Does anyone else feel like a criminal when going through TSA?

[wvjules]

Not at all. ACTUAL weapons shouldn't be allowed on planes. That's common sense. Last I checked, water isn't a weapon.

But how do I *know* it is only water?

 

[fly girl]

Not at all. ACTUAL weapons shouldn't be allowed on planes. That's common sense. Last I checked, water isn't a weapon. I'm even OK with them banning box cutters. But not with them deciding that we're all guilty until proven innocent and that every liquid is a potential threat. Ever see Minority Report? The TSA is trying its best to engage in pre-crime, which is in fundamental opposition to everything this country was founded on.

Oh I know I should move on and not respond. But sometimes I do dumb things. This will likely be one.
I know I am not going to change your stance, and I fully understand that. And there is no need for a long reply on our freedoms as we aren't going to see this the same way.

However ...

Just for giggles. (and yes, I really miss my liquids too. I would love to not check bags to WDW because I need sunscreen but I digress.)

Say after 9/11 they didn't limit liquids and another terrorist act occurred in which seemingly harmless bottles of water were not in fact water and it transpired into liquid explosives. You don't think our country would have gone berserk with saying why, why did you allow this to happen, AGAIN?!! The intelligence agencies already fubared by not foiling the 9/11 attack. They weren't going to do it a second time.

 

[JLTraveling]

Please explain the bolded.

As far as your question, you don't think DHS will talk to DoT and say "this needs to be mandated for security"?

When it was reauthorized in 2006, some things got better and some got worse. But in essence, Sections 215 and 505 of the Patriot Act give Homeland Security the absolute right to collect LIBRARY RECORDS, as in a full accounting of everything you checked out of your local library, if they decide that there's some sort of potential tangential connection between what you're reading and a potential terrorist threat. Discussion of the original: https://www.ncsl.org/print/lrl/cstone05.pdf. Discussion of the reauthorized version: https://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/civilliberties/theusapatriotact/usapatriotact.htm

Have you ever even read the Patriot Act? Are you even aware of ALL the liberties we've lost since 9/11? It goes so far beyond the TSA it's almost unimaginable. The TSA just happens to be the most public-facing display of what we no longer have.

 

[JLTraveling]

But how do I *know* it is only water?

You don't. That's why I referenced pre-crime. The TSA's entire mission is to try to stop a crime before it happens. That's not how the USA was designed to work. We're a nation of laws, and one of the most fundamental is "innocent until proven guilty." But we're now living in a police state where we're all guilty until proven innocent. And why? Because of ONE terrorist attack that relied on a freakishly high number of things going wrong all at the same time....despite the fact that the terrorists hijacked the planes with BOX CUTTERS. If it makes you feel better, by all means ban the box cutters. They were legally allowed to be carried on board then, so the terrorists didn't pull off some fancy plot to get around the airport security that already existed. They relied on what people believed about hijackings at the time--that terrorists just wanted to make a point, and the right thing to do was sit down and shut up, and wait it out for a few days until you were released. NOBODY on the planet thinks like that now, so if somebody started waving a box cutter around today and saying they were taking over the plane, even grandma with the walker would know to help overwhelm the would-be terrorist.

 

[sam_gordon]

When it was reauthorized in 2006, some things got better and some got worse. But in essence, Sections 215 and 505 of the Patriot Act give Homeland Security the absolute right to collect LIBRARY RECORDS, as in a full accounting of everything you checked out of your local library, if they decide that there's some sort of potential tangential connection between what you're reading and a potential terrorist threat. Discussion of the original: https://www.ncsl.org/print/lrl/cstone05.pdf. Discussion of the reauthorized version: https://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/civilliberties/theusapatriotact/usapatriotact.htm

Have you ever even read the Patriot Act? Are you even aware of ALL the liberties we've lost since 9/11? It goes so far beyond the TSA it's almost unimaginable. The TSA just happens to be the most public-facing display of what we no longer have.

If you want to dig into the nuances of the Patriot Act, start another thread. We are referring to TSA. As far as your "lack of privacy", A) Didn't Section 215 expire? B) When it was (or still is) in effect, did they not need to convince a judge (so there is oversight, whether it was a rubber stamp or not) C) Isn't it "routine" for investigators to look at phone records, emails, internet history, etc of suspects? Why would library history be considered "sacred"?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

that US passengers are allowed to bring aboard in quantity is contact lens solution, one type of which is ... wait for it ... hydrogen peroxide.

If you wear contacts you'd get it. They are considered medical and just like people's medications they may not be able to be purchased where someone is traveling. If they are over the 3.4 oz just like other liquids you can have you would need to declare this and they should inspect it.

He tells me that that won't do, that they need to have them put out in a bin so that they can be checked for explosive residue.

To be fair removing your shoes before you even get in line is odd, very odd, and would lead me to wonder what you are thinking to gain by doing so and I say this as a normal everyday person. My first thought would not be that you were saving time, it would be that something is off. I can see that they may have thought you were trying to hide something and thinking if you put them in with other items in your carry on it may get obscured. Given that someone tried recently to hid a gun in peanut butter not entirely too far off the realm of reason.

 

[sam_gordon]

You don't. That's why I referenced pre-crime. The TSA's entire mission is to try to stop a crime before it happens. That's not how the USA was designed to work. We're a nation of laws, and one of the most fundamental is "innocent until proven guilty." But we're now living in a police state where we're all guilty until proven innocent. And why? Because of ONE terrorist attack that relied on a freakishly high number of things going wrong all at the same time....despite the fact that the terrorists hijacked the planes with BOX CUTTERS. If it makes you feel better, by all means ban the box cutters. They were legally allowed to be carried on board then, so the terrorists didn't pull off some fancy plot to get around the airport security that already existed. They relied on what people believed about hijackings at the time--that terrorists just wanted to make a point, and the right thing to do was sit down and shut up, and wait it out for a few days until you were released. NOBODY on the planet thinks like that now, so if somebody started waving a box cutter around today and saying they were taking over the plane, even grandma with the walker would know to help overwhelm the would-be terrorist.

But if you're ok with banning guns and box cutters, how do you find out whether someone is carrying them? SECURITY's entire mission is to try to stop a crime before it happens. Whether that's with a body scanner, liquid ban, luggage inspection, or x-ray machine. So you're OK with SOME "pre-crime" prevention but not all. Got it.

 

[NotUrsula]

When it was reauthorized in 2006, some things got better and some got worse. But in essence, Sections 215 and 505 of the Patriot Act give Homeland Security the absolute right to collect LIBRARY RECORDS, as in a full accounting of everything you checked out of your local library, if they decide that there's some sort of potential tangential connection between what you're reading and a potential terrorist threat. Discussion of the original: https://www.ncsl.org/print/lrl/cstone05.pdf. Discussion of the reauthorized version: https://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/civilliberties/theusapatriotact/usapatriotact.htm

Have you ever even read the Patriot Act? Are you even aware of ALL the liberties we've lost since 9/11? It goes so far beyond the TSA it's almost unimaginable. The TSA just happens to be the most public-facing display of what we no longer have.

FWIW, standard library circulation system programming is set to delete the record of what was borrowed as soon as it is returned, specifically so as not to have anything to give DHS in the event that a warrant is presented.

However, these days most libraries have that feature turned off, because thanks to Amazon practice, patrons actually insisted on the info being kept so that they could look back through their borrowing histories.

We tried, folks.

 

[fly girl]

You don't. That's why I referenced pre-crime. The TSA's entire mission is to try to stop a crime before it happens. That's not how the USA was designed to work. We're a nation of laws, and one of the most fundamental is "innocent until proven guilty." But we're now living in a police state where we're all guilty until proven innocent. And why? Because of ONE terrorist attack that relied on a freakishly high number of things going wrong all at the same time....despite the fact that the terrorists hijacked the planes with BOX CUTTERS. If it makes you feel better, by all means ban the box cutters. They were legally allowed to be carried on board then, so the terrorists didn't pull off some fancy plot to get around the airport security that already existed. They relied on what people believed about hijackings at the time--that terrorists just wanted to make a point, and the right thing to do was sit down and shut up, and wait it out for a few days until you were released. NOBODY on the planet thinks like that now, so if somebody started waving a box cutter around today and saying they were taking over the plane, even grandma with the walker would know to help overwhelm the would-be terrorist.

But the terrorist don't need to raid the cockpit to blow up the plane with liquid explosives. They could do that in a row of seats discreetly.

 

[JLTraveling]

But if you're ok with banning guns and box cutters, how do you find out whether someone is carrying them? SECURITY's entire mission is to try to stop a crime before it happens. Whether that's with a body scanner, liquid ban, luggage inspection, or x-ray machine. So you're OK with SOME "pre-crime" prevention but not all. Got it.

That's not pre-crime. Guessing you never saw Minority Report. So moving right along, removing things that we can ALL agree are actual weapons from flights is one thing. Treating every person and item as though they "might" be a weapon is something else entirely. Deciding that American citizens are guilty until proven innocent is what police states do. I hear North Korea is particularly adept at that sort of thing.

 

[JLTraveling]

But the terrorist don't need to raid the cockpit to blow up the plane with liquid explosives. They could do that in a row of seats discreetly.

Yes they could. And as I've stated about 100,000 times now, I'm fine with random chemical explosive checks. What I'm NOT fine with is deciding that EVERY liquid is dangerous and EVERY person is a criminal. I give up. You like living in a police state. Apparently so do a lot of other people. And you've already stated that anyone who disagrees with you is a pita, so there's that.

 

[NotUrsula]

If you wear contacts you'd get it. They are considered medical and just like people's medications they may not be able to be purchased where someone is traveling. If they are over the 3.4 oz just like other liquids you can have you would need to declare this and they should inspect it.

To be fair removing your shoes before you even get in line is odd, very odd, and would lead me to wonder what you are thinking to gain by doing so and I say this as a normal everyday person. My first thought would not be that you were saving time, it would be that something is off. I can see that they may have thought you were trying to hide something and thinking if you put them in with other items in your carry on it may get obscured. Given that someone tried recently to hid a gun in peanut butter not entirely too far off the realm of reason.

You missed the point of the story. It wasn't that they wanted to check the shoes, but that they only cared about checking one pair, when there were 3 pairs in the bag. If I were up to no good, what would have stopped me from putting out a different pair than the one I wore in? If checking shoes was actually important, they should have wanted to check all 3 prs, or at very least, not trusted *me* to decide which pair got scanned in the bin.

As for the contact lens solution, it's ironic because hydrogen peroxide is the primary ingredient in TATP, yet you can openly bring a quart of it aboard with no problem. I haven't seen a bottle of it swabbed in years; as long as it's in a bag labeled "medications", it doesn't draw a second glance. If TATP being mixed on board was actually a viable threat, there is no way that a quart of H2O2 would be allowed, even under a medical exception.

 

[sam_gordon]

That's not pre-crime. Guessing you never saw Minority Report.

I did, but many years ago. You're the one who brought up "pre-crime" in a conversation about the TSA. What connection was I supposed to make?

So moving right along, removing things that we can ALL agree are actual weapons from flights is one thing. Treating every person and item as though they "might" be a weapon is something else entirely. Deciding that American citizens are guilty until proven innocent is what police states do. I hear North Korea is particularly adept at that sort of thing.

So you are ok for searching everyone for "actual weapons" or you just want to randomly select people?

 

[fly girl]

Yes they could. And as I've stated about 100,000 times now, I'm fine with random chemical explosive checks. What I'm NOT fine with is deciding that EVERY liquid is dangerous and EVERY person is a criminal. I give up. You like living in a police state. Apparently so do a lot of other people. And you've already stated that anyone who disagrees with you is a pita, so there's that.

Ha ha haha ha ... and I knew my mistake to engage was spot on!

You have a right to your opinion, I have a right to mine. Case closed.

As for the bolded. Reread my post. I never said that. I said complaining incessantly makes one a pita to be around. Two vastly different things.

 

[sam_gordon]

You missed the point of the story. It wasn't that they wanted to check the shoes, but that they only cared about checking one pair, when there were 3 pairs in the bag. If I were up to no good, what would have stopped me from putting out a different pair than the one I wore in? If checking shoes was actually important, they should have wanted to check all 3 prs, or at very least, not trusted *me* to decide which pair got scanned in the bin.

I remember shortly after the shoe bomber, I was going through TSA somewhere (can't remember where) and asked if I needed to take off my shoes (well before it was "normal" policy) and the TSA agent said "nope, what you're wearing is perfectly fine, what we'd like to see (tennis shoes)."

My flight got delayed, missed the connection, spent the night in a hotel, then went through security again the next day. I did not take off my shoes and was yelled at for not doing so.

As for the contact lens solution, it's ironic because hydrogen peroxide is the primary ingredient in TATP, yet you can openly bring a quart of it aboard with no problem. I haven't seen a bottle of it swabbed in years; as long as it's in a bag labeled "medications", it doesn't draw a second glance.

I thought the article said the hydrogen peroxide needs to be in a certain concentration, which is much higher than what you'd find in your medicine cabinet.

 

[wvjules]

Yes they could. And as I've stated about 100,000 times now, I'm fine with random chemical explosive checks. What I'm NOT fine with is deciding that EVERY liquid is dangerous and EVERY person is a criminal. I give up. You like living in a police state. Apparently so do a lot of other people. And you've already stated that anyone who disagrees with you is a pita, so there's that.

TSA screening is like living in a police state? For real?

 

[wvjules]

You missed the point of the story. It wasn't that they wanted to check the shoes, but that they only cared about checking one pair, when there were 3 pairs in the bag. If I were up to no good, what would have stopped me from putting out a different pair than the one I wore in? If checking shoes was actually important, they should have wanted to check all 3 prs, or at very least, not trusted *me* to decide which pair got scanned in the bin.

As for the contact lens solution, it's ironic because hydrogen peroxide is the primary ingredient in TATP, yet you can openly bring a quart of it aboard with no problem. I haven't seen a bottle of it swabbed in years; as long as it's in a bag labeled "medications", it doesn't draw a second glance. If TATP being mixed on board was actually a viable threat, there is no way that a quart of H2O2 would be allowed, even under a medical exception.

All shoes will go through the scanner. How are you getting that only the one pair you are wearing are going through? The bag goes through the x-ray machine.

 

[JLTraveling]

TSA screening is like living in a police state? For real?

For real. Let's say your local mall wanted to take naked pictures of your minor child as a condition of entry. Would you be okay with that? Let's say that the principal of your child's school insisted on groping their groin before they could walk in the building. Are we good with that? But as soon as it becomes a government entity doing those things, everyone is suddenly fine with it in the name of "security." Well, in a police state, the government gets to make all the rules and the citizens have no choice but to comply, no matter how invasive or intolerable it is. Kinda like TSA, isn't it?

 

[wvjules]

Who is taking naked pictures and groping people? Have you actually been through airport security?

 

[JLTraveling]

Who is taking naked pictures and groping people? Have you actually been through airport security?

Yes I have. The naked pictures are the "body scans." Millimeter wave machines show a generic image, but backscatter scanners show every single detail of the individual's anatomy. And the groping people is the invasive patdowns. Yes, some agents do as little touching as possible. Some go way over the line. And even the "as little as possible" still involves putting their hands on exactly the "bathing suit areas" we teach our kids that no one should ever touch.