TSA mess and the police

[kaytieeldr]

I'm having a hard time following your train of thought. In this country there is a line where touching becomes battery. If you think there is no such thing as this particular form of battery I don't know what to say to you on that. Right. ANY uninvited touch is, technically, battery. Stay out of the stores on Black Friday. Thousands of your fellow shoppers could be construed as committing battery on you and each other while attempting to beat out each other for the best bargains .

Careful with what you post, you could just have directed me to the particular paper and i could have found it myself. I don't mind doing a little work. I'd rather if everyone on both sides stayed point free. It's perfectly acceptable TO provide links, and it makes things a lot easier on thread participants. Now, granted, posting biased links won't help sway the opposition to one's "side", but since DIS management permits it, there's no reason not to offer this convenience.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you 'all for it' on here are from Canada anyway? The Montreal Gazette?

The link happens to be TO the Montreal Gazette, but it's the article FROM the San Mateo County Times, BY the original reporter Mike Rosenberg.

 

[WDWMom]

We just purchased (well used certificates from a previous bump so it cost us nothing) airline tickets last night. Price was right and even have $4.80 left

We told our boys 14 and 15 what the new procedures were. Asked if they thought they would be uncomfortable. Both said the were fine with it if it meant we didn't have to drive. Now DS15 has had an ultrsound done on his "boys" by a woman, so I think it would take a lot for him to be uncomfortable after that. DS14 just doesn't care enough since we told him why, and what will happen. I think DH would be the most uncomfortable with a pat down in reality. Me, who cares after 4 pregnancies and everyone looking at me.

As for the scanners, I'm not sure how I feel. I will do some research and make an informed decision for myself. I'm not sure why people are so worried about their pictures being passed around for others to see. Is your name on them? Do you have to give them your name when you go through. I haven't seen them so I have no idea, but my guess is other than the actual person observing, the have no idea who the face/name belongs to.

 

[skater]

You say you won't sugar coat but I think (bold for emphasis) your choice of words are overly dramatic. I'm sticking with 'body scan' and 'pat down'. That's is why I don't think it's going to be such a big deal for my teen. I'm not giving her any reason to worry or be upset so she probably won't be.

That's fine. You can think what you want .

 

[NotUrsula]

I'm thinking that the amount of hollering we're hearing now would be just as loud if the TSA started using dogs.

A lot of people don't like dogs. Some are allergic. Some find just being near dogs very traumatic. Some have religious objections to dogs. Having read multiple threads in which people say they don't want dogs allowed anywhere in public, I can just imagine their reaction to having a dog (evenly a highly trained TSA dog) sniff their crotch.

Well, yes, but IMO, the difference is that dogs are proven to be VERY effective under these circumstances without being invasive -- they do not have to touch you to do their thing. (And no, a trained explosives dog isn't like the golden down the street that likes to stick his face in your crotch; these dogs are trained NOT to touch unless the handler signals it, and in fact must be effective from a slight distance -- if they were not, there would be way too many expensive DEAD dogs.)

In addition, dogs are already in widespread use in airports both in the US and abroad. USDA's APHIS service uses them extensively, and so does ATF. If you've traveled internationally you've probably seen the APHIS dogs -- most of them are cute little beagles, not at all threatening-looking. TSA *is* already using dogs, mostly for cargo screening. According to their website they have about 500 currently in the field. The dogs that TSA is now using seem to mostly be retrievers and shepards, a bit bigger. They ARE expensive to train and service, but there is no technological solution that yet exists that is anywhere close to equally effective. Right now there is only one facility training them; it's in San Antonio, TX.

One other thing about dogs; the bigger ones scare people, and that is a good thing. If someone who is up to no good is confronted by a dog, he's a lot more likely to trip himself up than he would be if the dog were not there. People watch a lot of TV -- they think that any "police dog" is trained to attack, while actually that is not at all the case. However, the prevalence of the belief helps to make dogs a really excellent deterrent to crime. (BTW, this is a different kind of scared than the fear you see of random dogs encountered in public -- most of the time that kind of fear has a lot to do with the unpredictability of dogs whose training you know nothing about. Dogs held by uniformed handlers usually don't elicit that -- people trust the handler to have control of the dog. What they are scared of is that the dog might be commanded to attack.)

I'm fine with having TSA use the backscatter scanners to check out people that dogs have alerted on, but I think a patdown *is* a better idea when that happens. Again, x-rays cannot necessarily find explosives; usually it is the detonator &/or wiring that is seen when a bomb is found via x-ray. If the idea is for the bomb to be assembled on board, then an x-ray is unlikely to be sufficient to stop it.

PS: About the expense; yes, I'd pay it. I'd feel confident that my tax dollars were going toward paying for something that was proven effective. Also, if TSA implemented terminal-search dogs instead of some of the measures that they now have, monies would be freed up to pay for increased canine programs. Besides that, doesn't the popular mantra of "whatever it takes to be safe!" still apply?

 

[skater]

As I said, just my opinion, and your mileage may vary. I am glad your daughter is an independant thinker, and I am glad you guys are able to have good conversations. Not judging at all.

Its just that I have found - and this is NOT directed at you at all, just what I have found in my dealings with people around me - and granted, I live in a HORRIFICALLY conservative area (Tea Parties on every corner ) that generally when teenagers are very uncomfortable with something that most other teenagers take for a "fact of life" sort of thing it is not because they are an independant thinker, but because they have, from the time they were very small, heard their family members rant and rail against the establishment, against the government, against whatever-the-hot-issue of the moment is, so the child has just grown up to be naturally fearful of these things without really knowing why. It just must be bad and scary because mom and dad have always hated it so.

Trust me, my child goes to school with teens who won't use "new money" (the bills printed with the colors) because the government has planted tracking devices in them, who swear that there is no global warming but if there is it is caused by chemicals dropped into the atmosphere by the government by airplane contrails... it goes on and on... for some of them, tinfoil hats are not a joke but a way of daily life... so I am a wee bit sensitive of any suggestion that our children be frightened into anti-govenrment sentiment. Absolutely NO reflection on YOU!!

Its OK. I appreciate that you're able to voice your opinions. That's why I love the community board. I got a little defensive about your post (which I usually don't do) because it seemed a tad judgemental.

You do bring up something I was wondering about. I grew up very liberal (marched with NOW in D.C. even ). I was somewhat anti-government intrusion ("stay out of my bedroom", etc.). I don't want this thread closed, so I hope this doesn't make it too political, but I'm wondering why it seems that liberals seem more "for" the new security measures than conservatives. (And now, I am one of those "crazy" tea partiers -though not full of government conspiracy worries like those you described!).

If my question is going to make people mad, please just tell me I'm crazy and wrong and go no further - I really don't want this thread closed - I'm simply wondering why some liberals are OK with this much government intrusion - if this is too controversial, don't respond and I'll take that as my answer .

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

People are making a big deal about the possible radiation from these scanners. For some idea about the radiation that we deal with on a daily basis, check this out: link

The backscatter scanners produce radiation, but so does just about everything else.

Edited to add - link from the American College of Radiology about the radiation associated with the scanners: link #2

Key quote:

The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) has reported that a traveler would need to experience 100 backscatter scans per year to reach what they classify as a Negligible Individual Dose. The American College of Radiology (ACR) agrees with this conclusion. By these measurements, a traveler would require more than 1,000 such scans in a year to reach the effective dose equal to one standard chest x-ray.

 

[ccgirl]

Its OK. I appreciate that you're able to voice your opinions. That's why I love the community board. I got a little defensive about your post (which I usually don't do) because it seemed a tad judgemental.

You do bring up something I was wondering about. I grew up very liberal (marched with NOW in D.C. even ). I was somewhat anti-government intrusion ("stay out of my bedroom", etc.). I don't want this thread closed, so I hope this doesn't make it too political, but I'm wondering why it seems that liberals seem more "for" the new security measures than conservatives. (And now, I am one of those "crazy" tea partiers -though not full of government conspiracy worries like those you described!).

If my question is going to make people mad, please just tell me I'm crazy and wrong and go no further - I really don't want this thread closed - I'm simply wondering why some liberals are OK with this much government intrusion - if this is too controversial, don't respond and I'll take that as my answer .

Just wanted to quickly reply to your post that while I am pro the new measures, I am far from liberal. I know...I know...I don't exactly live in the best state for a conservative but, hey, it's where I was born and raised.

 

[WDWMom]

Its OK. I appreciate that you're able to voice your opinions. That's why I love the community board. I got a little defensive about your post (which I usually don't do) because it seemed a tad judgemental.

You do bring up something I was wondering about. I grew up very liberal (marched with NOW in D.C. even ). I was somewhat anti-government intrusion ("stay out of my bedroom", etc.). I don't want this thread closed, so I hope this doesn't make it too political, but I'm wondering why it seems that liberals seem more "for" the new security measures than conservatives. (And now, I am one of those "crazy" tea partiers -though not full of government conspiracy worries like those you described!).

If my question is going to make people mad, please just tell me I'm crazy and wrong and go no further - I really don't want this thread closed - I'm simply wondering why some liberals are OK with this much government intrusion - if this is too controversial, don't respond and I'll take that as my answer .

To simplify the answer, probably because most conservatives are for less gov't., so they have a problem. Of course, DH throw that out the window since we are conservative and don't have a problem with them. But this is just my opinion.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Hmmm, good point.

If the airlines raise prices to compensate, we'll stop flying for good. If the market won't sustain those high prices, they'll drop them again.

I'm not going back and reading dozens of pages, but - anyone who's already said they won't fly with the new scanner/pat-down procedure but then turns around and states that they won't fly if airfares increase to pay for alternative screening methods are pretty much shooting themselves in the foot. What's the point of continuing the conversation?

 

[mhsjax]

Yep conservative are pretty much for very little government. Liberals want more gov't involvement. This is a general rule.

 

[skater]

To simplify the answer, probably because most conservatives are for less gov't., so they have a problem. Of course, DH throw that out the window since we are conservative and don't have a problem with them. But this is just my opinion.

Thank you (and the others) for the insight.

 

[skater]

I'm not going back and reading dozens of pages, but - anyone who's already said they won't fly with the new scanner/pat-down procedure but then turns around and states that they won't fly if airfares increase to pay for alternative screening methods are pretty much shooting themselves in the foot. What's the point of continuing the conversation?

I think there is a middle ground. You're accepting that we have to have the new procedures or pay more for other methods. There may be other solutions.

 

[Magpie]

I'm completely aware and capable of telling her all that. You don't have to worry - I've been taking good care of my DD and meeting her needs for a long time . I know how to comfort her and prepare her for the world - really.

What I won't do is lie and tell her I trust the media when they say the radiation is OK (IMO, the jury is still out on that one - remember all the other things that were supposed to be safe?).

I also won't lie and tell her for sure that no one is leering at her (probably not, but no guarantee).

I also won't tell her that just because the TSA agent might not like what she's doing, makes it OK. It doesn't make it any less of an invasion of privacy. Some of us don't like to be touched in private places! And 16 is still very young.

And, finally I won't lie and tell her its OK to throw the constitution away to suit our need to have an illusion of safety.

Well, I don't consider anything I wrote a "lie". I don't lie to my daughter, either.

Not to be rude, but what are some religious objections to dogs??? I've never heard this and I am just curious?

And to ask again, can you have a TSO of the oppposite sex pat you down if you wish?

In order to (hopefully) avoid points, I'll leave it to you to google "religious objections to dogs" - you'll have your answer right away.

And as for your second question, I'm pretty sure you cannot request that.

Neither are the people in the 35000 scan pictures that the TSA has on file.

You don't know this.

You don't know this either.

No one knows anything for sure, but you can generally rely on common sense. When you're just one of five hundred people the TSA agent has stared at/patted down today, you're really nothing special. Unless, of course, you go out of your way to MAKE yourself special by wearing t-shirts with slogans that are only visible under the scanner, or inviting them to inspect your maxi pad, or threatening them with criminal charges if they touch you.

Its OK. I appreciate that you're able to voice your opinions. That's why I love the community board. I got a little defensive about your post (which I usually don't do) because it seemed a tad judgemental.

You do bring up something I was wondering about. I grew up very liberal (marched with NOW in D.C. even ). I was somewhat anti-government intrusion ("stay out of my bedroom", etc.). I don't want this thread closed, so I hope this doesn't make it too political, but I'm wondering why it seems that liberals seem more "for" the new security measures than conservatives. (And now, I am one of those "crazy" tea partiers -though not full of government conspiracy worries like those you described!).

If my question is going to make people mad, please just tell me I'm crazy and wrong and go no further - I really don't want this thread closed - I'm simply wondering why some liberals are OK with this much government intrusion - if this is too controversial, don't respond and I'll take that as my answer .

I don't think this is true at all. Yes, SOME Americans are using this as just another excuse to attack the current government. But I think they're a minority.

People of all political stripes are concerned, and people of all political stripes are not concerned, all of them for their own personal reasons. Thinking it's ineffective, having hang-ups about being touched, being afraid of radiation... none of that has anything to do with politics.

 

[wvjules]

I think 99% of TSA agents doing the pat downs are simply doing their job as instructed. However, as with most positions of perceived power, there are going to be that 1% that abuse it and do a more aggressive 'grope'. I wouldn't mind being patted down by that 99% or go through the scanner. I hope I never encounter that other 1% though.

 

[skater]

Thanks for the insight about the political side magpie. I could be wrong - it just seemed like I've noticed a pattern (I watch a lot of news ).

I never said you lied to your daughter. I felt a little judged by your other post but never meant to judge you about your relationship with your daughter.

 

[WDWMom]

Thanks, I'll google. I forgot about the whole no religious posts thing.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

Liberals are for freedoms and limited government intrusion. Conservatives want way more government involvement. This is a general rule.

 

[Muushka]

Liberals are for freedoms and limited government intrusion. Conservatives want way more government involvement. This is a general rule.

What are you basing this on? Which rule?

 

[WDWMom]

Liberals are for freedoms and limited government intrusion. Conservatives want way more government involvement. This is a general rule.

My DH who was a political science major in college would repectfully disagree with you as would everyone else who has posted since the question was asked. You might want to check your post to see if you posted correctly.

 

[Jennasis]

Well I'm a bleeding heart liberal and as I've said before, I don't care about the new procedures. I'm neither for it nor against it. I simply don't care one way or the other.