TSA mess and the police

[JLTraveling]

I agree, but think a poll would mean more if it also had one of the answers mention if the person actually actively flies at this time (not just planning a trip in a year, or had one in the past, or thinking of one or has flown in the past and already had no plans to fly and is outraged.). I say that, because we cruise (and fly) often, and so many times people give me all the reasons they would never cruise, and yet, well, they have never cruised. One person told me yesterday she didn't know how we could still fly, because with the new rules, she wouldn't. I asked when she flew last, mentioned it was a pain to get there so early, etc, and then I found she has never flown..just the thought of getting on a plane frightens her.So the new rules wouldn't affect her anyway.

Even the "actively flies" question can be misleading though. I travel 100% of the time. I live in an RV, and frequently store it to travel by other methods... train, ship and, until now, airplane. But I wouldn't qualify as a frequent flyer, because it is (was) only one of the many methods I employ(ed). But over the course of a year, that still adds up to a fair number of flights that I will no longer take.

Since I travel constantly anyway, but set my own schedule, I don't *have* to fly. It doesn't matter to me how long it takes to get somewhere. So it's easy enough for me to draw the line and refuse to fly. Unfortunately, many people don't have that luxury.

 

[diznygirl]

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.

This post makes no sense whatsoever.




How does being okay with walking through the Nakey Scanner = being afraid to be a soldier?

The incredible leap of extremism is such impossible to follow.....



I'd rather do the scanner than the pat-down - I don't want a stranger touching me. It's also quicker. I guess that makes me "paralyzed with fear" and embracing "the thin apron they believe is shielding them from the real world and they embrace any promise of protection without question."

So, I guess - hand me the apron - Amen sister!

 

[kaytieeldr]

However, just so you realise that terrorists can and will use all means possible to achieve their ends. Not all fanatics are young fit and able to stand on one leg, so if you do get 'pulled' remember that wheelchairs and artificial limbs can conceal a great many things

Oh, and re the dogs. Please remember that not only are sniffer dogs (and handlers) VERY expensive to train, but they can only work in short-ish 'bursts' so for a large airport you'd be talking a terrific number of dogs and handlers ( and successful dogs and handlers then become targets too)

Oh, I know!

I get these threads confused, so if I've described my experiences in this thread already, forgive me. I can walk, but with a cane, but in the airport I do use a wheelchair due to the distances.

Usually I do walk through whatever machine is being used. Sometimes I limp through (irritating the TSO); sometimes an agent will take my hand from the other side to assist me; once I was given a clear acrylic cane to use while my wood one went through the x-ray machine.

Sometimes - usually one particular airport - I stay in the wheelchair (no option given) and go directly to the pat-down room. I wait for a female TSA Agent - no option given for a male Agent, even though I can see several I wouldn't mind having pat me down . I don't ask because I know they use Agents the same sex as the passenger to avoid as much discomfort as possible. Every time so far, the Agent has explained to me what she is going to do before she does it - where she's going to touch and what I need to do.

Your mileage may vary. Heck, MY mileage may vary next time, but I'm prepared.

 

[ford family]

Arrived back in the UK this morning.
Left from Sarasota/Bradenton yesterday. TSA process much the same as the last time we left in May. None of us, all adults, set off anything. Didn't see any other scanners. TSA staff were professional and friendly. Flight to Atlanta was full.
Atlanta was very busy as usual. No additional security process here when leaving the US. Flight to London was only half full.
Returning in January, will see if it changes at all.

ford family

 

[OceanAnnie]

Yes, it is a great option. Thanks for understanding!

For the record, after being on these boards for 10+ years, I have a pretty good idea that there are certain people who argue, belittle, fight just for the fun of it. I find no pleasure or benefit to reading such garbage.

I agree.

I do enjoy reading different perspectives. I "try" to skim over the insensitive wording to get to some substance. But by then, the poster has already diminished his/her point, to me. If a person has to resort to that stuff, it makes their argument weak.

 

[emh1129]

IMO, The object of the terrorists isn't in the delivery so much as it is destroying Americans and our way of life.

The security measures create another problem, throngs of people waiting in line to get through security at the airport. That is a prime opportunity for an attack. The same terrorist objectives would apply. Destroy a large number of Americans and tie it to American industry. It would still be a "2 for 1" hit.

It doesn't have the same imagery as an exploding plane, but the impact would be just as damaging.

True.
And if they still wanted to target airplanes, there are still plenty of ways they could do it. That's why I feel like so much of this is just security theatre, as some are calling it.
Oh, he tried to put something in his shoe? Let's check shoes.
He tried to put something in his underwear? Let's see everyone naked to make sure there's nothing in their underwear. Always one step behind. We have to make it look like we learned from our lessons, you know.

TSA has confirmed that none of the scanners will pick up anything in a body cavity. So of course if a terrorist wanted to proceed, he's not going the underwear route now.. he'll just hide it in a body cavity. Simple enough if he/she is really determined.
There's no way (yet) to detect that. Again, one step behind.. if/when someone tries that, it will be interesting to see what the next security measure will be.
Not even to mention the whole cargo issue. So even if we are good little boys and girls and agree to the whole touch-me-wherever-you-please and scanners because, you know, we should all be willing to do anything-- it's for safety!! --- But it's just false security.

So, in the end, (no pun intended ) we're giving up quite a bit of privacy for not a whole lot of security.

 

[OceanAnnie]

True.
And if they still wanted to target airplanes, there are still plenty of ways they could do it. That's why I feel like so much of this is just security theatre, as some are calling it.
Oh, he tried to put something in his shoe? Let's check shoes.
He tried to put something in his underwear? Let's see everyone naked to make sure there's nothing in their underwear. Always one step behind. We have to make it look like we learned from our lessons, you know.

TSA has confirmed that none of the scanners will pick up anything in a body cavity. So of course if a terrorist wanted to proceed, he's not going the underwear route now.. he'll just hide it in a body cavity. Simple enough if he/she is really determined.
There's no way (yet) to detect that. Again, one step behind.. if/when someone tries that, it will be interesting to see what the next security measure will be.
Not even to mention the whole cargo issue. So even if we are good little boys and girls and agree to the whole touch-me-wherever-you-please and scanners because, you know, we should all be willing to do anything-- it's for safety!! --- But it's just false security.

So, in the end, (no pun intended ) we're giving up quite a bit of privacy for not a whole lot of security.

Right.

 

[Muushka]

I agree.

I do enjoy reading different perspectives. I "try" to skim over the insensitive wording to get to some substance. But by then, the poster has already diminished his/her point, to me. If a person has to resort to that stuff, it makes their argument weak.

Annie, you are a better girl than I am! Well, more patient at least!

 

[OceanAnnie]

Annie, you are a better girl than I am! Well, more patient at least!

Not in the least. You are tops in my book!

 

[anna_chronistic]

So you'd trust a DOG's judgment, but not a human's.


Fascinating.

Where does a human's "judgment" come into play here? A dog would not be using his "judgment" after weighing all it knows about the person in question -- it would simply be using its trained sense of smell. The TSA agents are not, as far as I can see, using their judgment. They are just following procedures. Procedures that I happen to believe are inefficient, ineffective security theater that do not keep us safer.

It isn't always the TSA agents who decide who to scan or pat down. It's totally random. How does that equate to using judgment or reason? Eventually everyone will be required to be scanned or patted down. How is that a good judgment call when there are other, less invasive and more effective methods (many alternatives of which have been listed on the thread)?

 

[Jennasis]

Where does a human's "judgment" come into play here? A dog would not be using his "judgment" after weighing all it knows about the person in question -- it would simply be using its trained sense of smell. The TSA agents are not, as far as I can see, using their judgment. They are just following procedures. Procedures that I happen to believe are inefficient, ineffective security theater that do not keep us safer.

It isn't always the TSA agents who decide who to scan or pat down. It's totally random. How does that equate to using judgment or reason? Eventually everyone will be required to be scanned or patted down. How is that a good judgment call when there are other, less invasive and more effective methods (many alternatives of which have been listed on the thread)?

But this is what I am saying!

As people (and myself) have pointed out, the dogs are INCREDIBLY expensive (and time-consuming to train). The burden on the "system" and the burden on the ticket buying public would likely be too much. Since we can't afford a dog's judgment, we are stuck with using human judgment/profilers etc.

And as some have pointed out...they WOULD submit to an enhanced search if they had set off some kind of red flag. So it isn't the search itself that the OP objects to. It's the fact that it's random and anyone or everyone could be searched.

So, since we aren't willing or able to pony up the dough for a more enhanced "red-flag-finder", then EVERYONE gets searched or scanned.

Am I close?

And again...it is NOT a case of "Since I don't care, nobody should." I'm saying "I DON'T CARE, but I understand those who do. What else can be done?"

 

[Sorsha]

The quoted section, the part about [obviously] being "scared out of my mind" to face what our troops do. That completely lost me.

I'm with Jennasis. I DON'T CARE what the TSA requires me to do before allowing me to board a flight. I really don't. If they expect me to stand on one leg, well, that's discriminatory because I'm disabled. If they want me to strip down to my underwear in a relatively private location? I DON'T CARE. I'm not modest, and there's WAY too much of me for anyone to be excited by the sight of me in my (clean) Walmart-purchased foundation garments.

They don't have to do any of this, you understand. I'm completely safe. I'm the last person anyone would expect to have nefarious intent. All you need to do is look at me. Trust me.

Yep, that's where I am coming from too. I just plain don't care. And I am way too old to get excited by the TSA officer running a hand under "the girls" - big deal - while you are under there, you wanna adjust that underwire that's poking me in the armpit? Thanks, that's much better.

And as far as my children are concerned, I feel I would be doing them a disservice if I didn't teach them how to distinguish between potentially harmful touching and fact-of-life touching. I don't want my daughters to turn into neurotic screaming witch-hunt adults who freak out and scream abuse everytime someone looks at them crosseyed. Yes, of course I want them to know how to protect themselves if they are in real danger, but its a fact of life that a certain amount of touching is to be expected in normal everyday life. They are in gymnastics, they have coaches and spotters, sometimes those coaches and spotters may touch their little bums or brush a hand over the sides of their breasts as they help catch them - this is normal, I don't want them to freak out. They have to see doctors, I don't want them to be terribly uncomfortable and scared. If they get an innocent hug from a teacher or a coach or a family friend I don't want them to lay in bed wracked with fear and guilt. And most of all, if we go to a game or a concert or - heaven forbid take a flight - we are going to get patted down - I do not want them to freak out. These things are all a part of life and it is my job as a parent to help normalize these things for my kids. I refuse to make my children afraid of every adult they come in contact with, that is doing them a disservice and making them unnecessarily fearful - JMHO.

 

[kaytieeldr]

These seem to be the arguments in favor of it:
. The government wouldn't enact something it thought was ineffective. I don't care whether it's effective or not; it's in place and if I want to fly, I'm required to be scanned/get patted down. I agree to these procedures because I want to travel across the country and I don't want to take three+ days in each direction to do it.
. It will keep us safer. See above
. It doesn't bother me so it shouldn't bother you, and if it does bother you, you are being ridiculous. It doesn't bother me, and I'm all that matters to me; if you don't agree, don't fly or take other actions than simply complaining on Internet forums. Venting here is nice, but it doesn't get changes made.
. Flying is a privilege anyway, so if you don't like it, don't fly. Respectfully, yes. Well, not a privilege, but not the "right" that people claim when they cite the Constitution - or, really, the Bill of Rights.
. The radiation won't hurt you. I believe this. I believe the head of radiology at Mass General over some scientists at a California university. I also know something is going to kill me; if these two shots of skin-deep radiation do it, well, that's life
. Touching of personal areas by a trained professional is nothing to get worked up over. Again, I've had multiple TSA pat-downs. My next one/s, if necessary, will apparently be with the front of the hand vs. the back, and a tad more invasive. It's not sexual unless you buy into the hype.
. Who cares if they take a scan of my whole body? Again, not I. It's that whole realist thing.
Am I missing an argument on the "pro" side? Does anyone else see a problem with that list?

The con side has listed exhaustively the reasons these procedures are likely ineffective, possibly harmful, unproven to work, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

But when you use words such as "likely" and "possibly" - well, sometimes MILK is bad for us; sometimes the sun is bad, sometimes it's good. ANYTHING might be safe or unsafe. The 'cons', using your term, are working on even fewer facts than the 'pros'. "Unproven to work"? It's entirely reasonable that you can't 'prove' a process or procedure will work - until it does.

I take a medication for a chronic condition. My doctor wasn't sure that particular medication would work. We TRIED it. We actually overlapped it with a different medication that worked for eighteen years (see - chronic ). We weren't sure it would work. Now I'm back to one medication, the new one. It works. But we couldn't know until we tried it.

 

[WDWMom]

I have read most of what is on this thread yesterday. After talking to DH, I was wondering. What if you want a person of the opposite sex to pat you down? Playing Devil's Advocate - what if a mom is uncomfortable with a man patting down her 11 year old. SHe thinks it safer to have a woman (you know the whole molester thing). Or the homophob who doesn't what a person of the same sex touching them? This is not my family mind you. My boys are 14 and 15 and I think they are old enough to understand what is going on and is professional (I'm using that term losely). And for me, I don't care if it is a man or woman, I'm good with either. Now DH said he would prefer if some one is going to touch his "junk" he prefer a woman. LOL I told him whatever?

So, can you have the option of the opposite sex patting you down?

 

[DMRick]

Actually, I didn't mean actively fly to be the same as frequent. I meant if someone hasn't flown in several years and has no plans to fly, then honestly, their opinion of how this would affect them, doesn't mean much to me.

You are correct, that some people, unlike yourself, have less choice about having to fly, and their view would actually mean more to me.

I am interested to see, as time goes on, how many people who have said they would no longer fly, will change their minds as they are reminded how long it takes to go from point A to B traveling by other means. I remember people saying they would no longer fly because they had to be at the airport so early before a flight, and they are back flying again. Most don't have the luxery of taking days to get somewhere.

Even the "actively flies" question can be misleading though. I travel 100% of the time. I live in an RV, and frequently store it to travel by other methods... train, ship and, until now, airplane. But I wouldn't qualify as a frequent flyer, because it is (was) only one of the many methods I employ(ed). But over the course of a year, that still adds up to a fair number of flights that I will no longer take.

Since I travel constantly anyway, but set my own schedule, I don't *have* to fly. It doesn't matter to me how long it takes to get somewhere. So it's easy enough for me to draw the line and refuse to fly. Unfortunately, many people don't have that luxury.

 

[Ana~n~Joseph]

Sorry to hijack this thread but does anyone know how this works with infants/toddlers? I have a 14 month old and will be traveling next week - will he get a pat down since he can't go through the scanner (he can't stand still for more than a second). I just want to be prepared. Thanks.

 

[ccgirl]

Yep, that's where I am coming from too. I just plain don't care. And I am way too old to get excited by the TSA officer running a hand under "the girls" - big deal - while you are under there, you wanna adjust that underwire that's poking me in the armpit? Thanks, that's much better.

And as far as my children are concerned, I feel I would be doing them a disservice if I didn't teach them how to distinguish between potentially harmful touching and fact-of-life touching. I don't want my daughters to turn into neurotic screaming witch-hunt adults who freak out and scream abuse everytime someone looks at them crosseyed. Yes, of course I want them to know how to protect themselves if they are in real danger, but its a fact of life that a certain amount of touching is to be expected in normal everyday life. They are in gymnastics, they have coaches and spotters, sometimes those coaches and spotters may touch their little bums or brush a hand over the sides of their breasts as they help catch them - this is normal, I don't want them to freak out. They have to see doctors, I don't want them to be terribly uncomfortable and scared. If they get an innocent hug from a teacher or a coach or a family friend I don't want them to lay in bed wracked with fear and guilt. And most of all, if we go to a game or a concert or - heaven forbid take a flight - we are going to get patted down - I do not want them to freak out. These things are all a part of life and it is my job as a parent to help normalize these things for my kids. I refuse to make my children afraid of every adult they come in contact with, that is doing them a disservice and making them unnecessarily fearful - JMHO.

LOVE this thread! This is exactly how I feel. You put it so much better tahn I could. Thanks.

 

[anna_chronistic]

But when you use words such as "likely" and "possibly" - well, sometimes MILK is bad for us; sometimes the sun is bad, sometimes it's good. ANYTHING might be safe or unsafe. The 'cons', using your term, are working on even fewer facts than the 'pros'. "Unproven to work"? It's entirely reasonable that you can't 'prove' a process or procedure will work - until it does.

I take a medication for a chronic condition. My doctor wasn't sure that particular medication would work. We TRIED it. We actually overlapped it with a different medication that worked for eighteen years (see - chronic ). We weren't sure it would work. Now I'm back to one medication, the new one. It works. But we couldn't know until we tried it.

I see my desire not to offend/write too strongly made it seem as if I'm uncertain that these new procedures are harmful. Let me restate:

The con side has listed exhaustively the reasons these procedures are ineffective, harmful, unproven, etc. etc. ad nauseum. We've also noted ways around it -- ostomy bags, etc.

There we go! I do believe it is harmful to many people.

Agreed, flying is not a right, nor is driving, but then we get into (ugh, I hate repeating this phrase, but it's apt) the slippery slope. Is riding a bus a right? Riding a bicycle? Walking? Using the train? Some of them have specific requirements: a license, showing some form of ID, simply having the money to ride, etc. None of them are listed as "rights" in our founding documents, so does that mean they can be taken away if you refuse to abide by increasingly invasive "vetting" procedures?

If I'm driving and am stopped, the police officer has to have just cause to search my vehicle or my person. The fact that I'm driving -- or want to drive -- is not just cause in itself. The fact that OTHER people have used cars to crash into buildings, to run over people, to get away from crime scenes, etc., are not just cause to search ME. There are other ways to check me out that don't require touching me or seeing a scan of me.

I think I'm simply not explaining myself clearly. Anyone wanna help me out?

 

[anna_chronistic]

Blast. Typo. "too strongly," not "to strongly." The edit button disappeared on me...

 

[WDWMom]

Another question I have, do we know if the body scans can see what is in our body cavities? SOme here are wondering how far is to far and wondering about the body cavity checks being next. Body scan = no searching cavities??? I realize this doesn't help the person not wanting the body scan done.