TSA mess and the police

[NotUrsula]

I guess if I were one of the passengers on the planes that crashed on 9/11 I would have wanted a thorough search. I don't think anyone wants to be "patted down" or go through those scanners but if that is the cost I have to pay to be safer, I'm all for it.

But an invasive search would not have stopped the 9/11 hijackers, don't you see? They did not sneak ANYTHING on board. The box cutters they were carrying were perfectly legal carryon items at the time -- they could have waved them directly under Security's noses and been told to go ahead.

The flight crew policy changes, the longer list of forbidden items, and the hardening of the cockpits are the post-9/11 measures that are effective in keeping us safer. Concentrating TSA efforts on searching us for unusual contraband items that were used in UNSUCCESSFUL subsequent plots is a total waste of resources. Serious terrorists don't try to sneak known contraband things on board; they take advantage of policy and operations loopholes to use legitimate carryon items and cargo as weapons.

 

[punkin]

Those box cutters helped them gain control of the plane. If they did not have them and ONLY had themselves perhaps others might have felt in a position to stop the hijackers. Those box cutters gave them the advantage.

Prior to 9/11 standard operating procedure when confronted with terrorists was to let them take the plane where they wanted and negotiate with them. This was in place to minimize loss of life. The flight crew would have been completely compliant. That's what they were taught to do. A box-cutter gives no advantage over a plane full of resisting passengers. It was the procedures that were the problem, yet they were very reasonable when instituted. That's the problem, the TSA is always one step behind, always trying to stop the last terrorist attempt.

 

[ccgirl]

And I think that the best question to be asked in this context is "How often do the respondents fly?"

I'm willing to bet that the more affluent the poll sample, the higher the rate of dissatisfaction will be, because the affluent are more likely to fly on a regular basis. People who never fly and don't have to worry about this ever affecting them personally are much more likely to be looking at it just on a "Do I think it might scare terrorists?" level and not thinking about whether or not it is an unreasonable (or even effective) search protocol.

The ones I saw were from the Boston and New York area which, as I'm sure you know, are full of affluent people who frequently travel.

 

[NotUrsula]

The ones I saw were from the Boston and New York area which, as I'm sure you know, are full of affluent people who frequently travel.

And equally full of people who've never ventured outside their own boroughs (in the case of NYC.) What matters is the demographics of the actual sample polled, not the demographics of the city at large.

Was it a phone poll? Where did they get the list? (These days phone polls taken out of landline subscriber lists are likely to reach a disproportionate number of senior citizens, because so many younger people are canceling landline service.) If it was an onlline poll, I'd be more likely to accept the result as accurate, but even so, you still don't know if the respondents make a habit of flying unless you ask, and throw out the responses of those who don't.

IMO, polling the members of airline FF clubs would make the most sense in this context.

 

[ccgirl]

And equally full of people who've never ventured outside their own boroughs (in the case of NYC.) What matters is the demographics of the actual sample polled, not the demographics of the city at large.

Was it a phone poll? Where did they get the list? (These days phone polls taken out of landline subscriber lists are likely to reach a disproportionate number of senior citizens, because so many younger people are canceling landline service.) If it was an onlline poll, I'd be more likely to accept the result as accurate, but even so, you still don't know if the respondents make a habit of flying unless you ask, and throw out the responses of those who don't.

IMO, polling the members of airline FF clubs would make the most sense in this context.

They were online polls. I will post the links in just a moment. I agree that FF clubs would make a lot of sense as well and would be interested to see the results of those polls.

USA today travel section which likens its poll to one one tripadvisor.
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/11/most-americans-ok-with-full-body-scans/131415/1

According to a USA Today/Gallup poll released Thursday, 78% of air travelers approve of full-body scanners in airports; 84% believe the scanners would prevent explosives from being carried onto a plane.

I can't find the BOS and NY links. I was watching Fox 25 in Boston last night and they conducted an online poll. For some reason, it looks like I have some links blocked on this computer. Will have to post from home.

 

[Becky2005]

But an invasive search would not have stopped the 9/11 hijackers, don't you see? They did not sneak ANYTHING on board. The box cutters they were carrying were perfectly legal carryon items at the time -- they could have waved them directly under Security's noses and been told to go ahead.

The flight crew policy changes, the longer list of forbidden items, and the hardening of the cockpits are the post-9/11 measures that are effective in keeping us safer. Concentrating TSA efforts on searching us for unusual contraband items that were used in UNSUCCESSFUL subsequent plots is a total waste of resources. Serious terrorists don't try to sneak known contraband things on board; they take advantage of policy and operations loopholes to use legitimate carryon items and cargo as weapons.

That's the crux right there -- everyone is saying "all in the name of safety" for EVERYTHING and as MiniGirl pointed out (which is what I was also referring to in my post), unless they are going to have you literally stripped down taking every single thing off you own & handing you ones that came from them directly it won't make any difference.

Hence, I really *could* see it getting to the point that to fly on an airplane, you literally have to take off all your clothing, socks, shoes, underwear, diapers, feminine hygiene items, medical devices, you name it, it has to come off because there IS always the possibility of you concealing something bad all in front of a TSA agent and them handing you TSA issued articles of clothing. It's a very scary thought (all I keep thinking is people did not read their history books really well) BUT I don't think it's so far fetched either anymore. Apparently though, if it would be against your religion you wouldn't be subject to it (with reading the extra stuff) -- frankly I think a lot of people would become "religious" really fast even if they weren't!

 

[skater]

Your whole post - excellent.

I get the heebies walking barefoot in an airport. So, on the most recent pedicure before a trip, I asked if I could take their little paper flip floppies. Sure! they said...

I took my bomb holding Birkenstock sandals off, and slipped on my paper ones! Yay! My feet were not gonna be walking where jungle rot tootsies have touched..... until:

"Remove your shoes...." I looked shocked - I took the paper thing off and kinda shook it in the air, like "look!" its paper!! Thinking I'd be okay'd.

"REMOVE your shoes" I had to take my now bomb holding paper flippy floppies off, put them in the bin, and then toss them in the garbage at the conveyor belt end.

Lame.

This may have happened to you because often it becomes about control. Anytime you put humans in charge of other humans and take away people's rights, this eventually happens. It happens with prison guards, soldiers, etc., and it will happen with tsa agents - especially as we give them more and more control. Look at the guy who's in the news now facing a possible $11K fine. He wasn't even allowed to walk away from it.

 

[anna_chronistic]

I don't feel like posting links, so here's my summary. You're all welcome to google it! Just type in "airport scanner polls," "full-body scan polls," or derivatives of same, and you'll get all sorts of links, most of which have the same info cited but not the actual polls (of course).

CBS poll – just over 1,100 polled by landline and mobile phone, no disclosure regarding what the questions were, if it was a representative sample, etc. This took place “last week” (couldn’t find anything more specific) – before the enhanced pat-down info made headlines for the most part, and before many of the new videos were released or even taken. Anyone see that video of the 3-year-old little girl screaming “don’t touch me!” and fighting to get away? I literally felt sick after watching that.

USA/Gallup poll – 524 people. And yes, I know how polling works and assume they followed protocol, got a representative sample, etc. (although I can’t think of how 524 adults could truly be a representative sample for a topic like this. And what questions, exactly, were asked? What information were they given?) Of course, this poll was conducted when full roll-out was still hypothetical, before “unblurred” images were disclosed and the full-on pat-down policy was enacted. Back in January, IIRC.

Reuters poll – online poll of more than 70,000.

Vanity Fair poll (ongoing online)


Looks like the MOST recent (post-Saturday's viral message and full-on media blitz about the scanners/pat-downs) polls show the majority of people opposed. Either because they are reacting viscerally to the information shown in the media, or because they now have more information about the scanners and pat-downs and -- now that they have a fuller understanding of what it entails and what it does and does NOT do -- they are displeased with the procedures. Either way, I think it deserves a very close second look and a truly excellent rationale. So far, I haven't seen any such rationale, and I PROMISE I'm trying to keep an open mind!

Of course, even a really incredibly convincing rationale will not convince me that it is right or appropriate for me, so I will not submit and thus will not fly. Grr. I hate that option, but I don't accept the security options. Again, security theater that doesn't make me safer and subjects me to humiliating and invasive procedures. Won't do it.

 

[CathrynRose]

Those box cutters helped them gain control of the plane. If they did not have them and ONLY had themselves perhaps others might have felt in a position to stop the hijackers. Those box cutters gave them the advantage.

Did you not read what I wrote?

See this one:

But an invasive search would not have stopped the 9/11 hijackers, don't you see? They did not sneak ANYTHING on board. The box cutters they were carrying were perfectly legal carryon items at the time -- they could have waved them directly under Security's noses and been told to go ahead.

The flight crew policy changes, the longer list of forbidden items, and the hardening of the cockpits are the post-9/11 measures that are effective in keeping us safer. Concentrating TSA efforts on searching us for unusual contraband items that were used in UNSUCCESSFUL subsequent plots is a total waste of resources. Serious terrorists don't try to sneak known contraband things on board; they take advantage of policy and operations loopholes to use legitimate carryon items and cargo as weapons.

 

[Let'sGoFlyAKite]

The HERO pilot "Sully" agrees!!! NO PAT DOWNS!! http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/1...ity.measures/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

 

[C.Ann]

As for the searches, who is to say that even more won't be done eventually? Where does it end? Will people just tolerate anything?

It seems that some will..

Okay, I have stayed out of this discussion, but this made me LOL!! Really? She would only be demonstrating common sense if she agreed with you. Anything else is just self-serving nonsense. Then later you state that claiming common sense for one's side is ridiculous. Oh wait... that's right. It is only ridiculous if it isn't your side. Good stuff.

Since I'm posting, I guess I'll put my thoughts out there as well. Let me begin by saying that airport security is part of my family's daily life. I have stated before that we are an airline family. My dh is a commercial pilot for a major "legacy" carrier. I am a former f/a. We knew and had worked with quite a few of the crew members killed in the 9/11 attacks. One of the f/as was even in my initial training class. I share this only to show that this is not something I take lightly, and that it does impact our daily lives.

I realize we all give up a certain measure of our freedom in the name of safety. I have long ago given up my right to walk through a park alone at night, for example. I have also given up a certain measure of my right to privacy as well for both safety and convienence. We all have. What each person needs to ask is how much are you willing to give up. I think many have drawn the line here. Our choice is to be given a virtual strip search and be subjected to radiation penetrating our skin or be touched in places we have always considered private and off limits to strangers. Even then, we do not have a choice. You really have to be okay with both. TSA could funnel you into a line for either. If you refuse, you are then required to go through the additional screening.


So, I ask..... in this country, where we take great pride in our freedoms, how much are you willing to give up in the name of safety? Would you allow a TSA agent to put their hands inside your clothing and feel you? (Many teen girls, and boys too, wear very low-waisted jeans and shorts. Would you be okay if a TSA agent ran their hands along the inside of a person's waistband? My dh has seen agents do this.) We know people smuggle drugs inside their person. Is it out of the realm of possibility to think that a terrorist might do this as well? So, would you be okay subjecting yourself or your minor child to a more, shall we say, thorough search? Don't think it could happen here? Really? Did you ever think we would reach a point in this country where we would see average citizens, who have done absolutely nothing to warrant it, getting frisked so aggressively? Again, frisked without cause. Okay, I know some of you think that is too extreme. Let's look at something more common. Someone mentioned earlier colonoscopy bags. What about diapers, depends, and even a woman's maxi pad? These would be detected in both the body scanners AND the pat downs. The only way to ensure nothing is being hidden inside these items would be to have the person remove them and surrender them to the TSA agent while the TSA then provides the passenger with a replacement that we know is free of hidden chemicals, etc. Otherwise, this is all just for show. So, would you be willing to be escorted into the restroom by a TSA agent and surrender these things to them? Would you be okay with making your young dd have to do this? Maybe some of you are. I'm just curious where some of you would draw the line. At what point has it gone too far? Are you okay with Muslim women not having to receive pat downs or remove their head covering? Does their freedom to worship in the manner of their choosing override the safety of others? If so, why are you not willing to extend that same level of courtesy to a man or woman who says it is against their faith to allow someone other than a spouse or medical professional to touch them in certain places?

I'm even more saddened by the number of people who are okay with it.

First of all, I am so sorry for the loss of your personal friends and co-workers on 9/11..

I agree with everything you have said - and you will notice that I specifically underlined the portion about any type of ostomy bag (or any other medical item that requires being attached to your body)..

I have repeatedly posted on this thread the guidelines regarding these items (complete with link) right off of the TSA web site.. It specifically states that TSA agents will not ask you to remove them, expose them for their visual inspection, nor will they examine the contents.. Any terrorist can purchase these items and attach them to their body with the proper adhesive.. Inside of these items they can hide anything they choose to hide - and pass right through security with no inspection of said items or contents by the TSA..

How can anyone in their right might think that we're "safer" - because we (or our children) are being subjected to random intensive/invasive groping pat downs (not to mention those that have issues with radiation - which I personally don't) when the above is taking place???????

No one will address it.. Not one single person who has posted here about how all of this groping and radiation is going to make us "safer" - while the above info - from the TSA web site - has left such a gaping hole for terrorists.. It's mind boggling to me..

Oh - and the person who posted about getting all the emails from the airlines with all of the "great rates" during the busiest travel times of the year? Go to those sites and fiddle around.. You can go just about anywhere you want - even on the busiest travel day of the entire year - because the planes are not full.. Unless something changes soon, I think many people who purchased tickets previously will either be requesting refunds - or eating the losses - rather than subjecting themselves and their children to radiation, groping, and being treated like common criminals, simply because they walked into an airport..

 

[ccgirl]

One could also give the reasons of the planes not being full as the poor economy too. I know of a lot of people eating Thanksgiving dinner at home this year, that normally fly, due to their personal financial situations. I'm sure opponents of the enhanced screening measures will say it is due to the screening. Guess it depends??? I think only time will tell.

 

[goofy4tink]

The HERO pilot "Sully" agrees!!! NO PAT DOWNS!! http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/1...ity.measures/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

Actually, he said this regarding airline personel, not the general public, unless I missed something. He said it wasn't a good use of resourses for a group of already well screened people.

 

[JLTraveling]

How can anyone in their right might think that we're "safer" - because we (or our children) are being subjected to random intensive/invasive groping pat downs (not to mention those that have issues with radiation - which I personally don't) when the above is taking place???????

No one will address it.. Not one single person who has posted here about how all of this groping and radiation is going to make us "safer" - while the above info - from the TSA web site - has left such a gaping hole for terrorists.. It's mind boggling to me..

They haven't addressed it because they can't. It doesn't fit into that perfect scenario of "absolute safety." It's easier just to blindly follow the rules without thinking through the implications.

Oh - and the person who posted about getting all the emails from the airlines with all of the "great rates" during the busiest travel times of the year? Go to those sites and fiddle around.. You can go just about anywhere you want - even on the busiest travel day of the entire year - because the planes are not full.. Unless something changes soon, I think many people who purchased tickets previously will either be requesting refunds - or eating the losses - rather than subjecting themselves and their children to radiation, groping, and being treated like common criminals, simply because they walked into an airport..
[/B]

Yep, that was exactly my point. The planes are not full and it's only going to get worse. The airlines see the writing on the wall, too bad the TSA doesn't.

 

[ccgirl]

They haven't addressed it because they can't. It doesn't fit into that perfect scenario of "absolute safety." It's easier just to blindly follow the rules without thinking through the implications.



Yep, that was exactly my point. The planes are not full and it's only going to get worse. The airlines see the writing on the wall, too bad the TSA doesn't.

I don't think I am blindly following the rules without thinking through the implications. Quite the contrary. I did a lot of research before making my decision. Just because people don't agree with your stance does not mean they are blindly following anything.

Again...the planes not being full could be the economy. Seats have been available for a long time. Time will tell.

 

[tar heel]

I have flown in the PAST 24 HOURS and can't fathom why people are getting so upset about this. I will happily trade a little intrusion for being safer. And I was scanned in Phoenix and patted down in Charlotte. Never occurred me to have a problem with it.

Some planes are full, too. The red eye from Phoenix to Charlotte I flew in on last night apparently is full every night.

 

[Magpie]

I have flown in the PAST 24 HOURS and can't fathom why people are getting so upset about this. I will happily trade a little intrusion for being safer. And I was scanned in Phoenix and patted down in Charlotte. Never occurred me to have a problem with it.

Some planes are full, too. The red eye from Phoenix to Charlotte I flew in on last night apparently is full every night.

Can you give more detail on your pat down? What was it actually like?

 

[ccgirl]

I have flown in the PAST 24 HOURS and can't fathom why people are getting so upset about this. I will happily trade a little intrusion for being safer. And I was scanned in Phoenix and patted down in Charlotte. Never occurred me to have a problem with it.

Some planes are full, too. The red eye from Phoenix to Charlotte I flew in on last night apparently is full every night.

Honestly, I think it is because people don't know what to expect and are believing stories they heard of people that use words like "groping" and "invaded". Some people seem to think TSA are molesting children and getting off on the naked scans. Plus, they don't like the radiation the scans give. Even though it is equal to 3 minutes of a cross country flight.

I don't see the upset either. But....I guess that why there are two sides to an opinion?

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

And I think that the best question to be asked in this context is "How often do the respondents fly?"

I'm willing to bet that the more affluent the poll sample, the higher the rate of dissatisfaction will be, because the affluent are more likely to fly on a regular basis. People who never fly and don't have to worry about this ever affecting them personally are much more likely to be looking at it just on a "Do I think it might scare terrorists?" level and not thinking about whether or not it is an unreasonable (or even effective) search protocol.

I think it would be the opposite - typically affluence requires intelligence. And the smarter people are, the LESS likely they are to fall for "groping", "nudeoscopes" and all the other insanity that the people in tinfoil hats are screaming!

And yes, I flew this weekend and was patted down. It was fast and no hand lingered over any good parts! It was similar to being patted down at a concert or a football game.

 

[tar heel]

Pat down was no big deal at all. Did not touch any private parts and she was very professional.