TSA mess and the police

[Geoff_M]

I understand that. But, I thought this thread was opened to discuss the "new" methods of screening.

Sorry, I thought it was germane.... I'll quote the start of the OP's comment:

I was just reading another article about the way the TSA is strong arming people into complying with their methods. I'm all for safety but the agents aren't highly trained, some of them look like they are barely a step up from ... well, they don't look like the TSA is particularly discerning.

Anyway, I don't have a single doubt in my mind that plenty of them are abusing their authority over people.

The video I posted (from earlier this year) seems to be a perfect example of a crew of TSA agents doing what the OP expressed... "strong arming" a women into doing things "their way" by putting her in a box and ignoring her for an extended time until such time that she has two choices: quickly submit without further protest... or miss her flight.

 

[sbell111]

I hope that enough people opt not to fly that it will make the flights a little less full.

Standing in front of a scanner is much less of a deal to me than being smushed up against smelly strangers for hours on end.

 

[DMRick]

I think, for some of us, there's a difference between the old pat down and the new "enhanced" pat down.

I understand that..but the person I was responding to had never flown, and said now she really wouldn't. My question was to her (which I mentioned I was just curious), if she had plans to fly with the old patdown.

 

[DMRick]

As you said, you would be guessing, as would I. A wild guess at that. No way of knowing.

There are many terroists way ahead of us, but there may also be copycats or just plan sick people wanting what they might see as their 15 minutes.

I have no way of knowing, if homeland isn't sharing, if anyone has been caught, and neither do you.

I'm just hazarding a wild guess, but my money's on exactly zero.

clip

It's a lot of show for absolutely no increase in safety.

 

[DMRick]

I agree. I hope that is something discussed and taken to task.

And yes, there are good and bad tsa employees. The difference is that because they have power over us, its more critical to moniter and get rid of the bad ones than in certain other professions. Same goes for anybody in a position of authority.
.

 

[bicker]

That the thing though, the interpretation of law is absolutely vulnerable to the mood of the moment.

No, not in the way the mob mentality driving criticism of this policy is vulnerable. You can try all you like, but you cannot show that angry passengers are going to make wiser, more balanced decisions. They don't. They make selfish decisions.

As a woman I am eternally grateful for it too because the mood of the Suffrage Movement bought me my right to vote and the breeze of the Civial Rights Movement brought others their rights.

Not even close to analogous. Suffrage took decades of slow change. Not the few weeks since this policy went into effect. The critics are demanding immediate gratification (because they're selfish - see above).

Beyond that, you're assuming that your personal preference would prevail more generally given the kind of depth of consideration that suffrage received before the laws were changed. I suspect that the more people think about this issue, the more your perspective fails. Indeed, that's why the critics are employing propaganistic tactics, fostering unreasonable fear, uncertainty and doubt - because they know that if people really thought it through completely, factoring in all the objectives and obligations of the government and the agency, then the critics' perspective would only be supported by a very few people.

It's not anarchy, this is the design of our government.

No it isn't. Stop making things up. Our government has a process for citizens to petition the government for redress of grievances. Trafficking in deliberately manipulated photos and engaging in FUD is not part of the design.

We have a few options to influence our governance (for what you term self serving reasons), and it's not an accident those stop gaps are present. Those stopgaps are present to prevent a repeat of the wild disconnect between the government and the governed which lead to the creation of this country in the first place.

And only a small percentage of what the critics are engaging in with regard to this issue has anything to do with that.

Again, the problem is the FUD - the inane attempts by the critics to prevail by unethical means, many of which have already been discussed in this thread, several times.

 

[bicker]

1. It got my attention because it is news from the DHS. YMMV.

My point is that I wasn't surprised that it caught your attention, because of your personal perspective. There's not much else I can say about that. We're just going to have to agree to disagree about this.

2. The roll out of the new procedures came about with no warning.

You do realize that much of this new screening procedure has been discussed online for over a year. (I think we even discussed it here on the DIS.) Your claim that this came about with no warning is ridiculous.

 

[bicker]

This particular market does not operate in a way which will expose the trouble in an imminent fashion.

That's a cop-out. This particular market operates in a way that will expose trouble within a few weeks or months at most. It looks to me that you're hedging your bets, trying to avoid how quickly it will become evident that people aren't as upset about this as you need them to be to get things to be changed your way.

 

[bicker]

BTW, Bicker, if you have something to say please do so in paragraph form.

If we're going to post one way, as you are insisting in this directive you directed at me, let us post my way rather than your way.

Why would you even think to try to tell someone else - someone you disagree with - how to post? That's utterly ridiculous. If you're going to try to tell someone how to post, tell the people who you agree with. This is a contentious issue. It makes no sense to think you can dictate the mode and format of the discussion to please yourself.

If we really are going to get into telling each other how to post, what people should stop doing is stop posting copyrighted material to the thread. Fair Use allows you to include portions of copyrighted works within your own work, with you making relevant comments in response to the quoted material, and indeed you should only be quoting that which is necessary to put your own comments in context.

The places where those news articles are posted are commercial websites (or are printed in magazines or newspapers) that make money on the advertising that accompanies those articles. Stop violating the terms and conditions of those websites and copyright law by pasting whole articles into discussion threads. Present a few select lines, if you wish, and then provide a direct link to the article.

A lot of us make money off of producing copyrighted work. Please stop abusing copyrighted work in this manner.

 

[JLTraveling]

If we really are going to get into telling each other how to post, what people should stop doing is stop posting copyrighted material to the thread. Fair Use allows you to include portions of copyrighted works within your own work, with you making relevant comments in response to the quoted material, and indeed you should only be quoting that which is necessary to put your own comments in context.

The places where those news articles are posted are commercial websites (or are printed in magazines or newspapers) that make money on the advertising that accompanies those articles. Stop violating the terms and conditions of those websites and copyright law by pasting whole articles into discussion threads. Present a few select lines, if you wish, and then provide a direct link to the article.

A lot of us make money off of producing copyrighted work. Please stop abusing copyrighted work in this manner.

Oh spare me! I make my entire living producing copyrighted work. As long as there is proper attribution and a direct link, there's nothing wrong with re-posting full text. We (the posters) aren't deriving any income from it and we aren't claiming it as our own work. As long as those tests are passed, there's no "Fair Use" claim here.

 

[mefordis]

About a year ago I was patted down. It happened so quickly and I didn't really find any issue with it. How would they do it now? What has changed?

 

[JLTraveling]

About a year ago I was patted down. It happened so quickly and I didn't really find any issue with it. How would they do it now? What has changed?

It's a good bit more invasive now than it was then. They are now touching areas of the body that were previously off-limits, and using the front of the hand rather than the back of the hand.

 

[DMRick]

Really? So you are saying as long as you say where you got it and who did it, it's ok to post it? I am so sitting on my hands before I get in trouble. That is a whole other thread.

As long as there is proper attribution and a direct link, there's nothing wrong with re-posting full text. We (the posters) aren't deriving any income from it and we aren't claiming it as our own work. As long as those tests are passed, there's no "Fair Use" claim here.

 

[JLTraveling]

Really? So you are saying as long as you say where you got it and who did it, it's ok to post it? I am so sitting on my hands before I get in trouble. That is a whole other thread.

I'm saying that no, technically, we shouldn't be posting full text. But Fair Use claims are largely based on the damage done, and there is no damage in this case. Proper attribution, direct link, no money being made, no one claiming credit...exactly what damages are there?

 

[LuvOrlando]

I have never been on a flight and with all this new craziness I never will.

I am very modest and I am a rape survivor , I have no intentions of someone I don't know or trust seeing a 3d nude image of me and I most certainly will not be allowing anyone to rub me all over to "check for explosives". The new pat downs are ridiculous.

I am sorry to hear this the world is full of people for whom any intimate touching is just out of the question. This is why I won't shut up.

 

[LuvOrlando]

If we're going to post one way, as you are insisting in this directive you directed at me, let us post my way rather than your way.

Why would you even think to try to tell someone else - someone you disagree with - how to post? That's utterly ridiculous. If you're going to try to tell someone how to post, tell the people who you agree with. This is a contentious issue. It makes no sense to think you can dictate the mode and format of the discussion to please yourself.

Because your favored format is as plain a Red Herring as I've ever seen. The format splinters the thoughts of the OP and is extremely difficult to respond to, which put you, the first one to strike, at a shameless tactical advantage.... that's why.

It is common practice for people to communicate full ideas in paragraph form, your practice is not at all common.

I am usually 100% for artistic expression but this is not that, and I think you know it.

 

[LuvOrlando]

About the copying text, OK,OK,OK. I will not copy it any more. I just got in the habit of doing it because so many people got in trouble in the past for posting inappropriate links, it seemed to be a safe alternative. My behavior was not at all intentional. The last time I had to gather extensive references the internet was not so pervasive and all I had to do was keep quotes and a reference so I wasn't guilty of plagiarism. Guess I really am old ALL APOLOGIES (thanks Kurt/AKA Nirvana)

 

[C.Ann]

Holy smokes!! I was only away from the DIS for a few days and this thread has exploded.. Not in the mood to go all the way back to where I left off - if I could even find that spot.. LOL... Too many of those long-winded, "let's-see-how-many-words-I-can-use" and "how-many-ways-I-can-twist-them-to-appear-mega-intelligent" filled posts to muddle through..

So - skipping over those posts - where do things stand now? I haven't been watching the news or checking online to see what's what.. Figured I could just get it right here when I came back..LOL..

Anything change? Any suits filed?

Any chance of additional compromise regarding the pat downs by the TSA? If not, I guess there's always hope - considering they did in fact change the pat down procedure for children 12 and under..

Guess I'll have to try to keep up better - in between unpacking, getting ready for the next holiday, etc..

At least the thread hasn't been locked!

 

[Planogirl]

I heard on the news today that most flyers stated that they were OK with the new procedures. I'm not sure how relevant that is since the rights of the individual often trump the majority rule but it is disheartening in my opinion.

However, I love that we all have our own unique perspectives on matters such as these. I certainly have flown and don't like being uncomfortable for a ridiculous amount of money (it's hard to find deals out of Dallas) so in fairness, these invasive searches just add to my dislike. I am not a criminal and don't feel like being treated like one and that's how it feels to me.

 

[DMRick]

Because it's hard to type with one hand being sat on, I'll keep it short. The first sentence is correct LOL. There doesn't have to be damages to get damages.

I do appreciate how everyone has really been very good about keeping the thread open

I'm saying that no, technically, we shouldn't be posting full text. But Fair Use claims are largely based on the damage done, and there is no damage in this case. Proper attribution, direct link, no money being made, no one claiming credit...exactly what damages are there?