TSA mess and the police

[olwyngdh]

I hadn't seen it before.

The quote stood out to me as, "wrong".

"A Career Where X-Ray Vision and Federal Benefits Come Standard,"

X-Ray Vision touted as a benefit to the job doesn't come across as, "sensitive" to those that have to endure it. YMMV.

It is a retelling of an old story, at least last July. Google gives the date as Jul 14, 2010
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/07/tsa_using_pizza_boxes_to_recru.html

At that time, they weren't using the full body scanners, just the xray the luggage and stuff ones. The whole thing makes me think of those glasses they advertised in the back of comic books when I was a kid.

 

[OceanAnnie]

It is a retelling of an old story, at least last July. Google gives the date as Jul 14, 2010
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/07/tsa_using_pizza_boxes_to_recru.html

At that time, they weren't using the full body scanners, just the xray the luggage and stuff ones. The whole thing makes me think of those glasses they advertised in the back of comic books when I was a kid.

TSA officials knew the body scanners were coming. Insensitive, to me.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I glanced at the article again. It doesn't state it's a re-telling. Maybe the old ad campaign is being reused, currently. I don't know.

 

[skater]

Invasive and invasive? There's a difference? I have trouble trusting the content of any news report where the writing is inaccurate.

Not directed at the person who posted the article/link in ANY way, but specifically at the article, its writing and its content.

I didn't read the article, but I don't think one typo means the whole content is wrong. Not necessarily anyway. It might give me cause to look at an article more carefully, but not totally distrust it.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Seriously.
We're not talking about discussion on an internet forum, i.e. informal 'writing' which, tecnically, could be equated to casual conversation.
This isn't even somebody, as you claim, accidentally repeating a word. This is a so-called reporter who used the identical word twice while - apparently - intending to use two different words.
If the reporter can't take the time to reread the article before submitting it, and the editor at the Daily 49er can't be bothered to proofread it, why should I be expected to trust that the content is accurate?

I've read errors in nearly every single published work I've ever come across. As long as the person gets their point across I am personally able to tolerate redundancies and mistakes. My I-Pad causes an unreasonable amount of errors because it presumes to know what I want to say and changes the words I want into ones it is familiar with, never mind the pain in the neck capitalizations, what an annoying goof. If a computer can make mistakes people can make mistakes. I know this sort of stuff bothers some people but I don't think you can find a single publication devoid of any errors or a single editor that would stake their reputation on the work being mistake free.

Some people care about the gift and others focus on the wrap, I'm more of a gift person myself.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I glanced at the article again. It doesn't state it's a re-telling. Maybe the old ad campaign is being reused, currently. I don't know.

Or maybe somebody's recycling old news and not crediting the original source. NOT you, but whoever wrote the new article you just linked. But, yes, this recruiting campaign was first announced back in July.

 

[skater]

OT, but I would be interested in hearing the comments from anybody who has read Tom Clancy's novels.

Yes novels, but he published a story based on a passenger plane being driven into a joint sitting of Congress in the mid 90's as a suicide attempt - but in this one the baddie was Japanese.

Similarly he published in the mid 2000's (Tail of the Tiger??) a novel based on a group of terrorists using unregistered fully automatic weapons to go mad in a set of shopping centres. In my view that is far more of a risk as nobody checks the gym bags of shoppers in the malls and while from other threads there are many posters with concealed carry permits, are the non-law enforcement people in a position with skills & determination to go against a group of terrorists with AK47s?

Do you think Mall Cops have the goods either? What is the point of submitting to groin pats by TSA when some lunatics adopting a plan published several years ago can cause devastation beyond that of a commercial aircraft if they were to attack at the busiest time of the year?

Back to regularly scheduled debates...

I agree. I'm not really sure why shopping malls haven't been hit yet. Is our intelligence that good? Are there not really that many terrorists waiting to blow us up? Is it just a matter of time? Who knows?

I don't desire total safety because there are too many freedoms I'd have to give up. Of course, I want a reasonable amount of security at airports - I just think the new procedures are unreasonable. And my desire for freedom from unreasonable searches is more than my desire for freedom.

I guess we all define unreasonable search differently and who knows how the courts will decide? I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of constitutional law - my knowledge is admittedly limited and I'm learning all the time .

 

[kaytieeldr]

I didn't read the article, but I don't think one typo means the whole content is wrong. Not necessarily anyway. It might give me cause to look at an article more carefully, but not totally distrust it.

"...invasive and invasive..." isn't a typo, it's careless. If nobody cares to get the words right, please explain why I should believe the content is trustworthy.

 

[C.Ann]

C.Ann..Great news for your sister. It looks like neither Sanford or Albany are using the new scanners. Your sister may still be able to make the trip and just go through the regular scanners like we all did before. Hope this helps.

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/2010-11-18-airports-with-scanners_N.htm

Thanks, but I don't think it would work.. She would have to leave from Orlando (don't know what the scanner situation is there) and am I correct in assuming that in both Orlando and Albany she would still be in a position of being randomly selected for the pat down? If so, it's out of the question..

I also can't remember the "regular" scanners in Albany.. Does it require a person to be able to stand? If so, that's not possible either - unless they allow people to go through in a wheelchair.. Her health has really deteriorated - even more so than when I first mentioned her on this thread(due to reasons I won't discuss here) - so there are multiple complications now..

Thanks for taking the time to look though..

 

[skater]

I found this part of the post you quoted very interesting. I wonder if the TSA has insurance, so we don't end up having to pay to defend these lawsuits:

Although the lawsuits have publicized the privacy concerns associated with the screening techniques, some professors at the Law School have expressed doubts that the TSA's new system could actually be declared unconstitutional.
"I'm glad that our students are learning how to be lawyers, but I wouldn't bet on their winning this lawsuit," Prof. Mark Tushnet said in an e-mail to the Harvard Law Record. "It might survive a motion to dismiss, but once the TSA puts forward something about the technology and the threats it's dealing with, the lawsuit's chances will drop precipitously."

****************

Someone up thread asked about lawsuits. Interesting reading:

Harvard Law Students Sue TSA
Federal suit claims "nude body scanners" and enhanced pat-downs are unconstitutional

By Jenny Paul and Joey Seiler

Published: Wednesday, December 1, 2010

..."The lawsuit claims the mandatory screening techniques violate the students' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the use of either screening method without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and a declaratory judgment stating that mandatory screening using these techniques is unconstitutional where probable cause or reasonable suspicion do not exist."...

Ouch! We probably will have to pay for that!

 

[skater]

TSA does not perform psychological evaluations on officers, should they?


..."If TSA officers want to be given authority similar to exercise discretion like police officers can, they should also face the same screening process we use for police. Nearly every police jurisdiction requires officer applicants to undergo psychological screening."...

..."invasive searches are forbidden even for soldiers in Afghanistan searching citizens there, unprotected by the presumptions granted Americans in the US Constitution. TSA officials are not above the law, and they should not have full discretion to decide when they can violate American’s constitutional rights. Writes a US Army staff sergeant at The Atlantic:

"At no time were we permitted or even encouraged to search children or women. In fact, this would have been considered an extreme violation of acceptable cultural practice and given the way word travels here, been a propaganda victory for the Taliban."...


http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...m-psychological-evaluations-officers-should-t

Nice. Lets tie the hands of our soldiers, but give tsa free rein (or at least more power than a soldier - who most definately faces danger every day from men, women and children).

 

[C.Ann]

"...invasive and invasive..." isn't a typo, it's careless. If nobody cares to get the words right, please explain why I should believe the content is trustworthy.

It happens every day - in newspapers across the country; in magazines; in text books; etc.. If the entire content is deemed "not trustworthy" based on just one word, maybe everyone should stop reading - adults; teachers; students; professionals; etc., because it's been happening for umpteen years - and will continue to happen - on a regular basis - regardless of the "why's"..

 

[skater]

"...invasive and invasive..." isn't a typo, it's careless. If nobody cares to get the words right, please explain why I should believe the content is trustworthy.

Only you can decide that . The trick (for you and all of us) would be to apply that same logic to articles that agree with your point of view.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Okay - went through the scanners again yesterday in ORD. No horror stories. No outrage in evidence. Very quick process - took maybe 10 seconds longer than the old process.

 

[skater]

Okay - went through the scanners again yesterday in ORD. No horror stories. No outrage in evidence. Very quick process - took maybe 10 seconds longer than the old process.

I'm assuming you went through the new scanners? I'm thinking there's no horror stories for you because you don't mind the "naked" picture thing and you are comfortable that what we're being told about the radiation amount is true (it might be - I'm still deciding and trying to learn ).

My point is that for some who are willing to go along and don't mind the privacy issue of the scanner picture - its not a big deal. For others, its huge.

It seems that the horror stories are coming from the people who choose or are "forced" to have the enhanced pat down.

 

[DMRick]

Sanford is very near Orlando. It's name is Sanford Orlando International. Many people coming to Disney come in there. It may be a bit out of her way, but Orlando has had the ability to do the extra scanners for some time, so she prob wouldn't have wanted to fly that way even before the official roll out.

So far the pat downs at Albany haven't been much different from the past from what people are saying. If she couldn't have done the pat downs in the past, then that won't help. I though they were pretty thorough in the past.

You would need to call them to see if things are any different now with the wheelchairs.

If not, maybe your brother and her could do a road trip. Heck, with the amount of time you have to be at the airport in advance now, taking a chance of snow this time of year and the possibility of a longer wait, and the stress of being afraid there would be a pat down, it might even be a pleasure for her (and your brother, who could also see your mom). Maybe you could start hinting!

Thanks, but I don't think it would work.. She would have to leave from Orlando (don't know what the scanner situation is there) and am I correct in assuming that in both Orlando and Albany she would still be in a position of being randomly selected for the pat down? If so, it's out of the question..

I also can't remember the "regular" scanners in Albany.. Does it require a person to be able to stand? If so, that's not possible either - unless they allow people to go through in a wheelchair.. Her health has really deteriorated - even more so than when I first mentioned her on this thread(due to reasons I won't discuss here) - so there are multiple complications now..

Thanks for taking the time to look though..

 

[olwyngdh]

Nice. Lets tie the hands of our soldiers, but give tsa free rein (or at least more power than a soldier - who most definately faces danger every day from men, women and children).

And that soldier is probably in a lot of trouble for violating operational security. At least I hope so. Soldiers may well die because of his careless words. Things like who is searched and how are not to be publicized for very good reasons.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I'm assuming you went through the new scanners?

Yes - ORD uses the new scanners

I'm thinking there's no horror stories for you because you don't mind the "naked" picture thing and you are comfortable that what we're being told about the radiation amount is true...

No - I mean no horror stories anywhere in the airport. No mayhem, no arguments, nothing but pleasant passengers and pleasant TSA agents moving people through security checkpoints and on to their destinations.

I have been through this a few times now and I believe that the internet fervor is not supported by evidence in the airports. Travelers just don't care. For every horror story, there are thousands upon thousands of satisfied customers going about their business.

 

[C.Ann]

Okay - went through the scanners again yesterday in ORD. No horror stories. No outrage in evidence. Very quick process - took maybe 10 seconds longer than the old process.

Yes - ORD uses the new scanners

No - I mean no horror stories anywhere in the airport. No mayhem, no arguments, nothing but pleasant passengers and pleasant TSA agents moving people through security checkpoints and on to their destinations.

I have been through this a few times now and I believe that the internet fervor is not supported by evidence in the airports. Travelers just don't care. For every horror story, there are thousands upon thousands of satisfied customers going about their business.

Glad to hear everything went smoothly for you.. I personally have no issues with the scanners at all - zip.. I haven't even bothered to read what problems they "might" cause because quite frankly, I'm too darn old to worry about radiation anyhow..LOL..

However, I will not subject myself to being randomly selected for a pat down.. Maybe if they make some changes, I "might" reconsider at a later date..

 

[ccgirl]

I'm assuming you went through the new scanners? I'm thinking there's no horror stories for you because you don't mind the "naked" picture thing and you are comfortable that what we're being told about the radiation amount is true (it might be - I'm still deciding and trying to learn ).

My point is that for some who are willing to go along and don't mind the privacy issue of the scanner picture - its not a big deal. For others, its huge.

It seems that the horror stories are coming from the people who choose or are "forced" to have the enhanced pat down.

Nobody is "forced" to do anything. If you do not like the full body scanners, and that is in use at the airport, you will receive the new pat down. If you do not want either - you do not fly.