TSA pat-down poll

[Revoltingest]

There's nothing to prevent private firms (think Blackwater) from implementing the same process.

Possibly easier to sue or arrest the offender, since they aren't the gov't. Plus, they know that if they do to lousy a job, that contract
will be up for bid again. TSA goons can treat us like dirt cuz they know they're entirely immune to economic or legal consequences.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm of the opinion this is security theatre. Just one way among many the government gets to remind you You're In Danger and they're doing everything they can to Protect You From Terrorists. There is no evidence any of these invasive screening procedures do anything to increase passenger safety. While grandma's nail clippers will be confiscated (and her privates potentially fondled), the guy behind her knows how to make a knife in the bathroom from metal epoxy, folded cardboard and a spoon handle. So why are they doing it? A) patronage of the firm that makes the scanners, and B) because they have discovered that not only can they can get away with it - the authoritarian electoral base even approves of it.

Here's the thing though, I think security theatre is a strategy that is likely to be abandoned when the people start to perceive the authorities themselves as a more discomforting security threat than the terrorists, and express that view to their elected representatives in great numbers. IMO, this is getting quite close to that line. Obviously, there will always be some authoritarians for whom NO violation of their privacy by the state is unwelcome, but for the majority I think having their children photographed naked and / or their genitals groped by adults at the airport is over the line. I think these policies will eventually be abandoned, or at least scaled back. In any case, this is one area where I approve of the one airport's decision to use a private security firm, but with caution. There's nothing to prevent private firms (think Blackwater) from implementing the same process.

Why make a knife when you can carry two explosive compounds in breast implants.

 

[Alceste]

Only a slightly slanted poll.

Totally fair and balanced. What are you talking about?

 

[Requia]

Heads up: The administration has said anybody who objects to the scanners is now a 'domestic extremist'.

You may wish to edit your above statements if you want to stay off various lists.

TSA Administrative Directive: Opt-Outters To Be Considered "Domestic Extremists"

 

[Penumbra]

Eh, I'll go for the naked photos.

Personally, I don't see it as degrading. I'm comfortable with the scanning or the pat down, though next time I fly I'll go with the screening for swiftness.

Even though I don't care, I can see why people with kids, medical conditions, extra weight, body image issues, histories of sexual abuse, and that sort of thing would dislike the new tactics. Plus there's the people that view it as a violation of freedom, and they have a point.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

How do our screening procedures compare to those in the rest of the developed world?

 

[Alceste]

How do our screening procedures compare to those in the rest of the developed world?

According to Privacy International - an NGO that studies such things, the US was already an "endemic surveillance" state before the airport groping and ogling requirements kicked in. You (and the UK) are on par with China and Russia. The good news is your rating can't get worse.

 

[Alceste]

Eh, I'll go for the naked photos.

Personally, I don't see it as degrading. I'm comfortable with the scanning or the pat down, though next time I fly I'll go with the screening for swiftness.

Even though I don't care, I can see why people with kids, medical conditions, extra weight, body image issues, histories of sexual abuse, and that sort of thing would dislike the new tactics. Plus there's the people that view it as a violation of freedom, and they have a point.

I fall into the last category. My view is that the state must be able to PROVE that any intrusion into my privacy is warranted (i.e. the actual - not potential - benefit to society by far outweighs the discomfort / inconvenience of the intrusion) in order for me to cooperate willingly. And I don't mean "prove" with argumentation and clever rhetoric. I mean "prove" with published research and material evidence I can access to form an informed opinion. One of my main reasons for moving out of the UK was their disregard for privacy. I take it pretty seriously - the state has no authority over us that we don't voluntarily surrender, so I think about what I'm willing to put up with pretty carefully.

 

[Alceste]

Possibly easier to sue or arrest the offender, since they aren't the gov't. Plus, they know that if they do to lousy a job, that contract
will be up for bid again. TSA goons can treat us like dirt cuz they know they're entirely immune to economic or legal consequences.

How are those prosecutions against Blackwater - sorry, I mean Xe - coming along then?

 

[blackout]

Heads up: The administration has said anybody who objects to the scanners is now a 'domestic extremist'.

You may wish to edit your above statements if you want to stay off various lists.

TSA Administrative Directive: Opt-Outters To Be Considered "Domestic Extremists"

Ah, the "extremist" shunning.

Are you suggesting Requia,
that we now also give up our right/s to free speech?

They keep naughty and nice lists just like santa.
That should make you feel good.

 

[Requia]

Oh no, I'm suggesting we already did.

 

[blackout]

Oh no, I'm suggesting we already did.

Only if we start editing our posts/comments/words.

 

[Zardoz]

According to Privacy International - an NGO that studies such things, the US was already an "endemic surveillance" state before the airport groping and ogling requirements kicked in. You (and the UK) are on par with China and Russia. The good news is your rating can't get worse.

LOL... only Greece is above yellow rating?

 

[Revoltingest]

How are those prosecutions against Blackwater - sorry, I mean Xe - coming along then?

I have no idea. Do you think they're comparable to a domestic civilian security contractor? I don't, since Blackwater's victims weren't customers able to vote with their feet (economic sanction) or sue in in local court (civil sanction) or file charges with local authorities (criminal sanction).

 

[Kathryn]

By the way, just to add some boring fact rather than hype and hysteria to the picture - everyone's not scanned or patted down. 20 percent of passengers are selected for scanning, and if they don't want the scan, they are patted down. So it's not a matter of "If I fly I will certainly be scanned or patted down." You've got a 1 in 5 chance. Now - if it really freaks you out, those aren't good odds, but if you're worried simply about the minute amts of radiation, you're not in much, if any, danger.

This all boils down to CHOICE. If you choose to fly, you have a 1 in 5 chance of being screened via the scanner. Or you can choose a pat down instead. I realize that some people are pretty much forced to fly due to work demands, but as far as those who fly as an option - if it bugs you too much, choose another option. I support your right to choose!

As for the images and weirdo sexual predators, come on. Have you actually seen these images? They are about as far from sexy as anything can be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By the way, just to add some boring fact rather than hype and hysteria to the picture - everyone's not scanned or patted down. 20 percent of passengers are selected for scanning, and if they don't want the scan, they are patted down. So it's not a matter of "If I fly I will certainly be scanned or patted down." You've got a 1 in 5 chance.

Thanks - I didn't realize that. The way the media's been covering it, it made it sound like everyone gets scanned.

This all boils down to CHOICE. If you choose to fly, you have a 1 in 5 chance of being screened via the scanner. Or you can choose a pat down instead. I realize that some people are pretty much forced to fly due to work demands, but as far as those who fly as an option - if it bugs you too much, choose another option. I support your right to choose!

That was pretty much my position already before all this, but it was mainly about long lines, those new baggage fees, a few experiences with flight delays, the trip to the airport across the busiest highway in North America* (a trip that takes two hours during rush hour... if you're lucky), and the fact that I've usually got to rent a car when I arrive and drive for several hours anyhow because the airlines tend not to fly where I want to go. It's not like I needed much reason to avoid the airport as it was.

Though really, I think what bothers me most in all of this isn't the idea of being photographed quasi-naked; it's the idea that people in charge of air security think that photographing me and people like me quasi-naked is a more useful way of spending the time and money they've been afforded than all the other security measures that they could've implemented instead.

I mean, if they had spent a fraction of the money for these scanners to simply hire on more staff so that nobody monitoring a baggage scanner goes more than an hour without a break, the increase in attentiveness would be much more effective at preventing actual threats to security than these backscatter x-ray things ever could be, IMO.


*Really. Highway 401 near Keele Street in Toronto has the highest annual average daily traffic volume of any highway in North America. Your fun fact for the day!

 

[Amill]

I'll just deal with the scanner if I'm put into that situation. It seems a bit ridiculous for the government to freak out this much for security(why don't they freak out this much over the security of citizens in more dangerous situations?) but oh well, it won't stop me from flying.

 

[Revoltingest]

....20 percent of passengers are selected for scanning, and if they don't want the scan, they are patted down.....This all boils down to CHOICE. If you choose to fly, you have a 1 in 5 chance of being screened via the scanner. Or you can choose a pat down instead.

They can & will do both. I didn't opt out. I went thru the scanner. Then I had the fondling, which was entirely baseless for security reasons. I'd also been selected for pat-downs multiple times in years past, but they really ramped up the intimacy of it. So I choose to never fly again.

Note: Many scanners were roped off & not in use for Opt Out Day. If they're so necessary, then why do something so dangerous just to avoid a protest?
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/newark_liberty_airport_controv.html

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll just deal with the scanner if I'm put into that situation. It seems a bit ridiculous for the government to freak out this much for security(why don't they freak out this much over the security of citizens in more dangerous situations?) but oh well, it won't stop me from flying.

Just for discussion's sake, I'm going to put something out here. These are 2007 stats for the US:

Number of deaths for leading causes of death

• Heart disease: 616,067
• Cancer: 562,875
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
• Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
• Diabetes: 71,382
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
• Septicemia: 34,828

FASTSTATS - Leading Causes of Death

From what I can gather online, these scanners cost about $150,000 each (which I assume doesn't include initial training, maintenance and ongoing staffing to man the things, so I'd take it as a lower limit of the estimated cost) and there are about 200 currently in place.

That's $30,000,000. Imagine what $30,000,000 could do to prevent death and disability from stroke. In the case of stroke, reducing the impact isn't really a matter of working toward future cures or anything like that; the medical community knows exactly how to respond to them... the trick is making sure that the doctors, medicines and equipment are available to stroke victims immediately after the stroke occurs.

Imagine the benefit in human life if the federal government spent $30,000,000 to make sure that rapid care for stroke victims was available in rural areas. Now compare that to these scanners, where IMO, it's not even clear that they're going to save more people than they kill.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just for discussion's sake, I'm going to put something out here. These are 2007 stats for the US:



FASTSTATS - Leading Causes of Death

From what I can gather online, these scanners cost about $150,000 each (which I assume doesn't include initial training, maintenance and ongoing staffing to man the things, so I'd take it as a lower limit of the estimated cost) and there are about 200 currently in place.

That's $30,000,000. Imagine what $30,000,000 could do to prevent death and disability from stroke. In the case of stroke, reducing the impact isn't really a matter of working toward future cures or anything like that; the medical community knows exactly how to respond to them... the trick is making sure that the doctors, medicines and equipment are available to stroke victims immediately after the stroke occurs.

Imagine the benefit in human life if the federal government spent $30,000,000 to make sure that rapid care for stroke victims was available in rural areas. Now compare that to these scanners, where IMO, it's not even clear that they're going to save more people than they kill.

100,000 people dying of disease is something we just accept....it doesn't ever lead the 7pm news.
A plane crash does. But public policy & spending are controlled by nervous politicians, not actuaries.