TSA mess and the police

[auntie]

How about a little profiling ..so we're not patting down four year olds and grandmas?..


Okay, we know that won't go over big.
Nooooo....don't want to go there.

So, then these are our choices. Suck it up and go through the machine or get the pat down. The agents aren't enjoying this any more than the flying public. IT"S THEIR JOB. They have gotta put food on the table too.

 

[Magpie]

Points? For what? Are we no longer allowed to post links to articles?

And it's not MY train of thought. All of that was quoted from the article.

I think you probably should have stuck the part you quoted inside of quotes, or used the quote button to highlight it. A colon isn't quite enough.

I suppose if someone deliberately plagerized, they might get points, but it was more than obvious you weren't doing that.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Points? For what? Are we no longer allowed to post links to articles?

And it's not MY train of thought. All of that was quoted from the article.

I don't think we are, I'm not 100% positive but I always thought it was against the rules to post links.

And no, the DA will consider cases where things cross the line. In the article I read, from ABC local, touching above the clothes is a misdemeanor which is hazy but under the clothes is battery. As I understand it, he's looking to prevent battery.

 

[Magpie]

Here's something...

Last night on Global news they said that the TSA will NOT be patting down anyone under 12.

Already the TSA has given a little ground after the flood of complaints, announcing that it has eliminated patdowns for children under 12 and will develop alternative procedures for pilots who are already subject to extensive security checks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101115/us_nm/us_usa_security_screening_1

The first thing that occurred to me is that they're going to see a LOT of little kids being roped into acting as drug mules, starting today.

 

[Magpie]

I don't think we are, I'm not 100% positive but I always thought it was against the rules to post links.

And no, the DA will consider cases where things cross the line. In the article I read, from ABC local, touching above the clothes is a misdemeanor which is hazy but under the clothes is battery. As I understand it, he's looking to prevent battery.

I guess I'll find out soon, hey?

But what about all those "look what shocking thing I read in today's paper!" posts? They always include links.

 

[Jennasis]

I don't think we are, I'm not 100% positive but I always thought it was against the rules to post links.

And no, the DA will consider cases where things cross the line. In the article I read, from ABC local, touching above the clothes is a misdemeanor which is hazy but under the clothes is battery. As I understand it, he's looking to prevent battery.

We are most definitely allowed to post links. I've been doing it for years and have never ever been reprimanded.

"And no"? What are you saying?? Are you just disagreeing with me to be difficult??? I WAS WITH YOU ON THIS FIGHT. The DA should prosecute any TSA agents who are innappropriate. Why are you arguing with me?

 

[LuvOrlando]

I just checked the guidelines and it says it's ok. But then I have known people who get in trouble for links, it happens all the time. It could be the content of the link is the issue so i just avoid the whole thing, especially with an issue like this. It could be so easy to cross lines unintentionally by posting something someone thought was overly leaning.

 

[LuvOrlando]

We are most definitely allowed to post links. I've been doing it for years and have never ever been reprimanded.

"And no"? What are you saying?? Are you just disagreeing with me to be difficult??? I WAS WITH YOU ON THIS FIGHT. The DA should prosecute any TSA agents who are innappropriate. Why are you arguing with me?

Sorry, I read you as being sarcastic. My bad. Too many conversations at once I think... time to slow down.

 

[Jennasis]

I just checked the guidelines and it says it's ok. But then I have known people who get in trouble for links, it happens all the time. It could be the content of the link is the issue so i just avoid the whole thing, especially with an issue like this. It could be so easy to cross lines unintentionally by posting something someone thought was overly leaning.

People get in trouble for posting links to either that one website that shall-not-be-named, or to a website with material that is inappropriate like smut, porn or graphic violence. I feel certain my link to the Montreal gazette is a-okay.

 

[Magpie]

People get in trouble for posting links to either that one website that shall-not-be-named, or to a website with material that is inappropriate like smut, porn or graphic violence. I feel certain my link to the Montreal gazette is a-okay.

Jennasis, can you PM me? Pretty please? I'm dying to know what the website is that shall-not-be-named!

 

[Jennasis]

Sorry, I read you as being sarcastic. My bad. Too many conversations at once I think... time to slow down.

When you can no longer tell when the people who disagree with you suddenly agree with you on a point simply because they haven't been on your side, it may be time to step away from the thread for a bit.

FWIW, I've been there and done that myself.

 

[SaraJayne]

So the guy who insisted to our country that these machines were the be all and end all for our security needs is now making a TON of cash off them? Yep......Smacks of conflict of interest. He couldn't POSSIBLY have had an agenda for convincing the American people these machines were vital to our safety, could he have? $$$$$$$$$$

 

[Jennasis]

Jennasis, can you PM me? Pretty please? I'm dying to know what the website is that shall-not-be-named!

I actually don't know the name of it. I just remember the ruckus it caused way back.

 

[Magpie]

I actually don't know the name of it. I just remember the ruckus it caused way back.

Darn! I remember reading vague references to it, and I've always been curious. Somehow I managed to miss the whole thing.

 

[SaraJayne]

So everyone is on-board with a large increase in the price of airline tickets to implement a non-invasive search method for everyone (dogs, LEO's on planes etc)?

Why would the airlines raise prices when it's the governments job to cover those additional costs?

Airlines don't fund the TSA.

 

[Jennasis]

Why would the airlines raise prices when it's the governments job to cover those additional costs?

Airlines don't fund the TSA.

Wouldn't the government just tax the crap out of the airlines? money has to come from somewhere and it ALWAYS comes from us in the end.

 

[SaraJayne]

I don't think we are, I'm not 100% positive but I always thought it was against the rules to post links.

And no, the DA will consider cases where things cross the line. In the article I read, from ABC local, touching above the clothes is a misdemeanor which is hazy but under the clothes is battery. As I understand it, he's looking to prevent battery.

Yes, we are allowed to post links. Why in the world wouldn't we be allowed to?

 

[SaraJayne]

Wouldn't the government just tax the crap out of the airlines? money has to come from somewhere and it ALWAYS comes from us in the end.

Hmmm, good point.

If the airlines raise prices to compensate, we'll stop flying for good. If the market won't sustain those high prices, they'll drop them again.

 

[Magpie]

Do I need to direct you to the term 'inappropriate', you cited it so I really shouldn't but here it is anyway.

I'm really confused.

That was the title of the article, which I linked. I did that because Jennasis didn't intially include a link in her post (she added one a moment later, which I missed) so I thought you were asking for one. It wasn't until later that I realized you thought links weren't allowed.

Why do I need to be directed anywhere?

 

[BlueIrish]

I have a three part answer to this.

1) I would first like to see the scanner/TSO budget redirected to dogs and LEOs. I understand we would still need *some* non-dog handler TSOs, but not nearly as many. And I would think that the scanners would be completely unnecessary at that point. If the dog alerts, then you get a pat down.





I would be all for each airport having their own police force. LAX has LAXPD. But never going to happen since most states want to lay off as many cops as they can to save money. Even if you redirected all the money for TSO into LEO it wouldn't be enough. Police training is very expensive.

As great at K9's are they can miss things. So thats not really the answer.