TSA mess and the police

[DisneyBamaFan]

No, actually, the fact is that "everyone" has to clear TSA security in order to depart that airport after clearing customs and immigration.

Thanks - Ohers provided the facts yesterday.

Don't misstate facts to suit your purpose.

Like you did yesterday with the "traces of explosives" post - in two separate threads?

 

[CPT Tripss]

Sure there is - a separate walkway away from customs that takes you to the baggage area/exit.

Say like the route that the several police officers and many TSAers finally escorted the guy that "protested?"

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Say like the route that the several police officers and many TSAers finally escorted the guy that "protested?"

No, like the route that most international airports have put in place. Sorry if Atlanta is behind the times.

 

[MiniGirl]

Wait, aren't these the same people you were accusing of selling your naked pictures on the internet?
Aren't these the same people you were saying were child pedophiles and now you're ok with giving them your private info?
You're very first post you describe them as "strong arming" "wack jobs" and "abusing their authority"

Why is this invasion more acceptable th an the "naked" pictures.

I can't speak for LuvOrlando, but for me, I would find this more acceptable as well. Is it still an invasion of privacy? You bet. With background checks, would we still give up a certain measure of liberty? Yep. However, FOR ME (and I can only speak for myself), this would fall within my comfort zone where as the scans and the pat downs do not. I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't dislike it enough to keep me from flying. I figure I am pretty much already opening myself up for a check anyway with my use of the computer, credit cards, cell phone, etc. I have also had background checks done when I was a flight attendant and had to be fingerprinted for that job, and I've had lesser checks done since then because I volunteer to work with minor children. For whatever reason, the thought of someone looking into how I spend my time and money is more comfortable to me than the thought of someone looking at a scanned image of me or patting me down. Oh, and btw, I'm not sexualizing those things. By nature, I am not a touchy, feely person, and I prefer to be in the background watchin other people -- not having them look at me.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I looked at the list in the link and only saw one, not an American airline, so perhaps the list was not up to date.

A lot do not. American's link says they will.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I don't know if this is relevant but I am almost sure I had a background check done on me before a flight. Let me explain.

A few years ago, I was flying out on the last flight of the day from Boston Logan back home to Atlanta. I fly this many times and pretty much every other flight I have taken is full or almost full.

Well, I was running late and got to the gate and boarded. I noticed there were a couple of guys in long black trench coats hanging around in the gate area and thought that was weird.

Well, I got on the plane was almost empty. There were like 20 people in coach. I have flown this trip about 40 times so it was unusual.

Then the flight attendant greets me and says, "Did you get to meet him?" I said, "Meet who?"

She explained that former President Jimmy Carter was in first class (now I know why I didn't get upgraded!) and he was just back there shaking everyone's hand.

So I am pretty sure they did a background check on me and the other few passengers they allowed on or I wouldn't have gotten a seat on the plane.

Thankfully, I have always been an .

My money is on just a quick name check . . . that's all they have. A meet POTUS Secret Service check requires dob and ssan.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Thanks - Ohers provided the facts yesterday.

Like you did yesterday with the "traces of explosives" post - in two separate threads?

Didn't see others correcting you until after I posted.


Well, TSA calls it an explosive trace detector. http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/etd.shtm
So what would you call a positive result to an explosive trace detector?

ETDs also might produce a positive from hand/body lotions with glycerin, so be careful.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I just noticed you didn't offer an opinion on this OceanAnnie, would you do it as an alternative or not?

I mentioned yesterday (somewhere in the fray), I don't know what I think about it. I "do" know the security is needed.

The TSA has made some gaffes/dishonest remarks about the new imaging "not being stored", then when it was "found out" they they were, they recanted. Not a good testimony for them. Not honest. Not forthright. So, I'm not thrilled with the idea of a new layer such as this. Who will have access? Will these background checks make their way to the internet like some of the new images have? Things to think about.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...Well, TSA calls it an explosive trace detector...

The articles specifically say that nitrates were detected. You then took that and twisted it to "traces of explosives". I only point it out because this was an obvious effort on your part to do what you accused me of doing.

House made or glass and all that stuff...

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I mentioned yesterday (somewhere in the fray), I don't know what I think about it. I "do" know the security is needed.

The TSA has made some gaffes/dishonest remarks about the new imaging "not being stored", then when it was "found out" they they were, they recanted. Not a good testimony for them. Not honest. Not forthright. So, I'm not thrilled with the idea of a new layer such as this. Who will have access? Will these background checks make their way to the internet like some of the new images have? Things to think about.

No data is really safe today. The information that they would reference already exists for hackers to find if they are interested.

 

[eliza61]

I can't speak for LuvOrlando, but for me, I would find this more acceptable as well. Is it still an invasion of privacy? You bet. With background checks, would we still give up a certain measure of liberty? Yep. However, FOR ME (and I can only speak for myself), this would fall within my comfort zone where as the scans and the pat downs do not. I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't dislike it enough to keep me from flying. I figure I am pretty much already opening myself up for a check anyway with my use of the computer, credit cards, cell phone, etc. I have also had background checks done when I was a flight attendant and had to be fingerprinted for that job, and I've had lesser checks done since then because I volunteer to work with minor children. For whatever reason, the thought of someone looking into how I spend my time and money is more comfortable to me than the thought of someone looking at a scanned image of me or patting me down. Oh, and btw, I'm not sexualizing those things. By nature, I am not a touchy, feely person, and I prefer to be in the background watchin other people -- not having them look at me.

But see in my opinion that's a bit hypocritical. You can't scream "constitutional rights being violated" is ok as long as it fits into your comfort zone.
So basically your saying, let's violate the constitution this way because it tolerable to me. I may find a background check totally offensive, so why is my comfort zone any less important?

If they TSA is made up of all these inept, deranged, psycho molestors why is it ok to give them access to my personal information, most likely name, age, address, ss# etc but oh god don't even think about letting them look at some naked pictures of me.

You don't see the hypocrisy there and it unless some one is on the no fly chart, I'm not seeing how this information is any more effective than the scanners. Not to mention how are you going to prevent people from lying.

 

[MiniGirl]

But see in my opinion that's a bit hypocritical. You can't scream "constitutional rights being violated" is ok as long as it fits into your comfort zone.
So basically your saying, let's violate the constitution this way because it tolerable to me. I may find a background check totally offensive, so why is my comfort zone any less important?

If they TSA is made up of all these inept, deranged, psycho molestors why is it ok to give them access to my personal information, most likely name, age, address, ss# etc but oh god don't even think about letting them look at some naked pictures of me.

You don't see the hypocrisy there and it unless some one is on the no fly chart, I'm not seeing how this information is any more effective than the scanners. Not to mention how are you going to prevent people from lying.

Your comfort zone is not more important than mine, and I never said it was. However, people have done exactly what you are saying in regards to the scans and pat downs. How many times has someone posted that they didn't care about the scans or pat downs? It didn't bother them in the least. If you don't like it, then don't fly.

The difference is.... I don't think everyone should have to be subjected to a background check. If you prefer to use the scanner or be patted down, fine. You should be able to do so, and those of us who would rather not, can undergo a background check.

Also, I think it could be effective. The 9/11 terrorists, the shoebomber, and the underwear bomber ALL raised red flags. Perhaps if they had been checked further, they wouldn't have been allowed on the plane. Even with the procedures now in place, it is doubtful the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber would have been detected.

Unfortunately, in order to fly, we all have to give up a certain amount of liberty and privacy. I don't think my comfort level should come before yours, nor do I feel yours should come before mine.

 

[MiniGirl]

BTW, I just wanted to add that a program for this is already in place. From what I have read about it, it doesn't seem like it would be all that costly to impliment either -- esp. if Joe Q. Travel is willing to pay for his/her own background check. It is my understanding the pilots will be cleared through security using this program -- or one similar to it. The background check is done prior to travel, and then you need to have matching photo IDs to clear airport security.

http://www.travelagentcentral.com/a...oposes-federal-trusted-traveler-program-25080

 

[CPT Tripss]

The articles specifically say that nitrates were detected. You then took that and twisted it to "traces of explosives". I only point it out because this was an obvious effort on your part to do what you accused me of doing.

House made or glass and all that stuff...

Well thanks Mr. Pot.

She said TSA employees told her equipment detected traces of nitrates, which are used in bombs, on her clothing and luggage. She said a TSA supervisor told her to leave the airport and “come back tomorrow” after more than an hour of hand searches and questioning.

http://newsok.com/in-bra-panties-an...ng-this-morning/article/3519710#ixzz174zqewnX.

Would you assert TSA detained her and would not allow her to fly because they thought they detected traces of fertilizer? If that was their motivation then we are all in deep $#!+ . . .

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...Would you assert TSA detained her and would not allow her to fly because they thought they detected traces of fertilizer? If that was their motivation then we are all in deep $#!+ . . .

As a rational person, I consider that it is possible for a person to fail a test like this and no judgement be made. In other words, if they really thought that she was making bombs in her basement, the FBI would have beat her home.

BTW, they sent her home because she missed her flight, just in case you are really interested in the facts.

 

[MiniGirl]

As a rational person, I consider that it is possible for a person to fail a test like this and no judgement be made. In other words, if they really thought that she was making bombs in her basement, the FBI would have beat her home.

BTW, they sent her home because she missed her flight, just in case you are really interested in the facts.

So, is she subjected to the same fines the others were? I'm just curious.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

So, is she subjected to the same fines the others were? I'm just curious.

Sorry - what fines?

 

[LuvOrlando]

Wait, aren't these the same people you were accusing of selling your naked pictures on the internet?
Aren't these the same people you were saying were child pedophiles and now you're ok with giving them your private info?
You're very first post you describe them as "strong arming" "wack jobs" and "abusing their authority"

Why is this invasion more acceptable th an the "naked" pictures.

But see in my opinion that's a bit hypocritical. You can't scream "constitutional rights being violated" is ok as long as it fits into your comfort zone.
So basically your saying, let's violate the constitution this way because it tolerable to me. I may find a background check totally offensive, so why is my comfort zone any less important?

If they TSA is made up of all these inept, deranged, psycho molestors why is it ok to give them access to my personal information, most likely name, age, address, ss# etc but oh god don't even think about letting them look at some naked pictures of me.

You don't see the hypocrisy there and it unless some one is on the no fly chart, I'm not seeing how this information is any more effective than the scanners. Not to mention how are you going to prevent people from lying.

Do I really have to answer that? Since I have a pretty crummy track record of detecting on-line sarcasm I'll answer straight.

One kind involves touching me & my kids & the other does not. I'm not opposed to new measures & I'm not opposed to security, I'm opposed to THESE new measures. They can do whatever they want as long as they keep their mitts to themselves & don't expose us to any carcinogens & we're square.

ABout the clearences and who gets to be near them, they would have to be done in advance. I am highly doubtful the TSA brigade would be the ones in charge of a National Security issue like background checks. I tend to think the clearances would have to be trusted to people possessing many more qualifications in order to insure the clearances weren't faked. I'd like to think FBI because I happen to hold them in high esteem.

I also agree with DisneyBamaFan because of things I know personally due to my DH's career. There is more out there than most people realize so for me it's all "Whatevs"... I don't care much about what they do just DON'T TOUCH unless you have a reason and don't expose me to any elective radiation, zero - nada - none.

I think you are confusing me with someone else, I've been fairly consistent about what I have a problem with and why... no hypocrisy . It is all about my comfort zone... what are you saying? Do you WANT people to be coerced into being touched? I don't get you If you are worried about safety what do you care what form people choose?

For the record, I feel that a comfortable compromise would involve people being able to choose one or the other, I wouldn't want you distressed any more than I want me distressed.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I can't speak for LuvOrlando, but for me, I would find this more acceptable as well. Is it still an invasion of privacy? You bet. With background checks, would we still give up a certain measure of liberty? Yep. However, FOR ME (and I can only speak for myself), this would fall within my comfort zone where as the scans and the pat downs do not. I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't dislike it enough to keep me from flying. I figure I am pretty much already opening myself up for a check anyway with my use of the computer, credit cards, cell phone, etc. I have also had background checks done when I was a flight attendant and had to be fingerprinted for that job, and I've had lesser checks done since then because I volunteer to work with minor children. For whatever reason, the thought of someone looking into how I spend my time and money is more comfortable to me than the thought of someone looking at a scanned image of me or patting me down. Oh, and btw, I'm not sexualizing those things. By nature, I am not a touchy, feely person, and I prefer to be in the background watchin other people -- not having them look at me.

Right on sista! I was cleared when I was working with kids as a substitute teacher and for other things as well. I'm squeaky clean loving the straight and narrow with no plans to kick up dirt. The only thing they'll find is I'm bore with no vices, unless you include The Dis and Disney of course

 

[eliza61]

Do I really have to answer that? Since I have a pretty crummy track record of detecting on-line sarcasm I'll answer straight.

One kind involves touching me & my kids & the other does not. I'm not opposed to new measures & I'm not opposed to security, I'm opposed to THESE new measures. They can do whatever they want as long as they keep their mitts to themselves & don't expose us to any carcinogens & we're square.

ABout the clearences and who gets to be near them, they would have to be done in advance. I am highly doubtful the TSA brigade would be the ones in charge of a National Security issue like background checks. I tend to think the clearances would have to be trusted to people possessing many more qualifications in order to insure the clearances weren't faked. I'd like to think FBI because I happen to hold them in high esteem.

I also agree with DisneyBamaFan because of things I know personally due to my DH's career. There is more out there than most people realize so for me it's all "Whatevs"... I don't care much about what they do just DON'T TOUCH unless you have a reason and don't expose me to any elective radiation, zero - nada - none.

I think you are confusing me with someone else, I've been fairly consistent about what I have a problem with and why... no hypocrisy . It is all about my comfort zone... what are you saying? Do you WANT people to be coerced into being touched? I don't get you If you are worried about safety what do you care what form people choose?

For the record, I feel that a comfortable compromise would involve people being able to choose one or the other, I wouldn't want you distressed any more than I want me distressed.

No I'm not confusing you, I actually didn't mean that you are a hypocrite.
So the basic problem is that every body wants security "Their way or no way". that's pretty much been the underlying them throughout. You want security just as long as it doesnt offend or inconvenience you.
Some people want profiling, back ground check, scanners,dogs etc. but every body is screaming how their "constitutional rights" are being violated but they have no problem with the violation as long as it's done "their" way.

I do find it ironic that you are ready to entrust your personal information to these people you have villified and it's totally cool.
I could care less what form you choose.