Open letter to Disney concerning new TSA full body scan.

[kaytieeldr]

Why not put the person viewing the scans where the public can see him/her and be assured that all the scanning behavior is appropriately serious.

I'll ask again, why aren't TSA employees screened (just like the rest of us) each time they enter the sterile area?

They're not boarding the planes.

 

[Brian Noble]

...and, at least in theory, they have already been vetted through a security clearance process to determine that they are trustworthy. There's really no choice about that, either. If you don't trust them not to follow the rules entering the sterile area, you *can't* trust them to enforce the rules for others.

 

[declansdad]

That was one of the funniest letters I have ever read. I can't beleive someone could write like that and still sound like they were serious.





Man, where do these people come from?

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

OK..............I have been shadowing this thread since the start and stopped posting becuase I soon discovered the same few folks were againist the scanning,pat down and in SOME cases,they were againist any seciurity, like the gal who posted that the *terrorist were all make beleive*(go back and look yourselves.I was amazed). Logical reasoning was dismissed as simpleton thinking and then the insults were spit out,followed by the *But ho I was trying to control my attitude even if I was insluting to the people trying to point out the merits of the seciurty measures.*


My solution..........expensive but a solution.......each major airport has a none secure terminal........all the self appoint constitutional experts...........folks thinking that a slightly out of focus....metalic black and grey image of themselves (with no face) goes beyond thier modesty limits, can't accept a pat down,or it seems any other alturnitive, will simple go to those terminals..easy..no upset people with atitudes..no delays..no problems...they fly fast and with no problems......of course...when the first planes start blowing up and crashing, the folks on the ground may be a bit upset and burned or dead........but they are not important, as the folks on the plane with not have been violented/scanned or delayed!


OK.........I am sure I will be LOL with the angry comments/tempers to follow.........but I know the seciurity measures are is going to happen, things will be adjusted and settle out.........but the best will be done to keep me and my family safe..........whether it be scans and /or pat downs......etc


now ring the bell and come out swinging!


AKK

 

[CPT Tripss]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?*

They do? In rooms with one-way mirrors, where the general public can stare at them working, freely and for no good purpose or, any time? WHY would or should you or I or anyone be able to stare at someone viewing luggage xrays??? That - along with being able to watch someone viewing body scans when they can't also see the persons watching them is entirely unreasonable and unnecessary.

It's one thing for the employer to be able to view the employee working - my employer does that constantly, in a variety of ways, and we're aware of them. I have no problem with TSA personnel watching scans in a WINDOWED room. But where they can be spied upon by the general public without reciprocity? Nope.

They're not boarding the planes.

No, they are looking at peoples' bodies without any coverage by clothing. And heck, let's remember that if they don't like the working conditiond there are other ways to make a buck.

And as far as whether or not they are boarding the planes, once they get bad stuff in, it's easy to pass that bad stuff aling to an accomplice.

...and, at least in theory, they have already been vetted through a security clearance process to determine that they are trustworthy. There's really no choice about that, either. If you don't trust them not to follow the rules entering the sterile area, you *can't* trust them to enforce the rules for others.

Operative words, "...in theory..." And think about it, aircrews are screened at least as thououghly as TSA line employees and we don't trust them to follow the rules. Also, if the screening is such a guarentee of trust worthiness, how do you explain the TSA guy that brought a gun into the sterile area or the one that aided his friend in getting a gun through? Or what about the many that have been arrested for stealing things as they were screening luggage. Based on all this they should be searched on the way out of work as well as on the way in.

* Who will guard the guards themselves?

 

[kaytieeldr]

Have you experienced anyone involved in your medical care telling you that you had to submit to whatever tests and procedure they decided on, that it wasn't open for discussion and that if you wouldn't agree to these conditions you would get no care? This kind scenario is what we are up against with TSA and the new procedures . . . and it seems that a bunch of people on this board just think it's just peachy keen. Wake up.

I haven't, as far as I can recall - but if that had happened or does happen, I have options. Same with travel. If I disagree with ALL methods of screening required before boarding a commercial aircraft, I have options. I know somebody who used to take the train from Boston to California. Convenient, no; time-saving, not at all.

You know, even the Soviet Union only required passes to travel around the country. Maybe we should just all go that route. Apply to the gov't for a pass to travel that way the TSA will know exactly who is traveling, when and why. Whats a little inconvenience and invasion of privacy. (btw insert my sarcastic voice here)

You know the Soviet Union no longer exists, right? And that when those passes were required to move around the country, it was for ground passage? And that Russia has airport security? And that when there was an act of terrorism at a Russian airport resulting in 90 deaths, it was by two Chechen women (emphasized to remind that yes, the next terrorist could well be a 25 year old or 85 year old female)?

 

[kaytieeldr]

That was one of the funniest letters I have ever read. I can't beleive someone could write like that and still sound like they were serious.





Man, where do these people come from?

And - assuming that letter was written by the person to whom it's ascribed - that man owns a business!!!

 

[padawans]

OK..............I have been shadowing this thread since the start and stopped posting becuase I soon discovered the same few folks were againist the scanning,pat down and in SOME cases,they were againist any seciurity, like the gal who posted that the *terrorist were all make beleive*(go back and look yourselves.I was amazed). Logical reasoning was dismissed as simpleton thinking and then the insults were spit out,followed by the *But ho I was trying to control my attitude even if I was insluting to the people trying to point out the merits of the seciurty measures.*


My solution..........expensive but a solution.......each major airport has a none secure terminal........all the self appoint constitutional experts...........folks thinking that a slightly out of focus....metalic black and grey image of themselves (with no face) goes beyond thier modesty limits, can't accept a pat down,or it seems any other alturnitive, will simple go to those terminals..easy..no upset people with atitudes..no delays..no problems...they fly fast and with no problems......of course...when the first planes start blowing up and crashing, the folks on the ground may be a bit upset and burned or dead........but they are not important, as the folks on the plane with not have been violented/scanned or delayed!


OK.........I am sure I will be LOL with the angry comments/tempers to follow.........but I know the seciurity measures are is going to happen, things will be adjusted and settle out.........but the best will be done to keep me and my family safe..........whether it be scans and /or pat downs......etc


now ring the bell and come out swinging!


AKK

No angry comments. I have not seen any planes blown up or hijacked since 911 and we have not been using these scanners. I don't think we need to destroy our costitutional rights to keep things safe. Do you really think or intelligence agencies are not looking for any possible terrorist or are they just waiting for them to show up at the airport so I tsa worker without a high school diploma can catch them. There are so many ways to improve safety with out making the flying public uncomfortable. I see you fear for your safety, but a terrorist attack could occur anywhere. Should we install these scanners in every public place. I am glad you feel safer with these scanners
many of us do not. I personally have no fear of flying and no fear of public places. I don't look for"make believe" terrorists around every corner.That does not mean I don't think they exsist. I just don't worry about it. Middle eastern people do not scare me. When I go to a ball game and they check my purse it doensn't make me feel any more or less safe. I don't think anyone on these boards want's to see people die. I don't think were going to see planes start blowing up and crashing because we don't have these scanners. I may be a libertarian nut job in your eyes, but thats a little melodramatic don't you think.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? <snip> And as far as whether or not they are boarding the planes, once they get bad stuff in, it's easy to pass that bad stuff aling to an accomplice.

Given the rigorous criminal screenings required before one could be hired as a TSO, plus everybody being out in the open and being visible to the public, their fellow employees, and management (and likely on camera as well), the opportunity to pass off something to a passenger - never mind the planning and timing required - very likely wouldn't exist.

No, they are looking at peoples' bodies without any coverage by clothing. And heck, let's remember that if they don't like the working conditiond there are other ways to make a buck.

No, they are looking at scanned images of passengers' bodies. Yes, there is a huge difference. They're not see the person. They're seeing the picture. Big, big, big difference. They're not seeing YOU under your clothing. Not live; image.

Or what about the many that have been arrested for stealing things as they were screening luggage.

Is that TSA? Or is it baggage handlers? Because (checked) luggage theft has been going on LONG before the TSA or Homeland Security existed.

 

[pr surfer]

Umm ...hello N965JV? Making up new identities now?

Seems to be a lot of that going on here in the past few days.

I don't think so. Both are posters over at flyertalk.com, where there is an active gorup of posters that are quite anti-TSA (I'm one of them.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Given the rigorous criminal screenings required before one could be hired as a TSO, plus everybody being out in the open and being visible to the public, their fellow employees, and management (and likely on camera as well), the opportunity to pass off something to a passenger - never mind the planning and timing required - very likely wouldn't exist.

No, they are looking at scanned images of passengers' bodies. Yes, there is a huge difference. They're not see the person. They're seeing the picture. Big, big, big difference. They're not seeing YOU under your clothing. Not live; image.

Is that TSA? Or is it baggage handlers? Because (checked) luggage theft has been going on LONG before the TSA or Homeland Security existed.

all the things I described have, in fact occured. You seem to ignore a number of press reports of TSA screeners bringing guns to work. Alvin Crabtree being prehaps the most publicized. There were other similar events, one in PHL and another where a TSA screener helped a friend bring a gun through a checkpoint. Then there are the criminal cases of TSA theft from luggage - Newark's ring selling on EBay is just one example.

Maybe you believe that the scans aren't pictures of actual human bodies, but that's a real stretch.

Sure baggage handlers have stole stuff from checked luggage. But that doesn't change the fact that TSAer have been arrested and convicted of theft from checked and carry on luggage.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I don't think so. Both are posters over at flyertalk.com, where there is an active gorup of posters that are quite anti-TSA (I'm one of them.

That's correct, I've seen the names there too.

 

[deegack]

I haven't, as far as I can recall - but if that had happened or does happen, I have options. Same with travel. If I disagree with ALL methods of screening required before boarding a commercial aircraft, I have options. I know somebody who used to take the train from Boston to California. Convenient, no; time-saving, not at all.

You know the Soviet Union no longer exists, right? And that when those passes were required to move around the country, it was for ground passage? And that Russia has airport security? And that when there was an act of terrorism at a Russian airport resulting in 90 deaths, it was by two Chechen women (emphasized to remind that yes, the next terrorist could well be a 25 year old or 85 year old female)?

um yeah I realize its gone hence the PAST TENSE I used when typing my sentence. There was no air transport except for a very few because the gov't controlled all travel. So I bet it was very secure. Russia uses metal detectors no the nude-o-scan which would not have detected the explosives used by the Chechen women any way.

If you want to surrender your constitutional rights because of a few, very few radical fringe elements you are welcome to. But I will not give up any one of my rights with out a fight. And if it inconveniences a TSA agent so be it. And need I remind you that there has not been one case of a shoe bomber since Reid several years ago and no other country requires the removal of shoes (and laugh at the Americans in line that do it when not asked to) to fly. And that neither the metal detectors nor the nude-o-scan can detect explosives in a shoe, but the TSA still continues the farce.

 

[N965VJ]

I would like to know why Janet won't go through the scanners aren't our fearless leaders supposed to set the example for us little people.

In a recent press conference about the Nude-O-Scopes, Janet Napolitano declined going through the machine, instead having a "volunteer" do it for her. Some animals are more equal than others it seems.

Thats scary to think that were putting our security in the hands of people that don't have a high school diploma. I hope most of them do. I mean it's not that hard to graduate high school. Wow I'm speechless on this. I had no idea.

The past year the TSA has been significantly ramping up employment. Previously there were about ~50,000, now a recent TSA spokesperson mentioned the figure was over 60,000. They have always had a problem with high turnover (hence not requiring a high school diploma) but they have recently been advertising for screening clerk jobs on pizza boxes, promising a job with "x-ray vision".

Umm ...hello N965JV? Making up new identities now?

Seems to be a lot of that going on here in the past few days.

I can assure you when they made me, the mold was broken. Wimpie is a fellow poster on FlyerTalk, the same for doober that has posted here as well in the past.

I don't think so. Both are posters over at flyertalk.com, where there is an active gorup of posters that are quite anti-TSA (I'm one of them.

That's correct, I've seen the names there too.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Maybe you believe that the scans aren't pictures of actual human bodies, but that's a real stretch.

The scans are images actual human beings - not just bodies, but real live persons. What is NOT being viewed by the TSO in the isolated area is the actual passenger in the backscatter scanner, effectively nude. The TSO is viewing the picture, not the person. They're not seeing any live being nude or naked. They're seeing a scanned image of that person to determine whether that person is attempting to bring any banned items through security and onto the plane. It's not even a photograph of that person sans clothing.

But anyone who doesn't want to be scanned has alternatives. Use them.

 

[N965VJ]

You keep forgetting that there are other ways to get to where you want to go, in most cases, besides an airplane.

As I stated before, the TSA has set up shop at Greyhound terminals, train stations, Interstate checkpoints, sporting events, and has tried to encroach on General Aviation (private aircraft). DHS is also busy buying mobile scanners. To think that they will not try to roll out Nude-O-Scopes in venues other than commercial aviation is just wishful thinking.

I've had TSA employees continuously tell me they work for the Transportation Security Administration (bolding theirs) when trying to defend this mission creep.

 

[pr surfer]

If you want to surrender your constitutional rights because of a few, very few radical fringe elements you are welcome to. But I will not give up any one of my rights with out a fight. And if it inconveniences a TSA agent so be it. And need I remind you that there has not been one case of a shoe bomber since Reid several years ago and no other country requires the removal of shoes (and laugh at the Americans in line that do it when not asked to) to fly. And that neither the metal detectors nor the nude-o-scan can detect explosives in a shoe, but the TSA still continues the farce.

Flying SYD-LAX earlier this year, I cracked a smile when I heard this message "ATTENTION AMERICAN TRAVELERS, THIS IS AUSTRALIA, NOT THE UNITED STATES. KEEP ON YOUR SHOES"

I love that country.

 

[kaytieeldr]

If you want to surrender your constitutional rights

I'm confused. I have a constitutional right to move [about] freely; there is no constitutional right to commercial air travel. I also have constitutional rights to be secure in my person, house, papers, vehicle, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures*. Nothing about an airport or airplane. I'm not surrendering any rights.

And if it inconveniences a TSA agent so be it.

Inconveniences a TSO how? That they have to pat you down? That's part of the job.

And need I remind you that there has not been one case of a shoe bomber since Reid several years ago and no other country requires the removal of shoes (and laugh at the Americans in line that do it when not asked to) to fly.

Oh, well, I'm relieved. I read signs and follow instructions. When a sign or a person directs me to remove my shoes and place them on the belt, I do. When there's no such instruction, I keep them on. I'm grateful to know residents of other countries won't be laughing at me for THAT faux pas - not when there's so much else for which they can laugh at me!!!

And that neither the metal detectors nor the nude-o-scan can detect explosives in a shoe, but the TSA still continues the farce.

Well, isn't this statement proving its own point? Metal detectors can't detect explosives in shoes; backscatter scanners ditto - so, um, let's continue to run them through xray machines that can see suspicious items (anything not found in the typical shoe sole) and detection equipment that CAN detect explosives?

Just a thought.

*Source http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm

 

[N965VJ]

Given the rigorous criminal screenings required before one could be hired as a TSO, plus everybody being out in the open and being visible to the public, their fellow employees, and management (and likely on camera as well), the opportunity to pass off something to a passenger - never mind the planning and timing required - very likely wouldn't exist.

Background checks are not an indicator of future actions. In fact, the TSA even has convicted felons on the payroll. In RIC, the airport refused to issue an access badge to a screener when they found he had a felony conviction. However, the TSA demanded one be issued anyway, threatening "unspecified consequences" if they didn't.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I'm confused. I have a constitutional right to move [about] freely; there is no constitutional right to commercial air travel. I also have constitutional rights to be secure in my person, house, papers, vehicle, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures*. Nothing about an airport or airplane. I'm not surrendering any rights.

snip

Jefferson, Franklin and the others were bright men, I'm sure they left airplanes and air travel out intentionally. Seriously, do you believe everything you write (or should I say Wright).