TSA mess and the police

[bicker]

... that the advocates for big brother don't want you to know ...

This is a great example of the kind of meritless, sensationalistic rhetoric, that adds nothing to the discussion, but serves instead only to derail the discussion and pervert it into the passing back and forth of irrelevant hostility.

Much as I hate to agree with you, you're absolutely right.

I'm glad we're able to agree on something.

The populace as a whole has given up personal responsibility in favor of blaming the government for everything. Some of us believe that it's time to take back that responsibility. Some don't. We'll see who ultimately prevails.

It's all or nothing. You cannot expect to live a charmed life, walking through it as one of the special ones, avoiding the ramifications of the fact that the other people are out there, and that there are far more of them than there are of you. So what you're advocating in this thread can only prevail on the merits after you manage to uplift the vast majority of others to your enlightened state.

Don't know what industry you were in, and those numbers could be right.

I was a manager at Big Six firm Peat Marwick.

But I do know that I was taught in the customer service industry that for every one who complains, there are 100 that don't.

So basically that means 1 complainer = 100 people disappointed = 1600 people satisfied. On average, of course. There are genuine cases where something is wrong. This simply isn't one of them. You probably disagree, but the point is that referring to the number of complainers is pretty useless, because there is no way to know how many satisfied people there are, since they don't post, and more importantly, in this case, there is no way to know whether the complainers themselves are being honest. Many of them are probably thinking that if they whine loud enough they can get the agency to abandon its reasonable decision and instead kowtow to their whining. And this is really the context of my whole point: People are trying to pervert the process, because they don't like the end-result of the process. It is no different from losing a competitive bid on a contract, and then insisting that the project pay you anyway.

I was also taught that someone who has a positive experience tells, on average, two people. Someone who has a negative experience tells, on average, seven. So if the TSA is hoping to rely on positive word of mouth to back up its case, it is sorely mistaken.

The TSA isn't in the business of selling its policies. That would be a gross example of irresponsible expenditure of public funds. They're in the business of fulfilling the objectives and obligations that our society has placed on them and on the government.

However, your point is important, because it underscores the mechanism that complainers are trying to use to pervert the system: Again, they figure that they can incite other people to try to apply more pressure to switch from a policy that was based on reasonable decision-making to a policy that would, then, be based on mob mentality.

 

[bicker]

You can toss around your snarky little remarks all you like, but it doesn't make you right.

It's not snark. I'm discussing issues on the merits. The merits make what I'm saying correct.

And this may come as a shock, but just because YOU think something is so does not MAKE it so.

Yet you think that because you think it does. That's ridiculous. Stop with the silliness and let's discuss things on the merits, instead of discussing the discussion.

If, as you point out, priests and doctors have been convicted of molesting/harming people, why on earth would I trust the TSA to grope me or my child?

First, you missed the point: No reasonable society abandons doing something (religion, and health care, in those cases) because of anecdotal problems. They don't, as you're trying to do, throw the baby out with the bathwater, saying, essentially, that because there could be anecdotal problems with it then we shouldn't do it at all. The reasonable approach that societies take is that if problems are foreseen, then society puts in place mechanisms to protect against, and to react quickly in case of, those problems.

There was a car accident down the block yesterday morning. Are you, EMom, now going to abandon driving, because of that? If you say that you won't, then you're being hypocritical.

Indeed, this is the very time to question the actions of our government.

Wrong. The time to do that was last month. And two years ago. And four years ago. Your presumption that you get to micro-manage the government is ridiculous. Go back, please, and read my comments about why we have a representative government rather than a direct democracy. If someone has failed to be responsible in their participation in the process for determining the principles by which our society is run, in the past, that's on them.

As far as my family being low risk is concerned......Sometimes is IS that easy to rule someone OUT as a terrorist. It truly is. It's not simplistic....It's simple. Yes, it's that easy.

That is completely out-of-touch with reality. You don't have some shining light surrounding you that sets you apart from everyone else. Everyone looks the same until the security screening is done. And resisting security screenings will make me suspect you more than I would others. So perhaps is can be made simple, but in that context, you'd look like the danger.

I don't feel secure. I feel violated.

And you're expecting that society will placate your personal feelings, instead of doing what's best for society overall. That's unreasonable.

I'm sorry, but that's just funny. So if you agree with me, then it IS common sense, but if you don't, it is NOT common sense? Was that serious or an attempt at humor....or merely nonsense?

What's nonsense is your assertion that what you believe is common sense. That was the point that you missed. It isn't common sense. It is your personal sense. Stop calling is common sense. People disagree with you, so you're essentially projecting falsehood when you call it common sense.

 

[bicker]

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.

Nice try at perverting what I wrote.

Go back and read the message that I replied to. EMom claimed that HER opinion was common sense.

Go back now and check. You'll see.

She was wrong. Her opinion is her opinion. Many of us disagree with it. So it is NOT common sense.

The fact that you agree with her doesn't make it common sense either. You share an opinion with her. That's all.

Thinking that your own opinion is common sense leads to the kind of blindness to the concerns and considerations of others that is rampant in our entitlement-mentality afflicted society.

Be clear: You live in a society with others. Something isn't common sense because you like it. Common sense is only those things that practically all of us agree about. If there is significant disagreement, then deal with it, and stop avoiding it by trying to dismiss those things you disagree with by thinking your own perspective is common sense.

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.

MiniGirl - I never said there was common sense on this issue. Please refrain from corrupting what others write, in your attempt to write something against something you didn't like to read.

 

[bicker]

I also liked minigirl's post and am wondering where people would draw the line. What would make it an "unreasonable search?"

I think it is important to look into means, motive, and opportunity. Means and opportunity are clear, so what's the motive? How does it benefit the TSA? When someone abuses authority (which is implicitly what you're accusing them of), there is a gain they derive. What's the gain here? Who's getting it? Be clear about what you're accusing them of.

Being that no one in this thread has been capable or willing to outline the full list of objectives and obligations of the TSA and the government that are applicable here, showing that we probably don't even know all the considerations that they factored into their decision-making process. So how can anyone here even pretend to claim that they know that some line has been crossed, missing that critical insight?

 

[bicker]

And would you still be happy if they had touched private areas? Because clearly, they can and are.

It amazes me how much the critics fixate on stuff like this. Some of them I think are just thinking about sex too much. This isn't sexual. It's security. I feel bad for the TSA agents who have to perform this task (in the same way I feel bad for physicians who have to perform a prostate exam), more than I feel bad for the passengers who aren't comfortable with it being done.

 

[Huggles]

It amazes me how much the critics fixate on stuff like this. Some of them I think are just thinking about sex too much. This isn't sexual. It's security. I feel bad for the TSA agents who have to perform this task (in the same way I feel bad for physicians who have to perform a prostate exam), more than I feel bad for the passengers who aren't comfortable with it being done.

I agree totally. These people aren't getting their 'jollies' ( as a previous poster termed it) they are doing a job. All those miriads of priests and doctors who have been sexually abusing kids didn't do it in front of a queue of people waiting to go through a scanner or retrieve their bags! Let me tell you from the point of view of a person who has done many personal searches in their line of work (not going into where or when) not everyone one has high hygiene standards and not everyone is as pleasant close up as you'd think. It is a JOB for pete's sake , not a hobby or an enjoyable past-time. They will do the search as quickly as possible as they don't want to linger any longer than is necessary for a thorough check.It is intended to be a deterrent and the measure of success is not necessarily the number of folk you find, but the number of folk you prevent from trying.

As for the person who stated that it was obvious they weren't the sort of family who might be involved ( or however they termed it) do you think a terrorist is going to go through dressed in such a way as to attract attention? Yes, some might adhere to their 'garb' or an alarm raising style of dress, but the idea is to keep out of the public eye. Think of smugglers ( of arms, drugs or anything else) do they want to attract attention or look like Mr and Mrs Average and all their little averages who are on their way to a family get together? Smugglers have been known to dress as, gasp, priests and nuns, musicians, academics and medics...you name it, they've tried it. Anyone wanting to do something illegal will attempt to look as innocuous as possible so they can slip under the radar.

My family laugh every time we travel by air as I always get stopped and searched.We've got to the stage where they put their stuff through before mine as they know they'll have time to get it back together whilst I'm being searched. I don't mind, I don't take it personally I just know they have a job to do. One time I (female) was searched by a female officer in a foreign country. The search involved the removal of outer garments down to underwear in a cubicle off the bag search area. I didn't protest and I was impressed by the way the officer performed the search despite language difficulties. I was going to compliment her and commend her to her senior officer, but my DH suggested that might seem a little odd! However I wish I had done it as she was a perfect example of how a search could be done efficiently and without offence.

Yes, you can have overbearing TSA searchers but similarly you can have Immigration officers, Police officers and Customs officers with a very bad manner. Doctors have been accused of having poor bedside manner too. Let's face it , if you work in public service then there will be someone complaining about you every day. Plus, I think if your job description involved searching sweaty, smelly bodies every day then you too might have an off moment now and again.

Ultimately the choice is yours, to fly or not to fly, but there are some wonderful sights to be seen in the world....aren't they worth just a moment's inconvenience if you want to experience them?

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

(Bolding in your post mine..)

Thank you for bringing this up again..

Right now TSA does NOT require people to expose or remove osotomy bags and such - NOR do the examine the contents of what are in these medical devices (that ANY terrorist can purchase and stick on their body with an adhesive - and people refuse to acknowledge that there currently is this huge gaping hole in their "so-called" safety..

However, they will expose themselves and their children to these new "safety" measures while the LARGEST safety measure is being totally ignored.. If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable..

]

If you are so concerned - why don't you write a letter to your representative and ask them to start checking medical devices?

 

[LuvOrlando]

must not be mean, must not be mean, must not be mean

I saw another nasty post and responded, then went back and saw so many of you giving me the high five for staying away that I felt bad and deleted this one too. sigh... thanks for the intervention

 

[skater]

The rules need to be consistent. After the failed attempt by the shoe bomber, all passengers must remove their shoes and place them in a bin to be run through the x-ray scanner. After the failed attempt by the underwear bomber, all passengers must remove their....

Sounds absurd?

Place me in the category of being against the invasive searches. One lady said that all they did was move the "girls" and that didn't bother her. Well, it would bother me. I am a modest lady who dresses in a very modest manner and I see no reason that my body needs to be touched by a stranger. I find it offensive that the government insists that I may have to submit to being intimately searched just because I purchased a ticket for a mode of quick transportation. They changed the rules AFTER I purchased my tickets. And if they agree to elevate one religion by exempting their women from search, they are going to have to do some explaining to this non-burka BAPTIST.

I think a lot of people will be watching to make sure they're not elevating one religion over another.

 

[skater]

I think it is important to look into means, motive, and opportunity. Means and opportunity are clear, so what's the motive? How does it benefit the TSA? When someone abuses authority (which is implicitly what you're accusing them of), there is a gain they derive. What's the gain here? Who's getting it? Be clear about what you're accusing them of.

Being that no one in this thread has been capable or willing to outline the full list of objectives and obligations of the TSA and the government that are applicable here, showing that we probably don't even know all the considerations that they factored into their decision-making process. So how can anyone here even pretend to claim that they know that some line has been crossed, missing that critical insight?

Sometimes the gain is simply power. I'm not saying there's a huge conspiracy - I'm just saying putting that much power in the hands of the "little guy" can sometimes lead to problems. You see it in the mall security guy who tells the nursing mother she has to stop (true story). Sure, the mall backtracked and apologized, but not before she was humiliated. Or another mall security story - the officer who made the woman leave with her service dog - "barking orders" at her the entire time. Again, they apologized, but the damage was done. The more power they have, the more chances for abuse. No, they can't seriously hurt me, but they can humiliate me and I have no recourse. Apparently, even if I feel humiliated and decide I'd rather not fly than have them do a pat down, its too late once I start the process. This is my opinion, but again, I feel this is an unreasonable search. I realize that this may not happen at all to me and my DD, but the concern is there and it has taken away the joy of flying for me.

 

[Muushka]

must not be mean, must not be mean, must not be mean

I saw another nasty post and responded, then went back and saw so many of you giving me the high five for staying away that I felt bad and deleted this one too. sigh... thanks for the intervention

There is a wonderful feature on these boards. It is the Ignore setting.
I just put someone in time-out ONCE AGAIN. Try it!

 

[LuvOrlando]

The weird thing about this thread is that the people who are pro new searches try to come off all tough but the truth is they are frightened out of their minds over the idea of being faced with what the men and women in the armed forces deal with every day. They are so paralyzed with this fear that they are attacking anyone and anything that threatens to tug away the thin apron they believe is shielding them from the real world and they embrace any promise of protection without question.

For a long time we were all terrified but now things seem to be changing. I know I've changed but I don't think I knew it until these new search methods were rolled out. Now with 2011 in front of me I'm just not afraid any more... at least not the way I was and it's a bit of a surprise. I think what's going on is there is a segment of the population who is now ready to stop running in retreat. Some seem ready to face the enemy head on and stand and fight if it ever came to that (on the street, in an airplane, wherever) and those who are still running at all costs are trying to drag the rest of us with them because they view us as a threat.

Here is how I see it. There are men and woman away at war fighting to protect me & mine and I think about that every day. The least I can do is make sure the US is the same place it was when they left when they get back. It's ok with me that lots of other people are still running in fear, I'm not trying to convince them, I'm not going to attack them or put them down but neither can I join them. The animals who hurt us all 9/11 have taken enough from me, they don't get my body and kids too.

 

[LuvOrlando]

There is a wonderful feature on these boards. It is the Ignore setting.
I just put someone in time-out ONCE AGAIN. Try it!

You totally just cracked me up, I really needed that. Thanks

 

[kaytieeldr]

Sometimes the gain is simply power. I'm not saying there's a huge conspiracy - I'm just saying putting that much power in the hands of the "little guy" can sometimes lead to problems. You see it in the mall security guy

But the TSA has always been able to do pat-downs. This isn't a matter of putting power in the hands of the little guy. I agree there've been some sensationalistic reports on the recent pat-downs, but there've been some reasonable reports right here on the DIS, experienced by posters with whom we're familiar.

I don't think it's reasonable to compare TSA Agents with mall security officers. I think the qualifications are different, the training is different, the oversight and supervision are different... the mall security incidents cited (not pasted here, see post 730) likely occurred with no other officers in the area, i.e. no supervision, and based on an obvious lack of training or caring regarding what's legally permitted.

 

[kaytieeldr]

There is a wonderful feature on these boards. It is the Ignore setting.
I just put someone in time-out ONCE AGAIN. Try it!

It is a great option, isn't it? Putting someone on ignore means missing out on some interesting conversation or points, and prevents one from participating in the full discussion It makes a lot of sense when someone's being obnoxious (as does the 'report' button), but little when they're being reasonable and simply don't agree with one's own point of view...

 

[JLTraveling]

I'm curious how many posters here are familiar with the Stanford Prison Experiment, and how familiarity with the experiment might color people's opinions (in either direction).

This is a detailed analysis of the experiment created by the psychologist in charge, Philip Zimbardo. The experiment took place in 1971, was planned to last for two weeks, but was halted after six days due to serious psychological complications in both the prisoners and the guards.

They recruited college students and paid them $15 a day to participate in a simulated prison environment. All the students were screened for psychological and physical disorders and prior criminal records. Everyone was healthy, mentally stable and "equal" as far as social class and stage of life. Half were randomly assigned as guards and half as prisoners. All signed detailed informed consent paperwork.

The "prisoners" were picked up at home by real city police officers--frisked and handcuffed outside, in front of the neighbors. On arrival at the "prison", they were strip searched and deloused, then confined to their cells. They were assigned numbers that they had to use instead of their names, issued prison clothing and rubber flip flops, and wore stocking caps to simulate having their heads shaved. They were allowed short periods in the exercise yard and permitted to use the bathroom down the hall, but were otherwise confined to the cell area.

The "guards" wore khaki uniforms and mirrored sunglasses. They carried billy clubs and whistles. Each guard worked an eight hour shift. There were limits on their behavior for safety's sake, but no real rules on how best to maintain law and order.

What followed was a horrific but realistic look at the effects of power and submission. It took less than a day for the prisoners to rebel and the guards to resort to force to maintain order. Arbitrary rules, humiliation and increasing intimidation became the norm, and the prisoners quickly submitted...even turning on each other in an effort to gain favor with the guards. The scariest part is that even the psychologist in charge got caught up in the experiment, attempting to move the prisoners to a real jail when rumors spread of an upcoming breakout attempt! He had become a prison superintendent rather than a researcher whose job was to document the unfolding experiment and keep everyone safe and healthy

It seems to me that both the TSA and the traveling public would do well to review the lessons of the Stanford Prison Experiment. The airport has become the prison, where the TSA has absolute authority and those who would question their methods can be detained, fined or even arrested. In turn, the traveling public is aware of this absolute authority and voluntarily submits to whatever measures the TSA deems "necessary." It's no wonder we've gotten to this point...it occurs anytime one group is given absolute control over another.

 

[kaytieeldr]

The weird thing about this thread is that the people who are pro new searches try to come off all tough but the truth is they are frightened out of their minds over the idea of being faced with what the men and women in the armed forces deal with every day.

 

[LuvOrlando]

:

Which part? What exactly is it you all ARE fighting for if not increased protections because you are terrified that you might end up face to face with a terrorist?

 

[Jennasis]

The weird thing about this thread is that the people who are pro new searches try to come off all tough but the truth is they are frightened out of their minds over the idea of being faced with what the men and women in the armed forces deal with every day. They are so paralyzed with this fear that they are attacking anyone and anything that threatens to tug away the thin apron they believe is shielding them from the real world and they embrace any promise of protection without question.

For a long time we were all terrified but now things seem to be changing. I know I've changed but I don't think I knew it until these new search methods were rolled out, Now with 2011 in front of me I'm just not afraid any more... at least not the way I was. I think what's going on is there is a segment of the population who is now ready to stop running in retreat. Some seem ready to face the enemy head on and stand and fight if it ever came to that and those who are still running at all costs are trying to drag the rest of us with them because they view us as a threat.

There are men and woman away at war fighting to protect me & mine and I think about that every day. The least I can do is make sure the US is the same place it was when they left when they get back. It's ok with me that lots of other people are still running in fear, I'm not trying to convince them, I'm not going to attack them or put them down but I'm also not going to join them. The animals who hurt us all 9/11 have taken enough from me, they don't get my body and kids too.

Yes...that must be it. You know, I AM terrified of flying, but not because of terrorists. I'm terrified of MECHANICAL FAILURE. Terrorists are just as likely to bomb the mall on black Friday as they are to blow up a plane.

I'm also NOT afraid of being "molested" by a TSA agent. I've already had the real deal, so being patted down in the presence of a thousand other travellers isn't going to do me in.

The point is...I'm not afraid. I don't care. Big difference.

I mentioned earlier (and seemed to be the ONLY one on the hysteria-laden thread to do so) a possible alternative. Unless I'm on ignore (and I may be, since my opinion isn't jiving with the thread "owner"), everyone seemed to just scootch on by my remark, so I'll give it another try.

1. Employ sniffer-dogs to ferret out hazardous material that might be capable of blowing up the aircraft.

2. Make it mandatory to have a uniformed and ARMED LEO on every flight. One in front and one in back. Any passenger displaying even a little aggressive behavior gets tazed without warning....or maybe they could just get a warning and then shot?

You like? Cause, I'm okay with all of that too.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I still think a poll would be a great layer on this thread. It's such a polarizing issue.

It would be interesting to see a landscape of where people stand, because there seems to be a lot of interest looking at the post hits. Many more post "hits" than posts.