not counting inconsequential modifications to demonstrate they're "listening," the pat-downs will continue. And they'll continue for everyone: children, abuse survivors, rape survivors, urostomy bag wearers, people in wheelchairs. It has to be that way; otherwise, the terrorists could simply adapt. They'd hide their explosives on their children or in their urostomy bags. They'd recruit rape survivors, abuse survivors, or seniors. They'd dress as pilots. They'd sneak their PETN through airport security using the very type of person who isn't being screened.
The problem is that no scanners or puffers can detect PETN; only swabs and dogs work. What the TSA hopes is that they will detect the bulge if someone is hiding a wad of it on their person. But they won't catch PETN hidden in a body cavity. That doesn't have to be as gross as you're imagining; you can hide PETN in your mouth. A terrorist can go through the scanners a dozen times with bits in his mouth each time, and assemble a bigger bomb on the other side. Or he can roll it thin enough to be part of a garment, and sneak it through that way. These tricks aren't new. In the days after the Underwear Bomber was stopped, a scanner manufacturer admitted that the machines might not have caught him.
So what's next? Strip searches? Body cavity searches? TSA Administrator John Pistole said there would be no body cavity searches for now, but his reasons make no sense. He said that the case widely reported as being a body cavity bomb might not actually have been. While that appears to be true, what does that have to do with future bombs? He also said that even body cavity bombs would need "external initiators" that the TSA would be able to detect.
Do you think for a minute that the TSA can detect these "external initiators"? Do you think that if a terrorist took a laptop -- or better yet, a less-common piece of electronics gear -- and removed the insides and replaced them with a timer, a pressure sensor, a simple contact switch, or a radio frequency switch, the TSA guy behind the X-ray machine monitor would detect it? How about if those components were distributed over a few trips through airport security. On the other hand, if we believe the TSA can magically detect these "external initiators" so effectively that they make body-cavity searches unnecessary, why do we need the full-body scanners?
Either PETN is a danger that must be searched for, or it isn't. Pistole was being either ignorant or evasive.
Once again, the TSA is covering their own asses by implementing security-theater measures to prevent the previous attack while ignoring any threats of future attacks. It's the same thinking that caused them to ban box cutters after 9/11, screen shoes after Richard Reid, limit liquids after that London gang, and -- I kid you not -- ban printer cartridges over 16 ounces after they were used to house package bombs from Yemen. They act like the terrorists are incapable of thinking creatively, while the terrorists repeatedly demonstrate that can always come up with a new approach that circumvents the old measures.
On the plus side, PETN is very hard to get to explode. The pre-9/11 screening procedures, looking for obvious guns and bombs, forced the terrorists to build inefficient fusing mechanisms. We saw this when Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber, used bottles of liquid and a syringe and 20 minutes in the bathroom to assemble his device, then set his pants on fire -- and still failed to ignite his PETN-filled underwear. And when he failed, the passengers quickly subdued him.
The truth is that exactly two things have made air travel safer since 9/11: reinforcing cockpit doors and convincing passengers they need to fight back. The TSA should continue to screen checked luggage. They should start screening airport workers. And then they should return airport security to pre-9/11 levels and let the rest of their budget be used for better purposes. Investigation and intelligence is how we're going to prevent terrorism, on airplanes and elsewhere. It's how we caught the liquid bombers. It's how we found the Yemeni printer-cartridge bombs. And it's our best chance at stopping the next serious plot.
Because if a group of well-planned and well-funded terrorist plotters makes it to the airport, the chance is pretty low that those blue-shirted crotch-groping water-bottle-confiscating TSA agents are going to catch them. The agents are trying to do a good job, but the deck is so stacked against them that their job is impossible. Airport security is the last line of defense, and it's not a very good one.
We have a job here, too, and it's to be indomitable in the face of terrorism. The goal of terrorism is to terrorize us: to make us afraid, and make our government do exactly what the TSA is doing. When we react out of fear, the terrorists succeed even when their plots fail. But if we carry on as before, the terrorists fail -- even when their plots succeed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/12/full_body_scann.html" target="_blank">http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010...body_scann.html</a>
Comments
Or if you're a teenage girl who was raped by your father as a child and getting fondled by a stranger undoes years of therapy and causes you to break down in the queue.
Or risk cancer.
Hmm...
--Scythe--
I'm with that.
People just need to get real and stop thinking "they're so special". He did it because he could, not because he was actually thinking of anyone who could be in the position he was saying he could be in (ie. victim of a previous rape).
Eventually, human nature, someone's going to get that annoyed they're going to say "Fine, Sod it, Go on", two and a half hours is a damn stupid irresponsible waste of everyone's time.
If you really had any severe problem, you'd highlight it on your outward journey and with planned travel you'd take some form of proof to highlight the problem; because that is unfortunately the type of mistrusting world we live in that any person who really wanted to continue their planned journey with as much co-operation as possible would do in the current and modern world.
It's called;
<!--quoteo(post=1810809:date=Nov 26 2010, 02:47 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 26 2010, 02:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1810809"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->hyperbole<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And it's really annoying, it devalues the stuff you compare it to and it doesn't support the argument, by comparing it to cholera and the plague (which you <i>are</i> doin by the way, that's what a metaphor is, you use appropriate standins to illustrate a point, the key being <i>appropriate</i>) you are suggesting that a minor dose of radiation or a contact search are somehow equatable to easily terminal and amazingly horrible diseases. And they aren't, unless you have a serious lack of perspective.
<!--quoteo(post=1810809:date=Nov 26 2010, 02:47 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 26 2010, 02:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1810809"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now it's fine that getting groped by strangers doesn't bother you. That's great, everyone has different tastes. But most people find it offensive to have others fondle their groin or breasts without permission, and if you happen to not be a TSA employee doing so will get you charged with sexual harassment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty sure not if you volunteer for it, I mean people volunteer for it every day when they go to the doctors or go to some nightclubs or any other instance where searches are performed. You do have to agree to the contact search I assume? You don't just get jumped by security guards at random and molested without any notification in advance. You use the machine or do the search, or you don't use the airline, it is entirely elective.
<!--quoteo(post=1810809:date=Nov 26 2010, 02:47 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 26 2010, 02:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1810809"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What ISN'T fine is that you don't think travel is a basic human right, because it is. And no, "you can travel as long as you let us zap you with this untested x-ray machine or grope you" isn't the same as respecting that right, it's putting an unreasonable restriction on it. It's like saying "we respect your right to free speech as long as you only exercise it in areas away from the public eye." Luckily, we haven't gotten to the point of "free speech zones" quite y-.. OH WAIT.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Being able to walk around is a right most countries afford their citizens, and is probabaly in the human rights charter somewhere.
However not being blown up is also a basic human right, perhaps more importantly, it is the right of the airline company to enforce rules about what you can carry on their airplanes, it is also the obligation of the government to try to protect its ciitzens against people taking potentially dangerous items into the country, and to police its airways so people can't hijack planes and fly them into ######.
The thing about rights is that they aren't simply about you, if you want to do something that puts other people at risk, you generally aren't allowed to do it. You aren't allowed to get wasted and drive around like an idiot, so the police can pull you over if they think you might be doing that, they're also allowed to prevent you from starting to drive if they know you're drunk. Similarly, the airline company and government are probably going to take objection to you wandering onto a vehicle when you might be carrying something that could turn it into a dangerous weapon to be used against its citizens.
The idea that liberty should be for everyone and shouldn't be restricted at all is childish and obviously impractical, by that logic we shouldn't have any laws at all, and what we'd have is anarchy, which would then form into autocracy when someone realised that nobody was stopping them from getting a load of armed people together and ruling all the powerless people. Laws exist to protect the people who can't protect themselves, unless you plan to hand out anti aircraft missile launchers to every household and air-safe handguns to everyone who gets on an aircraft, and train everyone to use them, and want to trust that those methods will kill fewer people than a government program to enforce air safety, this is probably the best approach you're going to get.
Now I personally don't really think the measures are neccesary, they will probably save some lives because they will make air travel safer, but they do make travel somewhat inconvenient and life is kind of annoying if you fill it with safety-related inconvenience. Also it probably helps that I haven't left the country in a decade so I'm not really at risk from unsafe air travel, but I'm not in government, so I can afford to think entirely selfishly.
If I was in governement I would be negligent to throw away the lives of the people who I am supposed to serve just to make their lives a bit more convenient on the occasion they decide to use an airplane.
As to health concerns of the X ray machines, as far as I know they are just that, x ray machines, and we know what x rays do, they cause tissue damage because x rays are ionising radiation, I imagine if you sat in front of one for long enough you'd end up with skin cancer. However they are obviously very low power X ray machines, otherwise they'd take pictures of your skeleton. Most people would be very hard pressed to reach a dangerous dose from a backscatter machine, unless they fly every week or something.
I wouldn't use them normally because there's not really any reason to, but if I was in a hurry or just curious I'd give them a go sure.
<!--quoteo(post=1811019:date=Nov 27 2010, 02:54 AM:name=Scythe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scythe @ Nov 27 2010, 02:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811019"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Or if you're a teenage girl who was raped by your father as a child and getting fondled by a stranger undoes years of therapy and causes you to break down in the queue.
Or risk cancer.
Hmm...
--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then you need to go to a psychologist because having that severe a phobia of physical contact and an inability to take context into account suggests you are severely mentally disturbed and need help before you hurt yourself or someone else. I wouldn't let someone that unwell onto a plane anyway.
No, that is what I EXPLICITLY said that I am not suggesting.
If I say I'm not doing something and then do it that doesn't rewrite reality to make it so that I didn't do it.
reactionimage.jpg
I know the rules say we're supposed to give a more reasoned response to posts in the discussion forum, but <i>damn.</i>
I know the rules say we're supposed to give a more reasoned response to posts in the discussion forum, but <i>damn.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If someone freaks out by being touched how exactly are they going to fare on a cramped airplane? How is everyone else going to react if they go into hysterics? People are on edge on airplanes anyway, that's why air rage is a problem.
Throwing someone who has difficulty controling their reactions and with an aversion to physical contact into a cramped, badly ventilated, uncomfortable and inescapable aircraft filled with slightly annoyed people is <i>asking</i> for trouble.
Someone in that position needs help to overcome their problems. Immediate help.
Throwing someone who has difficulty controling their reactions and with an aversion to physical contact into a cramped, badly ventilated, uncomfortable and inescapable aircraft filled with slightly annoyed people is <i>asking</i> for trouble.
Someone in that position needs help to overcome their problems. Immediate help.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't quite get why you think "flying on an airplane sitting in cramped conditions" or "being in a crowded area" is comparable to "a stranger explicitly feeling your primary/secondary sexual organs in a situation you don't have complete control over".
Unless the area you live in is basically one non-stop orgy and you have to penis-vault your way through crowds of naked people simply to get to the shop, you have an incredible misunderstanding of different levels of physical contact.
If someone sitting next to me on the bus wants something out of their coat pocket and ends up rubbing their hand on my arse in the process, that's not sexual assault, and I probably wouldn't think twice about it except maybe to avoid laughing.
If some girl I don't like decides she wants to fondly my arse for fun, I'll be rather annoyed with her and tell her to go the hell away.
Similarly if someone is trying to make sure I haven't strapped a bomb to my ######, I'll happily let them check, because god knows I wouldn't want people wandering around with explosive nutsacks. If someone is simply coming onto me physically and <i>really</i> won't take the hint I'm not interested, I'll punch them in the face.
It's not even what you touch, any part of the body can be sexual, and you can sexually assault someone without going anywhere near their sexual organs. It's the intent behind it that makes it sexual or not sexual.
Context is everything when it comes to interacting with other people, not being able to understand context is a pretty serious problem.
Now if the dude was actually commiting a sex crime on the girl <i>that</i> is entirely different, that means he needs to get fired and probably arrested as well if possible. I assume groped is simply another use of a creative euphemism for 'performed a thorough contact search' as that is sort of how it's been used throughout the thread.
Context *is* everything. Not just the context of the situation, but the context of the people *in* the situation. Some people don't like to be touched at all. Some people don't mind it. Some people don't want to be seen "naked" in any form. Some people don't mind it.
You seem to not care about people messing with your genitals provided that they think you've got a bomb. That's fine. That's your gig. Other people do mind. Some people simply don't like the idea, some people have events in their past that put them off it even more. Saying they need to "get over it" is just silly, like telling someone with arachnophobia to just "get over it" (and before you claim you never said "get over it" I'm using the phrase to summarise the argument you made in response to scythe's post and I'm not retyping it all every time I want to say it).
In fact, I'd go so far as to say most people don't like having their genitals messed with in a non-sexual way. You bring up the example of going to a doctor for an exam, but that is pretty irrelevant. You go to a doctor specifically for that, in order to find out if anything's wrong. To use a deliberately extreme example, this week I had a testicular ultrasound; my doctor recommended it, I went to the hospital and had it done. It wasn't the most pleasant experience but, y'know, it was necessary. But if I was told I have to go through the same procedure to get on the flight I've booked and paid for, or go home, I'd be pretty damn annoyed and would not at all be willing to do it. Y'know, context.
The entire damn issue with this thing is context, and you're missing a lot of it. The scans and pat downs are fairly invasive. As a society we accept a level of invasion for certain things, like you said yourself. Laws are somewhat invasive. Police stops are invasive. But we all draw a line somewhere. For example, having mandatory weekly house searches by authorities for everyone in the country would do a lot more to stop terrorism than the new TSA procedures, but we don't accept that. It'd save hundreds, thousands of lives, but we don't accept that. We don't want it. Monitoring chips on every person would save lives, but we don't want that.
Some people are willing to accept different levels of invasion, as it were. I don't care much about the CCTV coverage in the UK that other people repeatedly claim is "big brother", for example. Clearly the level at which you personally would say "no" is lower than the TSA things, but for most people it's not.
But the *main* bit of context here is that the new procedures don't really do anything to make people safer than they were. They're a pointless level of security that forces people to jump through hoops that people are not willing to jump through. People are *scared* of travel, people are cancelling travel plans because they don't want to go through this.
This would be an acceptable outcome if there was any serious benefit to the security, but there really isn't.
It is very individual, personally I don't see this as being at all a problem, as long as you recognise that context is important and that this is simply an extension of existing ideas, but you don't neccesarily agree with extending the ideas that far, I can't really argue against that because it's personal preference.
I have issue with people who scream about liberty being everything and governments being evil and how everything is about the man trying to take over our lives and all that nonesense, because that demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the different elements in play. I don't think it's really a very intelligent standpoint, and I also think it's mainly just people spouting ideas they find romantic in some way without really thinking about what would actually happen if the world worked that way.
I also object to hyperbole and similar stupid debating methods, calling a body search 'groping' is stupid, if you could beat the body search by sticking whatever you want to hide in your arse crack or in your cleavage it wouldn't be a very good body search, suggesting that everyone who performs one is a lecherous sex offender is insulting to people who are probably doing a job they don't really want to do, and also to my intelligence. Equating a really quite minor inconvenience with slavery and living in a dictatorship is so silly I don't even know where to begin objecting to it.
I suppose I'm playing devil's advocate to try and illustrate the reasoning behind the system. Like I said I don't personally see it doing enough good to warrant the inconvenience, but that's because I'm thinking about me and it isn't really my job to look after the country and its people, if it was my job I'd probably be the one suggesting the idea in the first place.
But yeah, if you just think this is too inefficient in terms of benefit/invasiveness, I can see the logic there, I agree with it to some degree although for me it would just be benefit/inconvenience.
I do however object somewhat to you summarising my viewpoints on sex abuse as 'get over it'. Phobias and PTSD and similar things are serious illnesses that are very harmful, the only way you should 'get over it' is in the way you 'get over' any serious illness and that's by seeing a doctor about it and getting it fixed. Until then I would suggest you don't put yourself in situations where your condiiton is going to be a problem. Like I won't drive because I have trouble sleeping and wouldn't be fit to operate a vehicle most mornings. Stuff like that is a responsibility everybody has to the people around them.
Except when it suits your purposes, apparently:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->calling a body search 'groping' is stupid, if you could beat the body search by sticking whatever you want to hide in your arse crack or in your cleavage it wouldn't be a very good body search, suggesting that everyone who performs one is a lecherous sex offender is insulting to people who are probably doing a job they don't really want to do, and also to my intelligence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suggesting that everyone who tries to fly has a bomb up their arse crack is quite insulting too, but I don't see you championing those people's cause.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Equating a really quite minor inconvenience with slavery and living in a dictatorship is so silly I don't even know where to begin objecting to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're also really good at refuting arguments nobody ever made.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I do however object somewhat to you summarising my viewpoints on sex abuse as 'get over it'. Phobias and PTSD and similar things are serious illnesses that are very harmful, the only way you should 'get over it' is in the way you 'get over' any serious illness and that's by seeing a doctor about it and getting it fixed. Until then I would suggest you don't put yourself in situations where your condiiton is going to be a problem. Like I won't drive because I have trouble sleeping and wouldn't be fit to operate a vehicle most mornings. Stuff like that is a responsibility everybody has to the people around them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The difference is that your condition puts you in a situation where it can reasonably be expected to be a detriment. You have reduced ability to concentrate, so you don't drive a car. The girl has an aversion to people touching her genitals without permission, so she doesn't go to bondage clubs. But she can't take a plane, because apparently having people touch your genitals is now a necessary part of that procedure. Why? The argument is that this doesn't do much for safety, so why does she have to present her genitals for inspection? Why?
The low payed pilots are not the ones flying for the major airlines.
The ones making $25-30k a year are working for the airline's regional partners like Compass or Colgan airlines that fly with a Major airlines name on the plane but are separate companies. These companies generally do not much international flying and certainly not transoceanic flying so I think the risk of them smuggling is low. These are also people that have put a lot of work into getting to where they are and know that any violation, even a DUI can kill their career overnight. Not something many like to risk.
Edit: Just found this
it may not really belong here but...
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sYcARF1-JDg"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sYcARF1-JDg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
If you had the choice between flying from a groping airport and from a non groping airport, where would you rather fly from?
Even better: How much is not being groped worth to you? 5 Bucks? Driving an additional 50 miles to the non groping airport?
The whole points is: If I wanted to detonate a bomb I would do so at the airport in the security line. You know, lots of people standing around in a small, confined space. What mayor advantage do you have when detonating the bomb inside the plane? The guarantee that 200+ people die, instead of only 50? Considering that your goal is to strike fear and thus cost money and not to kill people it seems the better solution to me. Hijacking planes can be pretty much prevented by securing the cockpit, making blowing the plane up the only viable option for terrorists. A standard issue hand-grenade has a kill radius of 16 meters. Even better in crowds, cause bones will shatter and add to the fragmentation.
Again: Why try preventing them from blowing up planes? It's certainly not because of the people, but rather because planes are ###### expensive and blowing up 200 tourists at the security check in causes less monetary loss than blowing up a 0.2 Billion Euro airplane. TSA is protecting airline property and not people and if someone wants to touch my private parts in order to save some cooperation money, he better pay me up-front.
Thus said: There will be a non groping entrance and a groping entrance at my next party. Using the non groping entrance requires an additional entry fee. Or the other way around, depending on which entrance is more popular.
<a href="http://www.gadling.com/2010/11/29/the-miss-tsa-pinup-calendar/" target="_blank">http://www.gadling.com/2010/11/29/the-miss...pinup-calendar/</a>
and
<img src="http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/8182/tsabumperstickers.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Last one got cut off and I am too lazy to re upload, it said "We handle more packages then USPS"
I hope people make a lot of fun out of your job too.
edit: but if you like more serious material
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X4G-0g9PRrE&hl"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X4G-0g9PRrE&hl" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
If you are wearing a protective cup they won't be able to touch your junk.
What happens next? Do you have to undress somewhere? How much time would that take? 2-3 Minutes?
If so, it should be enough for for 10% of all travelers to wear such cups in order to basically halt the complete security procedure.
At any rate: Next time I fly over to the US i will make sure to wear a cup and be it to just use this golden line:
*TSA doing the pat down.*
*TSA touching my cup.*
TSA: Sir, what is that?
Me: Those are my Balls of Steel.
there is a difference between what this guy did and what Fas just suggested.
This guy was calm, rational and clear. At no point did he break the law, nor attempt to interfere in the working of the system.
If you go in wearing a cup they are most likely going to want a strip search, if they are within their authority to ask for this, I dono, but a cup would be a perfect place to hide something (if you were an idiot, and not all terrorists/smugglers are exactly the cream of the crop).
That said, my take on all of this is such:
1) The guy isn't a hero, he is, as some one else put it, thinking. He objects to the procedures and tested them in a rational and polite way.
2) I take issue with the way the TSA conducts itself in general.
My primary objection is that the implemented systems are really infective. Sure, this will probably stop some one from boarding the plane with a loaded gun (they are kinda hard to hide), however if we take the Israeli security guy at his word they would not stop some one dead set on blowing up the plane. We also know that you can carry a pair of 12 inch razor blades through the backscatter machine (and I assume metal detector...) and not get them caught:
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q3yaqq9Jjb4"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q3yaqq9Jjb4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
This doesn't make me feel safe. It also makes me even more angry at the 'security' systems in place. The term "Security Theater" gets tossed around a bunch, but I have to say that this makes a perfect example of it.
The classic, and oft misused, Franklin quote is:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The key being that we ARE giving up an essential liberty (the privacy of our bodies as well as a good shot at out health) for a temporary, if that, safety.
That is my objection.
Stick makes an excellent example. He is willing to give up some degree of privacy and comfort to make sure that he is healthy. He has reasonable assurances that his privacy will only be breached by properly trained and qualified individuals, and only where directly necessary to check on his health.
The TSA does not provide any reasonable assurances that the procedures they follow:
1) Do not invade our privacy any more than is reasonable.
2) Do not damage our health.
3) Stop serious threats.
Side note:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unless the area you live in is basically one non-stop orgy and you have to penis-vault your way through crowds of naked people simply to get to the shop, you have an incredible misunderstanding of different levels of physical contact.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is probably one of the greatest mental images ever created, well done.
Not to mention that the procedure is voluntary. Nobody's forcing him to have his junk ultra-sounded. His doctor recommended it, Stickman says it was necessary. But "necessary" as in "to ensure his continued good health." He's free to not go through it, he'll just have to roll the dice and live with the potential consequences.
Anyway, the TSA is up to new craziness. This one I can only describe as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101202/17372012098/tsa-told-to-tell-children-that-groping-them-is-game-horrifying-sex-abuse-experts.shtml" target="_blank">searingly facepalmy.</a> Honestly, if you think about that one for five seconds you'll see what an utterly horrible idea it is.
I thought global warming was supposed to change the Earth in a way which makes it globally, lower by temperature as a whole.
I believe they have started calling it Global Climate Change in respect of that fact that we just don't have any idea what's going on or what will happen.
Full Body Scanners: What's Next?
Organizers of National Opt Out Day, the Wednesday before Thanksgiving when air travelers were urged to opt out of the full-body scanners at security checkpoints and instead submit to full-body patdowns -- were outfoxed by the TSA. The government pre-empted the protest by turning off the machines in most airports during the Thanksgiving weekend. Everyone went through the metal detectors, just as before.
Now that Thanksgiving is over, the machines are back on and the "enhanced" pat-downs have resumed. I suspect that more people would prefer to have naked images of themselves seen by TSA agents in another room, than have themselves intimately touched by a TSA agent right in front of them.
But now, the TSA is in a bind. Regardless of whatever lobbying came before, or whatever former DHS officials had a financial interest in these scanners, the TSA has spent billions on those scanners, claiming they're essential. But because people can opt out, the alternate manual method must be equally effective; otherwise, the terrorists could just opt out. If they make the pat-downs less invasive, it would be the same as admitting the scanners aren't essential. Senior officials would get fired over that.
So not counting inconsequential modifications to demonstrate they're "listening," the pat-downs will continue. And they'll continue for everyone: children, abuse survivors, rape survivors, urostomy bag wearers, people in wheelchairs. It has to be that way; otherwise, the terrorists could simply adapt. They'd hide their explosives on their children or in their urostomy bags. They'd recruit rape survivors, abuse survivors, or seniors. They'd dress as pilots. They'd sneak their PETN through airport security using the very type of person who isn't being screened.
And PETN is what the TSA is looking for these days. That's pentaerythritol tetranitrate, the plastic explosive that both the Shoe Bomber and the Underwear Bomber attempted but failed to detonate. It's what was mailed from Yemen. It's in Iraq and Afghanistan. Guns and traditional bombs are passé; PETN is the terrorist tool of the future.
The problem is that no scanners or puffers can detect PETN; only swabs and dogs work. What the TSA hopes is that they will detect the bulge if someone is hiding a wad of it on their person. But they won't catch PETN hidden in a body cavity. That doesn't have to be as gross as you're imagining; you can hide PETN in your mouth. A terrorist can go through the scanners a dozen times with bits in his mouth each time, and assemble a bigger bomb on the other side. Or he can roll it thin enough to be part of a garment, and sneak it through that way. These tricks aren't new. In the days after the Underwear Bomber was stopped, a scanner manufacturer admitted that the machines might not have caught him.
So what's next? Strip searches? Body cavity searches? TSA Administrator John Pistole said there would be no body cavity searches for now, but his reasons make no sense. He said that the case widely reported as being a body cavity bomb might not actually have been. While that appears to be true, what does that have to do with future bombs? He also said that even body cavity bombs would need "external initiators" that the TSA would be able to detect.
Do you think for a minute that the TSA can detect these "external initiators"? Do you think that if a terrorist took a laptop -- or better yet, a less-common piece of electronics gear -- and removed the insides and replaced them with a timer, a pressure sensor, a simple contact switch, or a radio frequency switch, the TSA guy behind the X-ray machine monitor would detect it? How about if those components were distributed over a few trips through airport security. On the other hand, if we believe the TSA can magically detect these "external initiators" so effectively that they make body-cavity searches unnecessary, why do we need the full-body scanners?
Either PETN is a danger that must be searched for, or it isn't. Pistole was being either ignorant or evasive.
Once again, the TSA is covering their own asses by implementing security-theater measures to prevent the previous attack while ignoring any threats of future attacks. It's the same thinking that caused them to ban box cutters after 9/11, screen shoes after Richard Reid, limit liquids after that London gang, and -- I kid you not -- ban printer cartridges over 16 ounces after they were used to house package bombs from Yemen. They act like the terrorists are incapable of thinking creatively, while the terrorists repeatedly demonstrate that can always come up with a new approach that circumvents the old measures.
On the plus side, PETN is very hard to get to explode. The pre-9/11 screening procedures, looking for obvious guns and bombs, forced the terrorists to build inefficient fusing mechanisms. We saw this when Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber, used bottles of liquid and a syringe and 20 minutes in the bathroom to assemble his device, then set his pants on fire -- and still failed to ignite his PETN-filled underwear. And when he failed, the passengers quickly subdued him.
The truth is that exactly two things have made air travel safer since 9/11: reinforcing cockpit doors and convincing passengers they need to fight back. The TSA should continue to screen checked luggage. They should start screening airport workers. And then they should return airport security to pre-9/11 levels and let the rest of their budget be used for better purposes. Investigation and intelligence is how we're going to prevent terrorism, on airplanes and elsewhere. It's how we caught the liquid bombers. It's how we found the Yemeni printer-cartridge bombs. And it's our best chance at stopping the next serious plot.
Because if a group of well-planned and well-funded terrorist plotters makes it to the airport, the chance is pretty low that those blue-shirted crotch-groping water-bottle-confiscating TSA agents are going to catch them. The agents are trying to do a good job, but the deck is so stacked against them that their job is impossible. Airport security is the last line of defense, and it's not a very good one.
We have a job here, too, and it's to be indomitable in the face of terrorism. The goal of terrorism is to terrorize us: to make us afraid, and make our government do exactly what the TSA is doing. When we react out of fear, the terrorists succeed even when their plots fail. But if we carry on as before, the terrorists fail -- even when their plots succeed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/12/full_body_scann.html" target="_blank">http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010...body_scann.html</a>