Airport "body checking"

[race aficionado]

There has been a lot of complaints with the groping and x ray machines that may embarrass you if your privates are asked to "smile".

I haven't been in one of those x ray boxes but I found this which I found a propo:



The Israelis are developing an airport security device that eliminates
the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners at the airports.

It¹s an explosion proof booth you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will
detonate any explosive device you may have on you. They see this as a
win-win for everyone, with none of this crap about racial profiling. It
also would eliminate the costs of a long and expensive trial. Justice
would be swift. Case closed!

You're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion.
Shortly thereafter an announcement comes over the PA system . . .
"Attention standby passengers ‹ we now have a seat available on flight
number XXXX. Shalom!"

:s mokin:

[airshifter]

Such a thing is a great idea, but would no doubt be attacked by people in the US, under the notion that it violates some kind of right! :laugh:

[janneppi]

The main problem of course is you can't choose the gender of the custom official padding you down. ;)

Then again, you could replace the creepy humans with robots. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoMvlSGoEq8&feature=related

[ShiftingGears]

There has been a lot of complaints with the groping and x ray machines that may embarrass you if your privates are asked to "smile".

I haven't been in one of those x ray boxes but I found this which I found a propo:




:s mokin:

That's a really cool invention!

[Dave B]

I love the USA.

You don't complain when all your emails are intercepted in the name of "freedom", but if you have to walk through an airport scanner you cry like babies because your precious rights are being infringed. Just have the scan like grown-ups, then you won't need a pat-down. It's not rocket science.

[anthonyvop]

I love the USA.

You don't complain when all your emails are intercepted in the name of "freedom", but if you have to walk through an airport scanner you cry like babies because your precious rights are being infringed. Just have the scan like grown-ups, then you won't need a pat-down. It's not rocket science.

You have a nude image of your mom, wife or daughter taken and then tell me how you feel.

[schmenke]

Good lord, it's not a nude image, it's a black and white "negative" type x-ray image, similar to what's used in the medical profession, and are not saved :s .

[Dave B]

You have a nude image of your mom, wife or daughter taken and then tell me how you feel.
A blurry image of the n-thousandth person to pass through security that day? Couldn't give a stuff.

[Dave B]

http://boingboing.net/2008/10/24/what-the-tsas-new-bo.html

http://gizmodo.com/5696371/exclusive-tsa-says-body-scanners-saving-images-impossible

If somebody genuinely gets a thill jerking off to images like this, then the very best of luck to them. Be my guest.

[anthonyvop]

http://boingboing.net/2008/10/24/what-the-tsas-new-bo.html

http://gizmodo.com/5696371/exclusive-tsa-says-body-scanners-saving-images-impossible

If somebody genuinely gets a thill jerking off to images like this, then the very best of luck to them. Be my guest.

That is you......We Americans have this thing about a right to privacy.

[gloomyDAY]

http://boingboing.net/2008/10/24/what-the-tsas-new-bo.html

http://gizmodo.com/5696371/exclusive-tsa-says-body-scanners-saving-images-impossible

If somebody genuinely gets a thill jerking off to images like this, then the very best of luck to them. Be my guest.Only a matter of time before some fat TSA pervert gets caught masturbating to a scan of a 20 year-old female college student.


That is you......We Americans have this thing about a right to privacy.Anthony, you don't get any rights. You were a proponent of the unPATRIOTic Act. That pretty much erased whatever we had left of the 4th Amendment.

[gloomyDAY]

It is only a matter of time before there is some type of profound perversion associated with these scanners. I'm 100% sure that there is a TSA agent already figuring out a way to save images of unsuspecting victims as they get scanned and use it for their sexual pleasure.

Solution? Next time I go to the airport I'm going to run 5 miles, not shower for 2 days, show up with my stinky shoes, and get frisked.
Mmmmm! The smell of vinegary balls just wafting through the airport terminal.

Here's another solution:

http://cargocollective.com/4thamendment#802062/Perverts-Printed-Underclothes

http://c0573862.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/1/2/67190/802869/C%20SCAN%20T-SHIRT.gif

[anthonyvop]

Only a matter of time before some fat TSA pervert gets caught masturbating to a scan of a 20 year-old female college student.

Anthony, you don't get any rights. You were a proponent of the unPATRIOTic Act. That pretty much erased whatever we had left of the 4th Amendment.

I was?

BTW I was never under any allusion that E-mails were private. They aren't

[gloomyDAY]

I was?Yes.

[schmenke]

Millions of people post all kinds of personal information, including pictures of their friends and family on internet social sites (Facebook, etc.), yet they claim an airport body scan is an infringement on their right to privacy... :mark:

[gloomyDAY]

Millions of people post all kinds of personal information, including pictures of their friends and family on internet social sites (Facebook, etc.), yet they claim an airport body scan is an infringement on their right to privacy... :mark: Terrible comparison. What you post on social websites is a decision you make, not something that is mandatory or that keeps you from conducting your normal routine.

[schmenke]

Yes, you're right it was a poor comparison, but the point I was trying to make is how people's perception on what is considered "privacy" varies. Intimate details of their family members is o.k. for general viewing, including by government agencies in their databases, but a grainy black and white silhouette image is taboo :mark:

[gloomyDAY]

Yes, you're right it was a poor comparison, but the point I was trying to make is how people's perception on what is considered "privacy" varies. Intimate details of their family members is o.k. for general viewing, including by government agencies in their databases, but a grainy black and white silhouette image is taboo :mark: I see your point, but counter by stating once again that this type of power in the wrong hands is going to be very bad. TSA has proven to be negligible in the past and I don't have any reason to think otherwise today. I don't want a naked image of a female relative floating around in the hands of some pervert/s.

[ioan]

I have nothing against scans or body padding, however I can understand that not everyone feels the same.

[ioan]

I don't want a naked image of a female relative floating around in the hands of some pervert/s.

I honestly never understood this kind of problem.
As long as no perverts are putting their hands (or other body parts) on said relative there is no harm done to her/him and no one suffers either.
If I were concerned about others jerking off to pictures of any of my female relatives than I would have no time left to live my life.

[ioan]

The odd pervert isn't the real problem. Never trust a government run bureaucracy, given emense power over people, that is not directly accountable and that is run by faceless people we didn't get to choose (elect).

Now this is the real problem as I see it too.

[gloomyDAY]

The odd pervert isn't the real problem. Never trust a government run bureaucracy, given emense power over people, that is not directly accountable and that is run by faceless people we didn't get to choose (elect). :up: Give them a foot....

[donKey jote]

I wonder who's making a mint flogging all those machines in the name of winning the war on terror... follow the money as those foxnuts would say :p

[BDunnell]

That is you......We Americans have this thing about a right to privacy.

That is you... We Europeans have this thing about not being paranoid morons.

[BDunnell]

I was?

BTW I was never under any allusion that E-mails were private. They aren't

Go on — post all your e-mail correspondence on here, then.

[ioan]

That is you... We Europeans have this thing about not being paranoid morons.

Let's not generalize! :p ;)

[anthonyvop]

That is you... We Europeans have this thing about not being paranoid morons.

Maybe if you Europeans had there wouldn't have been 2 world wars along with Stalin, Hitler and the tens of millions dead.

[donKey jote]

the mind boggles :laugh:
:dozey:

[BDunnell]

Maybe if you Europeans had there wouldn't have been 2 world wars along with Stalin, Hitler and the tens of millions dead.

In the future, when academics are considering the great foreign policy brains of our times, you, anthonyvop, will truly be amongst the names spoken of in hushed tones.

[race aficionado]

I'm old school.
I'm at the phase of my life where I can say "I've been there, done that".

I remember the days when we didn't have to take our shoes off (I despise taking my shoes off - specially if they have laces!) - You get your bags back, your coat, belt, computer, keys phone, coins from the x ray machines and then you have to drag yourself to a corner to put your shoes back on ) - *thank you mr. shoe bomber. :dozey:

I'm glad they don't make us take our underwear off after the underwear bomb incident a short while ago.

In my days you only had to worry that they wouldn't find your loose joint hidden inside your socks. And of course, you didn't want any of your passengers with ideas of highjacking the plane to Cuba. *Now that's old school!

We live in different, crazy times - the understatement of understatements.

. . . and I still haven't gone through the experience of body cavity searching nor the photo X ray machines so I can't relate to that yet . . . .

And the loose joints are part of my past so no more sweating on that department either.

:s mokin:

[schmenke]

the mind boggles :laugh:
:dozey:

Indeed :dozey:

[race aficionado]

Didn't take long . . .


Radiation scientists agree TSA naked body scanners could cause breast cancer and sperm mutations


http://www.naturalnews.com/030607_naked_body_scanners_radiation.html


and another one if you wish to read:

http://www.NaturalNews.com/030100_naked_body_scanners_airport.html

[donKey jote]

scientists? the same donkeys who are jamming global warming down our throats with their hidden agenda to cripple the US economy?
give us a break ! :p

[ioan]

scientists? the same donkeys who are jamming global warming down our throats with their hidden agenda to cripple the US economy?
give us a break ! :p

You mean give US a break! ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am thinking that the scanners cross a line for a lot of people. The sad reality of it is, the US, whether in Bush's day or Obama's now keeps tip toeing around real security with these one size fits all solutions. Name me the last El AL flight hijacked or blown out of the sky since Entebbe? Ah right...there hasn't been one. Ask yourself how an airline flying the flag of the one state every terrorist worth his salt would love to eradicate has never had an issue? See what they do for security, and emulate it and charge the airlines for the cost. Instead, the Congress in 02 made a new bureaucracy that is now treating everyone, including the 90 year old granny going to see her great grand child in Butte as if she is packing explosives.

The Euro's are right, Americans are paranoid. Their government that is, the general public in America isn't paranoid...they are just tired of all this esclating crap. Pretty soon, the perfect security solution according to TSA will be to have everyone climb on the plane naked with blind folds and give them back their clothes at the other end, which of course is hoping the clothes the airline doesn't send elsewhere with the rest of the luggage!

Driving everywhere is looking better and better in the USA.

[ioan]

Let's say I am not a fan of the many hours of queuing in security checks at the Ben Hurion airport.

And every time I fly to Israel I try not to get on an El Al plane exactly because I don't feel comfortable knowing that there is someone with a gun on the plane, even if it is for my own security.

Still I agree with you that the US government is driving the US people crazy with this continuously escalating Security enforcements. They went far over what is an acceptable level of paranoia.

[BDunnell]

Name me the last El AL flight hijacked or blown out of the sky since Entebbe? Ah right...there hasn't been one. Ask yourself how an airline flying the flag of the one state every terrorist worth his salt would love to eradicate has never had an issue? See what they do for security, and emulate it and charge the airlines for the cost.

What they do for security, amongst the other measures to which I'm sure you're referring, is — in Germany — to have the aircraft accompanied to the end of the runway and when it taxies back in by armoured personnel carriers, to have the local police helicopter airborne during every El Al take-off and landing, and to have Mossad agents walking around in the airport terminal asking passengers security-related questions, which one is not obliged to answer as they have no official jurisdiction. I'm not sure any of this is suitable for emulation.

[anthonyvop]

In the future, when academics are considering the great foreign policy brains of our times, you, anthonyvop, will truly be amongst the names spoken of in hushed tones.

Spoken by a person who's people gave us Hitler and spews the same kind of rhetoric.

[gloomyDAY]

Spoken by a person who's people gave us Hitler and spews the same kind of rhetoric. :rolleyes: Stop it right there you internet bully. How about sticking to the point?

There hardly is a thread on here that you don't single someone out for being a Communist, a Nazi, or an Islamic fascists when they tend to disagree with you. B never mentioned anything remotely close to Hitler or Nazism, so send that crap flying somewhere else.

[BDunnell]

Spoken by a person who's people gave us Hitler and spews the same kind of rhetoric.

Whose people, exactly?

[BDunnell]

:rolleyes: Stop it right there you internet bully.

On the contrary, I am delighted for him to continue, because it's very amusing in a deeply, deeply disturbing sort of way.

[Dave B]

Bless him, he doesn't know...

Anyway, on the subject of airport security, or not. The thought occurred to me that I can get a train from my local station which shares much of its route with Eurostar high-speed services and on occasion gets up to 180mph. I can buy my ticket in cash five minutes before boarding, and take on a suitcase without any checks. I could also get off at the next stop minus my luggage without causing everyone to be unloaded for a check.

Just saying....

[Mark in Oshawa]

What they do for security, amongst the other measures to which I'm sure you're referring, is — in Germany — to have the aircraft accompanied to the end of the runway and when it taxies back in by armoured personnel carriers, to have the local police helicopter airborne during every El Al take-off and landing, and to have Mossad agents walking around in the airport terminal asking passengers security-related questions, which one is not obliged to answer as they have no official jurisdiction. I'm not sure any of this is suitable for emulation.

Ok, I am not going to quibble some of it is overkill, but when I hear of 90 year old grannies getting patted down and strip searched on a random basis, that is probably MORE offensive.

I think security has to be done on an intelligent basis. Right now, it is done on the theory that one is not allowed to profile, since Muslim and other peoples who could be construed as Muslims might be targets. Well, that is first off utter nonsense. All Muslims may not be terrorists (and I know they are no different than the rest of us, good people mainly) but all the terrorists that have been the threat have been Muslim extermists. The redneck granny isn't packing C4 in her dress. Yet she is considered to be searched randomly just as anyone else.

The US has annoyed everyone while supposedly paying lip service to the PC idea that you cant single out anyone. The reality is, many Muslims who are not idiots are advocating they know why they will be targeted by security and will understand and cooperate. People are not stupid....

El Al's tenets of using people to talk to suspicious passengers to feel out if there is anything strange is a good one. It isn't by itself an indication someone is a terrorist, but it exposes people who are nervous, or in high anxiety, and then a quick conversation on an official level and maybe a scan will clear it up or not. This one size fits all approach to security is basically giving the Terrorists total victory over making flying a miserable and embarrassing experience. They want us afraid, and paranoid, and this latest escalation into the terrorism of security measures is proving they are getting to us....

[BDunnell]

El Al's tenets of using people to talk to suspicious passengers to feel out if there is anything strange is a good one.

So you are happy about the idea of foreign security service agents being allowed to wander around airport terminals asking questions of passengers without any formal jurisdiction allowing them to do so? I'm not.



It isn't by itself an indication someone is a terrorist, but it exposes people who are nervous, or in high anxiety, and then a quick conversation on an official level and maybe a scan will clear it up or not.

I am nervous about flying, and would consider being approached by an Israeli security official as a result to be a demonstration of paranoia on their part — not that I would answer any of their questions, given that there is no law that says I have to.

[Mark in Oshawa]

So you are happy about the idea of foreign security service agents being allowed to wander around airport terminals asking questions of passengers without any formal jurisdiction allowing them to do so? I'm not. In the case of El Al, if you can point them out and deport them, go right ahead. I do think though asking questions and just interacting with others done the right way will give as much information that is of use than any body scan. Lets face it Ben, whether you and I like it or not, there are people gung ho to blow up airplanes and take themselves out in the process. I would much rather have the "powers that be" use smart and unusual methods to just talk to suspicious characters and be able to use this information to give the passenger in question more "official" investigation. This wouldn't have to be done by foreigners if countries realized by protecting their own people, they protect us all. Having security undercover in Toronto airport asking questions makes more sense to me as a Canadian than going through my US Customs search on Canadian soil (something that we tolerate now) when I fly to the US. What you are saying is not something I dismiss lightly, but I think that ship sailed a long time ago.




I am nervous about flying, and would consider being approached by an Israeli security official as a result to be a demonstration of paranoia on their part — not that I would answer any of their questions, given that there is no law that says I have to.

No..you don't have to answer, but if they pull you in for a body scan and a pat down at that point, at least you would understand why. The problem is right now, everyone is subject to this treatment.I would prefer a more intelligent and yes, maybe in some ways more unusual approach of using intelligence and observing those getting on the plane that El Al has been using. The issue in the US is everyone is being treated the same, which sounds noble, and for most parts of society is correct, but the reality of it is it is actual waste of resources, and as events last year proved, still has holes in it. The underwear bomber was on the the watch list and was reported to American authorities by his father, yet he was still on that flight into Detroit...

[ioan]

The redneck granny isn't packing C4 in her dress. Yet she is considered to be searched randomly just as anyone else.

Which is normal, unless you support discrimination.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Which is normal, unless you support discrimination.

Actually in the US, she is more likely to be picked...and I do want discrimination against people who actually look like they could be terrorists....

[ioan]

Actually in the US, she is more likely to be picked...and I do want discrimination against people who actually look like they could be terrorists....

One should not take measures based on "look like they could be", otherwise who knows when some people might end on the electric chair because they looked like something to a subjective individual who happened to be a security agent.

All democratic constitutions state that we are all equal in rights, well that includes security checks at the airport too.

[donKey jote]

Starter I hope you're not serious :dozey:
Like during WWII when they would round up the villagers and shoot x of them for each soldier lost in a booby trap... since when has that worked?

Oh I forgot, you already nuked two Japanese cities to prove your point :s

[ioan]

Starter I hope you're not serious :dozey:
Like during WWII when they would round up the villagers and shoot x of them for each soldier lost in a booby trap... since when has that worked?

Oh I forgot, you already nuked two Japanese cities to prove your point :s

You shouldn't have said that.
Now he'll say that it is the right way to do it because it worked in '46 and as a result Japan is one of the most developed countries on Earth. ;)

[ioan]

I wasn't going to say that. But, now that you've mentioned it......

:D

;)

[Malbec]

The issue is countries that either actively harbor terrorist activity or look the other way and pretend it's not happening there. The solution is simple, though it can only be effectively implemented by nations with megatonnage and a delivery system. Simply state that, should a terrorist attack be launched from any place, with or without that government's compliance, that the victim country will consider it an act of war and will retaliate with a massive air and missile attack against all goverment, military and population centers of the harboring country.

You're right, Britain should have wiped the East coast of the US off the map back in the 70s. ;)

[ioan]

You're right, Britain should have wiped the East coast of the US off the map back in the 70s. ;)

Only the East Coast? You are way to kind. ;)

[airshifter]

You're right, Britain should have wiped the East coast of the US off the map back in the 70s. ;)

The problem is, they would have needed to borrow a lot more military to think about it. :laugh:



As for the people being irritated by the security, don't fly. It's really that easy. If the government doesn't cause tight security measures and planes blow up, the litigious nature of the US will cause it to happen sooner or later regardless.

Personally I think they should drop all government involvement in the security process, and make the individual airlines liable for the safety of the passengers. If that actually happened the security would be so much tighter and more intrusive that everyone would cry for the current crap of scanners and such to be brought back. :D

[markabilly]

There is another, simpler, answer. The focus is in the wrong place by trying to stop terrorists from boarding planes. You need to target them where they live and thrive.

The issue is countries that either actively harbor terrorist activity or look the other way and pretend it's not happening there. The solution is simple, though it can only be effectively implemented by nations with megatonnage and a delivery system. Simply state that, should a terrorist attack be launched from any place, with or without that government's compliance, that the victim country will consider it an act of war and will retaliate with a massive air and missile attack against all goverment, military and population centers of the harboring country.

Yes, you lose a few passenger planes until the message is learned that you mean it. You'd be surprised at how fast those countries would clean up the terrorist enclaves.The side benefit is increased employment in the missile and bomb building sectors during this recession.


Starter finally says something worth saying....



Starter I hope you're not serious :dozey:
Like during WWII when they would round up the villagers and shoot x of them for each soldier lost in a booby trap... since when has that worked?

no read again. If you round up all of them, it works great.



Oh I forgot, you already nuked two Japanese cities to prove your point :s


only two becuase we ran out of bombs and they quit on us before we could make more

and if someone wants to wipe out the east coast of the USA, I say go for it!!!!

[donKey jote]

big talk from the big boys, yet so morally wrong it's not even worth discussing :dozey:

[BDunnell]

As for the people being irritated by the security, don't fly. It's really that easy. If the government doesn't cause tight security measures and planes blow up, the litigious nature of the US will cause it to happen sooner or later regardless.

So you think everyone should merely acquiesce to whatever measures the authorities deem necessary, even if they are over-the-top and counterproductive? I think we can do better than that.



Personally I think they should drop all government involvement in the security process, and make the individual airlines liable for the safety of the passengers. If that actually happened the security would be so much tighter and more intrusive that everyone would cry for the current crap of scanners and such to be brought back. :D

The technology exists to make airport security less of a hassle, quicker and, barring human error or deliberate foul play on the part of security operatives, more effective. As we know, there should be no need for any ban on liquids and suchlike; scanning equipment ought to be able to detect whether a liquid being taken on an aircraft contains anything it shouldn't. However, cost that gets in the way of it being used.

[ioan]

So you think everyone should merely acquiesce to whatever measures the authorities deem necessary, even if they are over-the-top and counterproductive? I think we can do better than that.

Fully agree.

[race aficionado]

I just won't go through the aforementioned X ray machines.

I would go for the tactile route.
Hey, it's more action that what I'm getting at home!




. . . . . it's a joke honey! :D


:s mokin:

[Mark in Oshawa]

One should not take measures based on "look like they could be", otherwise who knows when some people might end on the electric chair because they looked like something to a subjective individual who happened to be a security agent.

All democratic constitutions state that we are all equal in rights, well that includes security checks at the airport too.

Ioan, so basically, do the police pull everyone over when they only suspect one guy of speeding?

Listen, I get where you are going with this, but face the reality. The cops don't pull everyone over when they know the car weaving is the one with the drunk in it. Now I know where your next thought is and it is HA, you cant discriminate against these people because they look like Muslims! Ah yes...you cannot just do it based on that. But watching someone looking to get on the plane who is in a cold sweat, furtive and nervous and then NOT talking to them or putting them through the same scanner would be foolish would it not? It always is to laugh, those who say you cant treat anyone differently on something like this can be the same people who when faced with more government surveillance such as video cameras on the street then say "well you have nothing to worry about if you are not breaking the law".

Listen, on the street, in our homes, out for a walk, I don't need the government to be all over me keeping me safe. For the 6 hours a year I might spend on a plane, I will live with the increased security. But I still think in the end, this one size fits all plan that the Americans have implented with body scans and intrusive pat downs (it might be the best date some people get all year!) is stupid. If they do this to everyone, maybe I buy it, but actually they don't. They may scan everyone, but at random they are hand searching so many passengers per flight or IF they see something. Well, just leave the pat down to IF they see something on the scan, I can live with it. Then again, I don't fly often.

If the Airlines had to look after their own security and were liable for it, I suspect it would be less intrusive yet likely more effective. TSA are about some of the dumbest and most hidebound security morons I have ever dealt with.

[ioan]

Ioan, so basically, do the police pull everyone over when they only suspect one guy of speeding? usu

No, they only pull the guy they know for sure that was speeding.
In fact they only send you the bill and the picture nowadays.



Listen, I get where you are going with this, but face the reality. The cops don't pull everyone over when they know the car weaving is the one with the drunk in it. Now I know where your next thought is and it is HA, you cant discriminate against these people because they look like Muslims! Ah yes...you cannot just do it based on that. But watching someone looking to get on the plane who is in a cold sweat, furtive and nervous and then NOT talking to them or putting them through the same scanner would be foolish would it not? It always is to laugh, those who say you cant treat anyone differently on something like this can be the same people who when faced with more government surveillance such as video cameras on the street then say "well you have nothing to worry about if you are not breaking the law".

Listen, on the street, in our homes, out for a walk, I don't need the government to be all over me keeping me safe. For the 6 hours a year I might spend on a plane, I will live with the increased security. But I still think in the end, this one size fits all plan that the Americans have implented with body scans and intrusive pat downs (it might be the best date some people get all year!) is stupid. If they do this to everyone, maybe I buy it, but actually they don't. They may scan everyone, but at random they are hand searching so many passengers per flight or IF they see something. Well, just leave the pat down to IF they see something on the scan, I can live with it. Then again, I don't fly often.

If the Airlines had to look after their own security and were liable for it, I suspect it would be less intrusive yet likely more effective. TSA are about some of the dumbest and most hidebound security morons I have ever dealt with.

I have nothing against security checks if it is the same for everyone, and this is because I fly two ways every 2nd week, mostly to the middle East.
I never cared if it's a scanner, a metal detector or another method as long as it doesn't hurt. However I am against the government telling me what is best for me or anyone else. And I hate discrimination after I have been at it's receiving end endless times.

[airshifter]

So you think everyone should merely acquiesce to whatever measures the authorities deem necessary, even if they are over-the-top and counterproductive? I think we can do better than that.


I've never said anyone should accept what the authorities place on them. I've simply said that it's a choice for the majority of people, and if they don't like it they shouldn't fly.

The only time any government forced me to fly was when I was employed by the government. And to get that job I was subject to much more intrusive background checks, drug testing, etc than anything I've ever experienced at a commercial airport.



The technology exists to make airport security less of a hassle, quicker and, barring human error or deliberate foul play on the part of security operatives, more effective. As we know, there should be no need for any ban on liquids and suchlike; scanning equipment ought to be able to detect whether a liquid being taken on an aircraft contains anything it shouldn't. However, cost that gets in the way of it being used.

Cost is a factor in everything. What government or company that you can name uses this completely effective yet unobtrusive security measure?

[Mark in Oshawa]

No, they only pull the guy they know for sure that was speeding.
In fact they only send you the bill and the picture nowadays.

yes..and the cameras don't catch the drunk NOT speeding who crosses the center line and kills a family in a head on.

Sometimes a cop using his discretion is more effective. Ditto at airports..security that isn't one size fits all DOES work. If people noticing 20 Arabian men getting on 4 planes with no luggage checked on cross country flights made them check these guys out, maybe 3000 people are alive today...




I have nothing against security checks if it is the same for everyone, and this is because I fly two ways every 2nd week, mostly to the middle East.
I never cared if it's a scanner, a metal detector or another method as long as it doesn't hurt. However I am against the government telling me what is best for me or anyone else. And I hate discrimination after I have been at it's receiving end endless times.

I think your attitude is correct and commendable, but again, that isn't really what this crap is about with TSA. The reason really that most Americans are getting mad is that for the last 9 years they have been screened, harassed and tormented by one escalation of security after another. I suspect that most Americans have little faith that TSA would still get the right guys in the end, because they often RANDOMLY search anyone for bombs.....as I said...the 90 year old Granny going to Butte isn't the bomb threat the 20 something guy who is sweating buckets in the air conditioning is...but under the current regs, granny gets the pat down if her number is up......and not the guy with c4 in his shorts.

I think most people want some rational thought....is that too much to ask?

[markabilly]

Whose people, exactly?
according to some DNA tests, those people included not only jews, but blacks as well. :eek:

Explains why Hitler was so pissed and frustrated. He wanted to be aryan, but like most folks, he was just gectically just a common stray dog, Unfortunately who found a home and then burned it down...

now some guy is going to jail because the pat-down was too much and so instead of going, he came

Face it, sooner or later we all gonna die.....starter was right, nuke everything they are fighting for....nuke them as well


now is that rational enough??

[markabilly]

big talk from the big boys, yet so morally wrong it's not even worth discussing :dozey:
aint morally wrong if you win, and you don t illegals like braying brits sneak into the country :s mokin:

[Roamy]

actually they may as well totally X-ray you and send the results to you doctor for evaluation. In addition you should be able to choose male or female for the pat down