TSA Guidelines & "You touch my junk" guy

[houston7]

Allowing these pat downs is anti-American. Thus the terrorists win. They do not want our land. They want our freedom and they are getting it with our own help. These measures (like the no fluids over 4 ounces is only window dressing to make stupid people feel safe. It does not really add to our safety. And NO, the ends do not justify the means -- if the end is perfect safety -- which is not attainable anyways. Yes, 3,000 people dying is tragic - but more people die each year in this country from texting while driving. I am not willing to cave in and give up all of our freedoms just to "feel" safe. Unfortunately war is big business so there is substantial interest in keeping us in war. If we really want to win the war on terror then we would not give up our freedoms and we would be doing everything possible to become energy independent so that we are not funding the terrorists and would not be interested in manipulating their countries -- which is the real reason they hate us.

Bullseye.

The United States of America, where citizens have been losing their freedoms since 1981.

Together we stand, divided we fall.

Looks like we've fallen, and we're not getting up anytime soon.

[BobMango]

The thing that really bugs me about this whole mess is that the TSA does not protect the flying public. They are fighting the last war. Shoe bomber? Everybody take off shows. Underware bomber? Every one gets groped. What are they going to do when some one smuggles explosives in a bodily orifice? Cavity searches for all?

So with all of this have they caught any terrorists trying to get through? No! The only reason the attacks have failed is because the other passengers intervened. If we don't get smart about this soon, it's going to end badly.

[lovemybugs10]

In the name of national security I think that anyone that approves of these unconstitutional, privacy invading rules should be subject to them each time they leave their house....because that's a choice, not a right.

[oregonpilot]

When someone books a flight, the TSA (concierge) comes to your house, packs your bag and watches you get dressed.
Holds your hand ALL the way to boarding.
That should take care of all the problems.

[LadyInTheRed]

In the name of national security I think that anyone that approves of these unconstitutional, privacy invading rules should be subject to them each time they leave their house....because that's a choice, not a right.

First of all, it is unconstitutional for the government to treat me differently based on my opinion on any issue.
Second, walking out of my house onto a public sidewalk is not the same thing as boarding an airplane.

Flying is not a constitutional right. If it were, and I couldn't afford an airline ticket and desired a ticket, one would be provided to me and I would travel a lot more than I do. If I chose to fly, I knowingly give up my rights to privacy to the extent TSA determines necessary to insure security. We have a right against unreasonable search and seizure. I don't think a full body scan is unreasonable. If there is some guy who sees hundreds or thousands of images of people's bodies every day and still gets his kicks off of it, I really don't care.

[BobMango]

First of all, it is unconstitutional for the government to treat me differently based on my opinion on any issue.
Second, walking out of my house onto a public sidewalk is not the same thing as boarding an airplane.

Flying is not a constitutional right. If it were, and I couldn't afford an airline ticket and desired a ticket, one would be provided to me and I would travel a lot more than I do. If I chose to fly, I knowingly give up my rights to privacy to the extent TSA determines necessary to insure security. We have a right against unreasonable search and seizure. I don't think a full body scan is unreasonable. If there is some guy who sees hundreds or thousands of images of people's bodies every day and still gets his kicks off of it, I really don't care.

You're missing the point. Just because something is not a "right" doesn't mean we have to check our constitutional protections at the door to participate. Those of you supporting the TSA in this seem to think that simply wanting to fly makes you suspect and subject to invasive search procedures. Driving your car is a privilege, yet you are not required to let a police officer search it without probable cause. A number of people choose to drink and drive, yet we don't require ignition interlocks on all cars to prevent anyone from driving while drunk. Why not? Drunk driving takes more lives every year than terrorist attacks do. In terms of risk, you are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist. Yet we expend significant time and money, and some are willing to give up precious freedoms to put in place ineffective procedures to prevent a highly unlikely event.

The other major point people are missing is that the TSA is simply ineffective. They have not stopped a single terrorist attempt. Every terrorist attempts to blow up a plane has been thwarted by other passengers. The TSA is always looking for the last threat, not the next one. It disappoints me that so many of my fellow citizens are willing to trade their hard won freedoms for some security, and an illusion of security at that.

[BKAttyMI]

I think a lot of misinformation is out there on these "scans". I've been through them a few times. You are scanned, it takes about 5 seconds, given a "clear" and you walk through. The only person that sees this scan is someone in a blackened room behind the scenes. These images really don't show much besides metal or suspicious objects, they aren't even in color, so no worries about matching your undergarments (really people?). If you decide to forego the scanner or if a suspicious object shows up in the scan, you are subjected to a "pat-down" by someone of the SAME SEX in a private room away from prying eyes of other passengers but monitored. If a child is subjected to a pat-down, the parent or guardian is ALWAYS present.

There is no "right to fly" or "right to privacy while flying", flying is a privilege, not a right. Yes, we pay for airports with tax dollars, but those airports bring in money two-fold with airline taxes and tourism/travel dollars for guests flying in, no matter where you are. This income helps pay for your public services. A lot of this hubbub is spreading like wildfire because of a mass of misinformation being spread around, know and research the real facts before jumping to conclusions. And please don't get your "Facts" from the propaganda websites.

[Freddy03]

I think a lot of misinformation is out there on these "scans". I've been through them a few times. You are scanned, it takes about 5 seconds, given a "clear" and you walk through. The only person that sees this scan is someone in a blackened room behind the scenes. These images really don't show much besides metal or suspicious objects, they aren't even in color, so no worries about matching your undergarments (really people?). If you decide to forego the scanner or if a suspicious object shows up in the scan, you are subjected to a "pat-down" by someone of the SAME SEX in a private room away from prying eyes of other passengers but monitored. If a child is subjected to a pat-down, the parent or guardian is ALWAYS present.

There is no "right to fly" or "right to privacy while flying", flying is a privilege, not a right. Yes, we pay for airports with tax dollars, but those airports bring in money two-fold with airline taxes and tourism/travel dollars for guests flying in, no matter where you are. This income helps pay for your public services. A lot of this hubbub is spreading like wildfire because of a mass of misinformation being spread around, know and research the real facts before jumping to conclusions. And please don't get your "Facts" from the propaganda websites.

Agreed!

[lovemybugs10]

It comes down to something fairly simple. You might be okay with some guy/girl in a dark room seeing your body, but I'm not. Even if they can't see my undergarments, even if, even if, even if. It's my body and I choose who can see it and in what way. I am not going to fly. Yes, I'm making that choice, but I really shouldn't have to. Without some sort of suspicious activity on my part my privacy shouldn't be invaded.

There has been a string of cab drivers being murdered around here, should they be able to stick their fingers between your legs before you get in their car? I would say not.

Where is the line drawn? Should all phone calls be recorded from each of our homes? Should our vehicles have government id's that tracks each place we go? Should our shopping be monitored? There are a lot of things that could be done to protect people, but they aren't, because it invades privacy. Scanning my body is a major step across the line from safety to invading my privacy no matter the costs.

[msm859]

I think a lot of misinformation is out there on these "scans". I've been through them a few times. You are scanned, it takes about 5 seconds, given a "clear" and you walk through. The only person that sees this scan is someone in a blackened room behind the scenes. These images really don't show much besides metal or suspicious objects, they aren't even in color, so no worries about matching your undergarments (really people?). If you decide to forego the scanner or if a suspicious object shows up in the scan, you are subjected to a "pat-down" by someone of the SAME SEX in a private room away from prying eyes of other passengers but monitored. If a child is subjected to a pat-down, the parent or guardian is ALWAYS present.

There is no "right to fly" or "right to privacy while flying", flying is a privilege, not a right. Yes, we pay for airports with tax dollars, but those airports bring in money two-fold with airline taxes and tourism/travel dollars for guests flying in, no matter where you are. This income helps pay for your public services. A lot of this hubbub is spreading like wildfire because of a mass of misinformation being spread around, know and research the real facts before jumping to conclusions. And please don't get your "Facts" from the propaganda websites.

I suspect the "misinformation" we are receiving about the scans are 1. what are the health consequences? and 2. what are the real benefits? I have heard experts say it would not have even caught the underwear bomber. I have also heard that the former head of TSA had an inside with the manufacturer. So is this just another scam to make money. More importantly though is we have lost sight on why we are doing this. The war on "terror". THEY ARE WINNING! The do Not want our land. They want to destroy our economy and take away are freedoms and have us live in fear. We have probably spent 2 trillion dollars the last 9 years on this war which is bankrupting this country. Everyone lives in fear so that a number of people now believe it is okay to do away with all of our rights - Patriot Act, TSA searches without probable cause. I fundamentally disagree that flying is a "privilege". I have a RIGHT to move about this country freely. That should mean by any available form of transportation. To go to the logical conclusion of you saying "flying" is not a right than what about driving, riding a bike, walking -- NO different. People in this country need to wake up. There are too many frogs in that kettle who don't realize the heat is on and when it reaches boiling -- all your freedoms are gone -- it will be too late. What other country does this ? None. I thought we were the free country. If you really want to win the war on terror send all those scanners back get bomb sniffing dogs at the airports walking around AND become energy independent so that we can get out of the Middle East so that we won't care about them anymore -- and then they won't care about us.

[LadyInTheRed]

You're missing the point. Just because something is not a "right" doesn't mean we have to check our constitutional protections at the door to participate. Those of you supporting the TSA in this seem to think that simply wanting to fly makes you suspect and subject to invasive search procedures. Driving your car is a privilege, yet you are not required to let a police officer search it without probable cause. A number of people choose to drink and drive, yet we don't require ignition interlocks on all cars to prevent anyone from driving while drunk. Why not? Drunk driving takes more lives every year than terrorist attacks do. In terms of risk, you are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist. Yet we expend significant time and money, and some are willing to give up precious freedoms to put in place ineffective procedures to prevent a highly unlikely event.

I'm not missing the point and I don't support TSA. I have a very good grasp on how our civil rights work and are balanced against the rights of others and the general public welfare. Reasonable people will differ on where the balance lies.

It is TSA's job to keep flights safe and to decide how best to do that. We have entrusted them to do that, and therfore have consented to their procedures. We do get to question their procedures and will eventually as a society decide whether the current procedures are accceptabe. In the end, somebody will be unhappy.

If somebody gets through the screening process with a bomb or other weapon that helps them hijack a plane, I guaranty you people will be asking TSA how they got through and screaming about the lax security procedures. Nobody forces you to fly, therefore you are not giving up any precious freedoms by submitting to a search. I don't believe going through a scanner is unreasonably intrusive. If you don't want somebody looking at a black and white image of your body, and don't like the option of a thorough hand search, then drive your car. And if somebody wants to make you blow into a tube before you drive your car to make sure you aren't going to kill somebody with it because you are too drunk to drive, I have no problem with that as long as the results of the test are only used to keep the car from starting and not saved or transmitted anywhere.

The other major point people are missing is that the TSA is simply ineffective. They have not stopped a single terrorist attempt. Every terrorist attempts to blow up a plane has been thwarted by other passengers. The TSA is always looking for the last threat, not the next one. It disappoints me that so many of my fellow citizens are willing to trade their hard won freedoms for some security, and an illusion of security at that.

Whether TSA is effective is not the point of the thread. It's about people feeling violated by being forced to either go through a scanner or go through an extensive physical search. But, I agree with you that TSA is reactionary instead of proactive. Metal detectors and luggage xrays were just fine until they failed to stop terrorists.

I do think the scanners are probably effective in keeping people from carrying weapons onto a plane on their body. But, that alone doesn't keep us safe because it's too easy to smuggle things in carry on luggage. I was once pulled aside for a hand search. They looked through my carry on bag and my purse very quickly. When I sat down on the plane and opened my purse, the first thing I noticed was the pocket knife I forgot to remove from my keychain. My carry on bag had a down comforter rolled up in it and the TSA officer just ran her hands between the comfortor and the inside of the bag. This was the Christmas when somebody tried to set off a shoe bomb and they had just started making everyone remove their shoes, so I guess the officer was too busy worrying about shoes to pay attention to what was in my bags. I very easily could have had something stashed inside the comforter. I don't feel safe on plane because of TSA. I take comfort in the fact that that the odds of me being on a plane that gets hijacked is very small.

[clevelandmom]

If I were a guy, I would take Viagra and go straight to the airport just to see what happens. Imagine the looks!! LOL. . .

[BobMango]

If somebody gets through the screening process with a bomb or other weapon that helps them hijack a plane, I guaranty you people will be asking TSA how they got through and screaming about the lax security procedures.

I beg to differ. This very scenario has already happened and that clown in charge is still in charge. Remember the underwear bomber? Janet N had the stones to actually claim that the system worked. Really? Cuz I remember that it was the other passengers that stopped that potential tragedy, not the TSA or any other branch of government. When questioned about how she could claim the system worked when a bomber actually got on a plane with explosives, her reply was that "we're looking into that." She's grossly incompetent and it's reflected in the policies and procedures that the TSA is employing.

Nobody forces you to fly, therefore you are not giving up any precious freedoms by submitting to a search. I don't believe going through a scanner is unreasonably intrusive. If you don't want somebody looking at a black and white image of your body, and don't like the option of a thorough hand search, then drive your car. And if somebody wants to make you blow into a tube before you drive your car to make sure you aren't going to kill somebody with it because you are too drunk to drive, I have no problem with that as long as the results of the test are only used to keep the car from starting and not saved or transmitted anywhere.

You are too giving up a precious freedom, the one that protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. As I said before, just because something is not a "right" does not mean you should have to give up other rights to engage in that activity. Should the TSA be able to monitor your email and phone calls once you buy a ticket to make sure you're not plotting something? They do the airport screening because it's easy, not because it's effective. Where does it end? If you are willing to trade freedom for protection it should at least be risk-based. More people drown in bathtubs in the US every year than are shot. I don't see bathtub regulation on the horizon but gun control is always being pushed by the left. The problem with our current approach to protecting the public is that it's based on fear rather than reason.

Whether TSA is effective is not the point of the thread. It's about people feeling violated by being forced to either go through a scanner or go through an extensive physical search. But, I agree with you that TSA is reactionary instead of proactive. Metal detectors and luggage xrays were just fine until they failed to stop terrorists.

I beg to differ once again. The courts have ruled many times that any encroachment on our rights must be balanced against the government's purposes. If the purpose is to protect the flying public, then the means the government uses to do that must have some reasonable expectation of actually achieving that end. The point is that many more sheeple would submit to this degradation and loss of privacy if there was a strong correlation between TSA's efforts and actual protection.

[BobMango]

And just to reiterate the point that we're all getting stripped and groped for no benefit, here is an interview by Popular Mechanics with Bruce Schneier regarding TSA security procedures.

TSA Scans Won't Catch Anybody

[dscurlock]

You guys are acting surprised over something called rights...I have been saying for years that rights are
being taking away for years...what rights you may had last year, you surely do not have this year...
more taxes, more changes, new health care that will come with higher prices, and so on, we americans
get crap from the govt all the time that we do not want, and they force it on us anyway...It really does
not matter what you flyers like or dont like, TSA female worker is not touching your grandmothers goodies because
they have nothing better to do, or you are some shy guy that does not want your "junk" touched...
do you really think TSA really wants to touch your private areas? surely not...You can blame terrorists for that...
its going to happen, it will happen, if you object to this, then do not fly...find another way...

Its bad enough that we even have air accidents, but if going up and down my leg saves my life
from a potential bomb threat that someone was carrying a bomb, then do your damn job TSA. because
if you miss that bomb (it goes off), and i live, then I am surely going to sue your A$$ for putting me through this.