X-Ray, Invasive Patdown or old status quo?

TSA Hit With Lawsuits As Revolt Explodes


I'm sure being patted down and forced to expose your breasts and having these Trigs laugh at it is totally acceptable in your world, 'eh? Really, have you no shame? The only time you need to be patted down is if there's a reasonable suspicion. Treating your customers like they're already already criminals is a terrible business practice. What good is safety if you already feel like your dignity has been raped away?

 

I think the way this turns out is that the Republican Congress sides with the outraged population and declares the TSA a stooge of Obama-style Stalinism. People have had just about all they can take of Obama's police state tactics.

 

Sometimes I wonder just how far someone or some people would need to go before even you said, "hey, I don't think this is okay." Eight years on and I'm still waiting for that to happen.

I accept this. However, the reverse is also true. I could certainly ask you why do you initially react to everything that comes up like its an Earth-shattering, life changing cause? Where do you draw the line?

Let's keep things in perspective. If you want to travel by airplane, you may have to pass through an image scanner. If you don't want to-it's the individual's choice- then you have the option of being patted down by a security worker. Only after you refuse all available options without compromise, you will be denied access to the plane, and if that happens, you'll have to drive or take the train to your destination.

If this is suppose to represent anything close to a police-state, then it's a police state run by Strawberry Shortcake, which is why it's an easy line to draw.

I swear, people in the West have access to both Coke and Pepsi, so much so that it's taken for granted. But even that's not good enough, and its a looked upon as a huge human rights issue if Dr Pepper isn't sold as well. It's decadence and arrogance rolled into one, and I think such claims have diluted actual human rights concerns that exist in the world.

The internet allows people the ability to take a feeling and instantly transmit it all across the world, even if not all facts are there. That's both good and bad, because it also means that the initial reaction is multiplied a hundred-fold. We're not talking about the Planet of the Apes here, where humans are chattel, only to be rounded up with nets and thrown in cages.

Let me offer another factoid. Body scanners have been used in Europe for a year now, and in some airports like Manchester England, they've been used on a trial basis going on 2 years. (The EU Commission may also issue a binding resolution which compels member nations to use the technology, but so far, it's being phased in.) I don't know. There may be some grumbling, but where are the scores of traumatized fliers? The screaming kids? The first phase of mind control?

 

I already specified where I draw the line. I don't really have a problem with the body scanners from a privacy perspective. (My only concern there is that I haven't seen enough data to know whether they are safe from a health perspective, especially for people like my father or my former roommate who are cancer survivors.) I don't even have a significant issue with a standard Terry stop-style pat down.

But, the line is drawn when it becomes physically invasive of the most private portions of a person's body as a general rule, without any degree of reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

The problem here is that you are acting as though these pat downs are no different from what has traditionally happened all over, when they are different. They are more physically invasive of individuals' privacy, and they are conducted without any measure of reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

If the more intense pat downs were part of an Israeli-style security system, where only those who have already tripped other warning flags are targeted, it would be a different matter. But they aren't. Instead, they are being used against the public in general and, as such, are a violation of their civil rights.

And, once again, you have neatly avoided my question to you: WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? At what point would you consider airport security screenings to be a violation of civil rights? Come on, Mr44. Step out of your comfort zone and actuall state what your position would be for once.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I just did a quick Google search of this and came up with the following Q&A sheet on the Manchester Airport website: link (because perspective is always nice).

But honestly, I am still uncomfortable with the new security measures. Sure, they say the scanners (at least those at Manchester) are low-powered "3 microREMs of emission", but we're still talking about X-rays here, and I don't like the idea of being subjected to that every time I fly, which lately has been averaging once every 2 months. And as other posters have said, the more invasive pat-down procedure just seems unwarranted to do on such a large scale with no probable cause, regardless of the "they can see under my clothes" hype (which, incidentally, I couldn't really care less about).

And how is "you get a choice between the scanner and the pat-down, so stop whining" (paraphrased, obviously) a good argument? Why do we have to make this choice in the first place, so we can be "safe"? Life isn't safe, from getting up in the morning to eat food that you didn't grow and process yourself, going to work with millions of people who may or may not be hungover/insane/inattentive, or working in buildings where anyone could walk through the door with a shotgun.

Finally, yes, these new procedures may not appear to amount to much in the face of current airport security practices, and our shared desire not to be disintegrated by a jihadist at 16,000 feet, but at some point we as a nation have to accept that we cannot be 100% safe, ever. It's not the most dire human-rights issue of the decade, beyond a doubt, but I do not believe that these new policies are in line with what we, as a nation, claim to stand for or that a strong enough case has been made to justify their implementation.

Edit: grammar.

 

The larger issue I think is that if the public really objects, if enough people feel that a line has to be drawn somewhere before the point of genital cupping and x rays every time we fly, then it will be very difficult to continue the policy. If you object, how hard is it to pick up the phone right now and call your representative? Because this is the kind of issue where that kind of approach can really make a difference.

 

Secondary reply to KK:

And KK, I can easily draw the line because I think everything in your post are concerns which are based on your perception, and not the actual facts. In this manner, you're reacting in the way that you've chided countless others around here for in the past. Again, I think that if you actually looked at the policy and procedure and formed an opinion based on that- because that's the standard you normally use- instead of what John Tyler "the next don't grope me bro! guy" put up on Youtube, things wouldn't be so reactionary.

Take "groping," for instance. That's your word. I honestly don't know why you're so hung up on genitals. You've used terms like "groping," "handling," and so on, as if every security worker is a frothing, leering sex maniac pulled from a Russ Myer movie. It's not like that, and it's not the focus of the policy. It seems silly, but what do you do at the doctor's office when the physician conducts a physical? Do you refuse to "turn your head and cough" because the procedure is a gross invasion of Constitutional rights? Will you never get a prostate exam because the doctor must really be a sexual deviant who is secretly making a porno? I meant these examples to be intentionally over the top, but then again, a policy of "patting down the waistband and between the thighs," during a security check is not the same as groping someone's genitals in a full on orgy either.

Or take the scanners. The technology uses non-radiation length energy to create the images. It's not a death ray. But I accept that people may have concerns over the effects, and that's why they are given a choice. You can have all sorts of rational evidence that says otherwise, but yet, there's Jenny McCarthy on tv, telling millions of people that vaccines cause autism, despite the fact that she has no idea what she's talking about.

But yet again, we're going to have countless rounds of wasteful lawsuits. There will probably be a Congressional inquiry or two. And the end result will not change anything. Oh, the specifics may change. TSA will probably have to wear "puritan gloves" or similar themed concession that no one else in the entire world would even think of. Instead of a body image scanner, the government will probably invest millions of dollars to design an alternative- let's call it a Tachyon data collector, and yet someone will object to it, put up a Youtube video, and start a whole new round of outrage.

 

ob·fus·cate Verb /'äbf??skat/
Synonyms:
verb: darken, obscure, confuse, cloud, dim, becloud
obfuscating present participle; obfuscated past tense; obfuscated past participle; obfuscates 3rd person singular present
Render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible
the spelling changes will deform some familiar words and obfuscate their etymological origins
Bewilder (someone)
it is more likely to obfuscate people than enlighten them

 

If the more intense pat downs were part of an Israeli-style security system, where only those who have already tripped other warning flags are targeted, it would be a different matter. But they aren't. Instead, they are being used against the public in general and, as such, are a violation of their civil rights.

That's not the case though. It's only an alternative method for those who object to the scanner. The individual is given the choice, so it should be difficult for them to feign outrage. So, if by "general public" what you really mean to say is "those who don't pick the non-invasive electronic scanning method" I would agree. I don't know if it's a case of Americans having too many choices.

Again, if we look to the EU standards, they seem to suggest that anyone who refuses to walk through the scanner will simply be denied access to their flight. If the other thread is any indication, and Europeans unofficially make up most of the travel, then the scanners should be accepted as the dominate method. Maybe the TSA can get rid of pat downs all together and simply adopt a no hassle European policy of "refuse the scan, don't get on the plane?"

 

Well as long as they are doctors performing the pre-flight colon exams, clearly no invasion of rights can exist and you aren't being sodomized because hey, he's a doctor, and they do this sort of thing all the time so it isn't sexual at all.

 

Well, only if he doesn't buy you dinner first.

 

It's stupid, especially when you consider the following:
On 9/11, the planes were hijacked by Moslem extremists, ages 18-45.
Shortly afterwards, the attempted shoe-bombing was from a Moslem extremist.
The underwear bombing was carried out by a Moslem extremist.[/quote]

I want someone to tell me what these all have in common
Bath School disaster - Andrew Kehoe
Columbine High School massacre - Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
Virginia Tech massacre - Seung-Hui Cho
Oklahoma City bombing - Timothy McVeigh

Give up? They are all acts of terroism not one of them was done by a Muslem. Terroism is not just about religion or government or what ever else. It's about terror they key word in terroism is terror. I was not any where near Columbine High School. But I was terroified to go to my own high school after what Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did.

if people don't like what the TSA is doing then stay home and never go any where. I'm sick to death of after ever act of terroism people cry about how we need better security. Then we get it and people complain about. So when another Oklahoma or Virginia Tech or even another 9/11 happens I don't want to hear from any one of you about how we need better security.

Maybe if we lose a whole city to any act of terroism we will at long last do something about it. Until then we will have all the crazy people running around free to do what ever they want. So I guess I should go out and get a gun because that seems to be the only way I'm going to stay safe.

What I'm saying is if you don't like it let's get ready of all the security. Then when another Virginia Tech or 9/11 happen I don't want any one here making a thread about how we need better security. Well no kidding we need better security. It's 2010 we still have school shotings we still we still have nut jobs getting bombs on to planes and ever one complains about it. Then when something is done to give us up to date security ever one whines about it.

I still hear people whine how a teen had his First Amendment rights taken away because he should be allowed to have a hit liste of people he wants to kill and who cares if he has a map to his school and enough guns and bombs to kill ever one in his school. Who cares if he can pull off a Oklahoma City. I mean there's nothing wrong there oh wait...

Dose Timothy McVeigh ring a bell to anyone? Come on someone just one person tell me that what he did was not any act of terroism.

 

But seriously, it's still the previous mentality that I find so puzzling:

But they aren't. Instead, they are being used against the public in general and, as such, are a violation of their civil rights.

If an alien visitor came down to Earth and read this thread, they would have to conclude that people are being rounded up off the street and groped and sodomized by complete strangers for their own personal amusement.

Seriously guys. "Used against?" This is at an airline checkpoint, so it's not even the general public. It's only as adversarial as you make it, Youtube bandwagon be damned. The primary method is to simply walk into a scanning booth. Hold your hands up and bada bing, bada boom. 30 seconds tops and you're done. On to drinking Mai Tais on the beach. If you object to the non-evasive, electronic scanning method, (or if you meet set criteria) you have the option of getting a pat down. Sure, it's more detailed than a routine frisk, but there's certainly no manual stimulation of genitals going on either.

If you object to both, and you absolutely won't budge because it's your higher power right to be stubborn, then you take the train.

We live in a time where we have unprecedented access to both intra-, and inter- national travel, opportunities to experience all sorts of cultures, and some people are focused on the idea that if you squint, you may see genitals on a non- distinguishable electronic image, or that a complete stranger, who they will never see again, may brush up against their willy during a pat down. It's the type of mentality that laughs at the boobies in a National Geographic. This doesn't seem like a complete loss of focus?

To ask me "where do you draw the line," isn't even valid, because there's no monumental crisis of human rights here. It's like asking where does one draw the line regarding the long wait at the DMV... Um, it's annoying, but it's not like the genocide in Rwanda...

 

You can't draw a line? It isn't a question of whether this particular situation is a crisis of human rights, but whether ANY action at a border crossing or means of transport would be a violation of human rights. And that isn't a question you can answer?

So random strip searches are just fine if you want to travel by air? It is just some strangers you will never see again who can see you naked. You have the option (well not really with the massive fines) to walk out of the airport if you don't want strangers to see you naked. Why are you making such a big deal about this? If you want to be safe, you have to be naked. What are you trying to hide under all those clothes anyways?

 

Yeah, statistically the people who are most afraid (like yourself) are more likely to vote Republican and more readily to give up their freedoms for safety. Or at least the illusion of it. Which is all airport security is: An illusion. So have fun in fantasy land.

 

Here in Illinois, Cook County is paying $55 million to settle a class action lawsuit by prison inmates who were strip searched.

The settlement follows a trial from the summer of 2009 in which a jury found that the Cook County Sheriff?s department violated the rights of thousands of prisoners admitted to the jail. The department had a practice of strip searching all incoming inmates, and those searches took place in an open hallway, filled with men standing naked, shoulder to shoulder. Cavity searches were also performed on all the men in that same crowded hallway.

But when it comes to people who want to get on an airplane, I think the strip searches and body cavity checks are fine. That's not where I would draw the line. Where I draw the line is being frozen in carbonite for the trip.

 

Wow just wow. Yeah let's just let ever person on board a plane. Let's not check them for anything. Heck well we are at it let's just put are heads in the sand and act like people don't rob banks or murder people and that we don't need laws. No let's go all the way let's get ready of all the laws that are there to keep us safe from those people.

If that's the kind of world you want to live in then why I really really will go out and buy a gun just so I can keep myself safe and those I love safe.

I'm on the side of Mr44 whenit comes to this. People are jump up and down getting mad at something in which you have the choice to either go through security if you don't want to do any of the things they ask of you then don't fly.

 

And, again, flying is often the only way of getting somewhere. I traveled for school two years ago to Germany. There's not a particularly valid alternative for that. Between 2003 and 2007 I flew overseas 3 times to visit an Australian I was dating at the time. Should I have just caught the LA-Sydney bus?

I'd also point out that the United States acknowledges freedom of movement within the U.S., and that becomes fairly key with places like Hawaii, where one can't just drive to.

You, however, have taken a stance that supports strip and cavity searches, as you've said that any restriction against safety measures is ridiculous. For that matter, what about this? The scanners are required by the TSA to be able to store and transfer images, and there are already allegations that there have been some molestations during the patdowns. However, in your world, we should put our heads in the sand and forget that people ever abuse their power or molest people and that we don't need laws to protect us.

 

Ani, you know better than this. No one here has advocated for what you just posted. So for you to put up that as our opinions and then attack it is intellectual dishonesty. It's called a strawman argument.

You go ahead and do that. But you can't expect to have a logical discussion about this if your response is to say you'll buy a gun.

Ridiculous. You can't expect unreasonable searches to be the requirement to travel by air.

 

Minor nitpick: I know you're not the best at spelling and whatnot, but at least get the basic sentence structure correct.


I love the zero-summing you're doing; I never said do not take basic security precautions before boarding flights, but let's forget that and focus on your post which insists that we should all live in the same basic state of fear that you live in. But to be perfectly safe at all times is an illusion and your stupid logic of 'if you don't like the security procedures at the airport then don't fly, hurr derp.' Yes, because that's a sane view to take. You know, I've said this before but it bears repeating:

[image=http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/9800/21404167681ee92bcd95.jpg]

People like yourself, who share this view of 'safety' and 'what's right for corporations' are why America sucks and will continue to slip into a second rate power.

 

Except who said anything about random strip searches, or body cavity inspections? They have nothing to do with policy. This is where the debate breaks down, because everyone gets wrapped up in "what if's" and the actual practice under discussion gets forgotten.

Jabba was on more of the right track when he supplied his link, because the controlling factor in that case wasn't the strip search itself. Inmates are still strip searched in Illinois (and elsewhere, of course). The controlling factor in the Cook Co. case was that policy was violated. Pre-trial arrestees were searched even if they were going to be bonded out in a couple of hours. Felons were searched with lesser offenders and so on. If someone used that link to support their concern that the general public was being strip searched by Cook Co officials, then that link wouldn't really help. But if someone said, "let's look at the strip search policy in the jail," that link would be spot on, because the key is to actually look at the policy.

If TSA screeners just walked around and grabbed people who were waiting for a flight, sitting in the airport lounge, or picking up baggage and conducting pat-downs in the name of security, I would certainly see the outrage. And honestly, that's how some people seem to be reacting. So again, what exactly is the policy here?

Because that's not even remotely close to the situation, which again, is that the pat down is simply an alternative method for those who object to the image scan at the fixed entry checkpoint. The individual is given the choice. Someone could fly twice a week for a year and never be subject to a pat down, spend mere minutes at most at such point, and it doesn't impede travel at all. I guess I just don't see that the actual policy is a "monumental act of surrendering one's civil liberties..."

 

44 you aren't helping your case here. You could start by ruling out some what ifs, because none of the arguments you have made in favor of the current policy seem to have any sort of limit on strip searches and cavity inspections. You've said this isn't a big deal, but until we know what you consider a big deal, how is one to respond to you? So far you've listed genocide.

I know you have some aversion to stating an explicit opinion, but humor us.

Instead of the virtual strip search, I think we should have blurry glass strip searches. You can't possibly get turned on by looking at somebody naked through smoked glass. And a few panes of glass would be considerably cheaper.

I guess I just don't see that the actual policy is a "monumental act of surrendering one's civil liberties..."

Well what policy would impede one's civil liberties? As far as I can tell anything short of genocide isn't a big deal. What is a civil liberty, if not the right not to be viewed naked and touched in the genital area without probable cause?

 

Indirectly, I believe jedismuggler did when he stated that it's justified if there's been a single terrorist attack associated with it. The justification for this perceived violation is identical to the justification for mandatory cavity searches since terrorists are using internal bombs too now.

But to discuss the actual policy, personal and invasive searches should only be based off of probable cause. There is ZERO probable cause for subjecting every traveler to it. Or, indeed, randomly selected travelers either. I would say the burden much more specifically is that this is on supporters of invading my privacy to justify why my privacy should be invaded in this way.

 

And now this starts.

Survivors of sexual assault are having panic attacks when strangers rub their privates? Gee, who could have predicted that?

This is what happens when we cater to the whims of cowards. Cowards who will always be cowards, no matter how much more invasive and ridiculous these supposed security measures get. It's their nature. They're afraid of everything, no matter how unlikely it is that it'll ever actually hurt them, no matter how much that fear, the fear itself, harms other people. They don't care about that. All they care about is propping up this illusion of safety against their fantasies of imminent doom, and if people get violated, traumatized, fined, or arrested because of them, well, that's a fair trade for being able to wet their pants in terror that much less.

And the saddest part? What none of them realize is that the terrorists want these people exactly as they are. That their mission is to spread fear, the message of fear, and that that message gives them power. By spreading that fear for the terrorists, by demanding that everyone else cater to their fear, they themselves make the terrorists more powerful. More powerful than any terrorist could ever be without their help.

We have a choice here, a choice between courage and reason or fear and stupidity. Courage is the weapon to defeat fear. Not more fear. Not more surrender. No more.

 

You could start by ruling out some what ifs, because none of the arguments you have made in favor of the current policy seem to have any sort of limit on strip searches and cavity inspections. You've said this isn't a big deal, but until we know what you consider a big deal, how is one to respond to you?

Does it honestly matter? I would prefer that people respond to what the policy is. Strip searches are bad. Getting a glove shoved up your butt is bad. Does that really need to be said? To be fair to you, are you actually equating a full cavity search to standing in front of an image reader for a couple of seconds? You could ask me how I felt about people getting randomly tear gassed in an airport. Um, it's bad? But since no practice involves strip searches, cavity exams, or tear gas, I don't follow the logic. I will throw in something that Lowie asked about molestation. If there is a specific TSA employee who is molesting people, then that employee needs to be disciplined. But then again, I'd say that about a doctor who molests someone. Or a lawyer. Or an gas meter reader. Everyone has long agreed with all of this, so it really should be a non-issue.

But none of that has anything to do with what the actual practice is. What we've seen a lot of here is people reacting to their perception and not necessarily policy. Because along the same token, allegations of abuse have to be more than "my dad is worried that his wing-wang could be aroused." They have to be based on policy and procedure. Not every idiot with a camera phone and a Youtube account gets to dictate reality.

This current line of discussion started because KK's dad wanted everything to go his way, and he was used as the example. Despite the fact that they're described as safe, he had concerns about the health issues of image scanning. Ok. fine. I think we all accepted this. But the alternative procedure is to get a manual pat down. However, for whatever reason, he also had a problem with that. So what's the alternative? Honestly, had KK's dad objected to having to prove his identity by carrying a driver's license, the discussion would follow similar lines. Except KK's dad doesn't have to carry a license. No one is forcing him to. He doesn't have to get a scan or a pat down. He just can't refuse the above and get on an airplane.

I don't hold any illusions of airtight airline safety. If someone wants to blow up a plane, then they are going to find a way. But I also don't consider a image scanner to be any sort of major act of surrendering one's civil liberties. It's a solid middle ground policy that's in use in the majority of air travel markets because it fulfills a need. It's not a big deal unless someone makes it so, and basically saying that it's a violation of a god given right is just as vague as defending their use according to a blanket notion of homeland security.