Pajiba

The concern with terrorist groups is that they want to undermine American freedoms.

That idea never fails to make me chuckle.

I don't approve of the new regulations, but if there's one thing I know, it's that Americans will not hesitate to throw away their freedoms if it makes them feel slightly safer.

As someone who travels a lot, I will definitely have to deal with the new rules and (worse) the consequences of the protests. Luckily I am not traveling on Opt-Out day otherwise I would likely go all Lou Ferrigno on someone. While I appreciate a protest as much as the next guy the last thing we all need is for the air travel system to bog down on the busiest travel day of the year. Pick another day morons.

Can't say I am excited about either the prospect of a pat down or a body scan. I will choose the body scan, however, as it is likely the quickest way through the process. Personal health be damned. If I was that worried about my health I'd still have that case of Miller Lite in the fridge.

These changes aren't designed to make anyone safer (they're not designed to get the TSA their jollies either -- that's just silly); they're designed to create the illusion of safety. To give idiots like Juan Williams a nice safe feeling when they see the Muslim sitting next to them on their next flight.

To answer your question, I don't think this is all-day-news melodrama; it's a legitimately concerning issue. I don't know enough about it to comment intelligently. My opinion will surely sway one way or the other depending upon who has instituted these changes and what entity will be enforcing them.

Is the TSA a goverment body, or a privately financed arm of the airlines?

These scanners are a gorram illusion of safety. There is a greater chance you will be hit by lightning than die in a terrorist attack.

First it was liquids. Then it was shoes. Now it's fucking x-rays. Fuck. That. Shit.

I've gotta fly next week so I can make a more informed opinion after. But I think the invasion of privacy across the board is going to far. A free society can never be 100% safe. What's next, body scanners in malls? If one gets attacked you better believe it. We are in a reactionary society and the laws we are implementing with shocking regularity look good at first blush but no one seems to truly understand their impact. 9/11 was tragic, but what it has done to our way of life is even worse. The terrorists DID win, by forcing us to live in a society where our freedom is being stripped away in the name of keeping us "safe" and we are told to deal with it. Yet profiling is wrong. Yet lighters are allowed on airplanes. It's all politics. If someone wants to take down a plane, they will. If you have no concern for your life or the consequences, you can do anything to anyone and that kind of dedication can never be guarded against. Someone will always find a way in.

TSA has a tough job but let's be honest; they are not the best and brightest out there. I'm sure there are a minority that are getting off on their new found "power". They can pat me down if I'm under arrest, and not before.

And, Mae: the concern about terrorist groups isn't that they want to undermine American freedoms (if so, G.W. Bush is the greatest terrorist of them all), the concern about terrorists is that they want to kill us!

And killing us would definitely not be undermining our freedom...Good point, there.

Did it become bad to be moderate? 'cause I seem to be taking moderate stances on a lot of things, and feeling very alone while doing so.

Yes, the increased security standards (as a whole) constitute a reduction in the privacy afforded to people. But if there is a legitimate demand for higher security, aren't we just getting what we asked for? We've been getting inspected, scanned, poked and prodded for years, even before 9/11 and people complained back then too. The only real difference seems to be in the way the media is treating it... Big surprise.

Yes I'm a little worried about the possibility of radiation exposure from the Backscatter scanners, but the research that has been done isn't even close to conclusive, so I think I'll just wait for that to settle out. The pat-downs don't strike me as a huge increase on pre-existing random screening procedure anyway. And yes, there are problems with the pre-existing systems too.

If you are interested, here is a cute little animated video of the true efficacy of these scanners:

http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2010/11/radiation_vs_te.html

To reiterate: these will prevent absolutely nothing. They are designed to make you feel better, and make records profits to the companies that make them.

These changes aren't designed to make anyone safer (they're not designed to get the TSA their jollies either -- that's just silly); they're designed to create the illusion of safety.

Agreed 100%. Not to mention that neither scanners nor pat downs are going to find anything, uh, internally concealed.

Interesting that typically left-leaning DR is so quick to call anyone upset about the new procedures a "crackpot." But I can't say I'm that surprised.

First-it is supposedly MORE invasive than a police-style pat down. Police style pat downs have been conducted for a few years now without such complaint. Second, the police themselves cannot just pat down anyone they see walking down the street, there has to be some particularized suspicion. In the airports, anyone who refuses the scan gets the pat down on the sole basis that they refused the scan. So while the police have to have a reason to stop you and pat you down, the TSA gets to feel you up for no other reason than because they say so. Third, I think the real concern is not really about the pat downs, but about the fear of "what's next"? I already have to take off my shoes, my hat, my jacket, and my belt. Now I have a choice between being photographed nearly naked or being intimately patted down. What will happen when the first butt-bomb is found? Random cavity checks?

I don't know much about the body scans. Supposedly people are concerned about the radiation. The TSA says it's negligible. If I flew a lot more than 2-3 times a year, I would probably be more concerned.

All of that said, I agree that if you don't want either, then don't fly. Flight is not a necessity. But that doesn't mean you have to like it. I would be more pissed at the "opt out day" idiots for slowing down the lines than I would be at the TSA agents for fondling my junk.

I resent being lied to. I resent being force-fed illusions. I resent decisions forced on us out of irrational fears.

You have a greater chance of dying by alligator than terrorist plane-jacking. Why the hysteria?

I just once want to see policy dictated by FACTS AND DATA. Address things that are actually problems that we should rationally care about rather than things that we fear irrationally.

Um I've had the pat down and that is not a police style pat down, Dustin. It is really rather much to go through at an airport. Especially when you are seven months pregnant trying to fly out of Charleston, SC's podunk airport.
I don't really have a problem with the new scanners except for the idea of people having to expose themselves to that much radiation on a regular basis. I don't fly THAT much but I can see why folks who actually work on airplanes and have to go through those machines every day might make something of it.

@grizzle, and anyone else who has/will make these comments again:

Uh, flying is a necessity. Maybe not for everyone but for people who have to fly, you have no other option. Buses and trains across 3,000 miles is not an option. If I need to go to another part of the world, a ship is not an option. Yes, you do have to fly. To say we don't have to fly is like saying you don't need a cell phone. You may be able to technically live without one, but the societal and career orientated consequences are too harsh to bear.

Just, please don't tell me you don't have to fly if you don't want to. That is such bs.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/forget_the_porn_machines_NQAJ5DOzf187gdRQnLURlO?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4ce64d46b87b4263%2C0

This is a piece my friend wrote for the NY Post this week. Check it.

While it is "taboo" to mention it, there is one partial remedy that could be used, so I guess I'll be the one to put it out:

Profiling. By basis of age and race.

In all of this, the most enraging pictures are the ones you see of nuns, old woman, and little children forced to undergo pat-downs and strip searches.

This is done under the guise of "fairness" and being politically correct.

But while it is fair, I think in the end it is pretty stupid. There is a section of the population that is to blame, and it's not just the obvious. I'd put young and middle aged white males into the mix as well. Being one, I'd happily submit myself to the screening if it meant people who shouldn't have to didn't have to.

I think that's what pisses people off the most. They see in the news that these acts are perpetuated by a narrow portion of the population, yet the feds, under the guise of fairness, label everyone as guilty rather than consider someone unfairly innocent.

And it should be echoed again: What happens after the first terrorist shoves a bomb up his behind?

What then? What happens if someone gets through the xray or pat-down with a weapon? And what happens if someone detonates a bomb while in a crowded security line in an airport?

Why is crashing a plane the probable action, and how far is the government willing to go to ensure our safety?

There is a reason my husband and I (1) take Amtrak or (2) drive.

I honestly believe that the only reason 9-11 was successful is that the people on the plane had no idea what was going on. If that happened today, passengers would lose their shit and revolt.

That being said, we have allowed our fear of 9-11 to accept such curbing of our freedoms (yes, Patriot Act and Guantanamo and wiretapping, I'm looking at you) that the terrorists won.

We were afraid and we let the government throw down some bullshit because we wanted to feel like someone was doing something. Fucking Iraq War. FUCKING BULLSHIT.

President Bush promised me Osama Bin Laden and all I got was this stupid fucking t-shirt the hanging of Saddam Hussein which actually made me feel SORRY FOR THAT MAN.

So, America. Getting groped and pornographically scanned is what is takes to say "Enough!" to the fear agenda? There are men at Guantanamo who would be thrilled if that was all they had to put up with.

You said you wanted to be safe, America, and you didn't care what the cost was in money, human life, or human dignity.

That said, I don't even let my husband take naked pictures of me, so the TSA can suck it. And as far as getting groped, that bullshit happens to so many women on a daily basis all over the world and they have NO RECOURSE.

So, I have to be honest, it thrills me just a little to know that men in this country are getting a taste of what happens to women who dare attend Gasparilla or any other number of "fun" events.

But not enough to experience it on purpose.

I fly regularly. Taking a train, bus, or car is not an option; the distance is simply too great. I have a big problem with this. Here is why:

1. The science behind the scanners is so new that there is no long term data available about the affect of these machines. There is also no data available from an independent source regarding the safety and efficacy of the scanners.
2. There is no data available on the affects of the body scans or the enhanced pat downs on the psychological and emotional health of victims of sexual assault and/or sexual abuse. There are a significant number of Americans that have suffered some form of sexual violation, so this is a bigger issue than people would like to admit.
3. The government lied. The machines do have the capability to store and transfer images. See here http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans.
4. The TSA employees are not law enforcement officers; TSA employees are glorified security guards. They do not receive anything close to the level of training as local or federal law enforcement officers. TSA employees are not subject to the same kinds of vetting or background checks as law enforcement. We do not permit law enforcement officers to pat down or use technology to strip search people at random, so why would we give this sort of authority to a security guard?
5. All of the threats aboard planes post 9/11/01 have occurred on flights that originated outside the US. The current techniques are only in use in the US. The underwear bomber did not get on a plane in Oklahoma; he got on a plane in Amsterdam. These techniques will not stop this kind of attack.
6. The pat down procedure in use by the TSA is far more invasive than the pat downs used by law enforcement officers. Law enforcement officers are not permitted to grope a suspect’s genitals. Also, a full-body pat down is only permitted after a suspect has been arrested and read his/her Miranda Rights.
7. I do not give up the constitutionally afforded protections of my right to privacy and unreasonable search and seizure just because I fly. I am willing to suspend my rights within reason to help ensure the safety and security of my fellow passengers, but this goes too far. I will not allow my government to bully me, frighten me, or cow me into giving up constitutional rights that so many brave Americans have fought and died to defend.

I'm with superasente and Scully. And to answer your question, superasente, TSA is a federal entity, under the Department of Homeland Security.

It's all about the illusion of safety. These measures do not work, and are easily defeated by a determined person. Ask any prison guard or cop where prisoners often hide contraband. Anyone here willing to subject themselves and their families to a body cavity search to fly down to Disneyland? Doubtful. So there's a line here. How much are you willing to put up with for the illusion of safety?

Richard Reed put a bomb in his shoe, so now we all have to get our shoes scanned. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab stuffs a bomb down his underwear, so now we have to have backscatter scans and pat-downs. When the next guy stuffs a bomb up his ass (which none of the new security measures can detect), what will be their new policy?

Google El-Al's security policies. They don't fuck around- everyone gets interviewed, profiled, and observed. Suspicious people are treated with suspicion. They focus on the people, not possessions. This is what I read, anyway. Feel free to correct me if you have any differing personal experience.

As for the questions:
1. Yes, I care.
2. Because I'm not a big fan of relinquishing my natural and constitutional rights for any reason, let alone one that is a complete waste of time.
3. I give EL-AL measures as my alternative. Good luck getting that to work in the US (they **gasp** profile. Seems to work for them, though.)
4. Actually, yes, I do think that the TSA is an attempt to molest the American public... But not sexually. It's a power grab, like everything else, and it's not even subtle.

Of course, it took me so long to write my previous post, everyone else in the world stated all my points. Sorry.

Of course flying is a choice, Wolf. You can choose not to fly if you feel it's unsafe because of terrorism. These measures don't do a damn thing to make you safer, so why would you allow your government to force them on you, ignoring your basic human rights as protected by the constitution?

And by the way, as pleasant as the header pic is, it's not an actual scan picture. She is a nude model, and the picture is doctored.

I don't mind the pat-down. (I kind of like it but that is a post for a different kind of thread). I'm not sure I fee the same way a bout a patdown for my 8 y.o.
Ultimately, flying on an airline flight is a choice and them that don't like it should consider different travel plans.

So I've got this right, some flashlight cop gets to A) take my naked picture, or B) fondle my balls, and if I want C) none of the above, *I* should explain *myself*?

Really?

Wow.

AND, hasn't it already been determined that the best way to avoid an attack is intelligence prior to the flights? What were the 9/11 hijackers carrying that couldn't have been either snuck on, or just carried on to the flight that could slip by X-Ray, Metal Detectors, etc if they really wanted to?

Mr. Rowles,

This is a personal opinion and not intended as legal advice. While I am a lawyer who has studied these issues, I am not providing advice that should be relied upon. I do not say this to give any clout or credence to my post. I am subject to ethical restrictions just as the officers of the TSA should be. If you do not feel like reading my post, the TLDR is that the TSA cannot disregard the Constitution of the United States. If these procedures were essential then the TSA should be fired for not doing its job for nine years.

The TSA represents an agency charged with an impossible mission. While it has reacted to each threat it perceives with additional rules, it has discovered that it cannot make the skies 100% safe. Rather than admit that it cannot do its job, it is forced to cheat because the enemy cheats too. I make no bones that asking this Agency to act within the scope of the Constitution makes it impossible to "win" this war on terror. My problem is that is has overstepped those bounds and a Constitutional amendment is necessary for this Agency to do what it is doing. It has made and will continue to make unconstitutional rules and wait for the President, the courts, or Congress to tell it no.

The problem is that the one that does this will get blamed when the next act of terrorism occurs. I am deeply saddened that we are at a point where 100% safe air travel is not possible and none of these groups want to be the one that backs off. No one wants to be the one that did not do everything that could be done to keep it from happening again. The problem is the Constitution of the United States requires that our government, including the TSA is not allowed to cheat. The reason that some people, and certainly not all, are upset is that the TSA is cheating. If your mission is to protect us from bad guys, you cannot be one yourself. It is a basic childhood rule that two wrongs do not make a right.

The People will scream for blood when another disaster happens. Regardless of everything that is being done in the name of security, another disaster will happen and none of these measures will prevent that. Some jackass will stuff some C4 up his butt and we will be revisiting this topic so see if cavity searches of children is the point at which you feel like I do now. Maybe it will not be.

The TSA has already mentioned intelligence of bad people considering putting explosives in breast implants. Would you have any issue with a little exploratory surgery before your next flight?

Yes, these seem like ridiculous and horrific scenarios. To some of the people being subjected to the current TSA procedures, they feel that way now. I do not understand a governmental official needs to touch my genitals before I can fly.

Last time I checked, I was not the enemy. I was the guy happily paying his taxes that fund this Agency.

Travelers put up with a lot of crap in the name of safety. If you think that these measure make you safe, you are misinformed. Sure, they improve your chances, but you are not completely safe. Statistically, you have a much higher chance of dying on the way to or from the airport, so perhaps the flight should not be your biggest concern.

These travelers are putting up with something no court has said is lawful. One of the last cases on point said that metal detectors and back-of-the-hand over the pocket reviews were ok. That's all it said. You need to understand that you are submitting yourself to an area that we desperately need guidance from the courts on. The only way that can occur is for people to file lawsuit and for the courts to consider them.

The Supreme Court has not ruled that these new techniques are Constitutional because our highest Court is pretty careful about what it considers. It exercises restraint. Some of the other branches of government could learn from this example.

The enhanced pat downs have not been found to be lawful. While you may not care, others do. If they are found to be against the law, that means that each enhanced pat down done without consent may--I'm not saying will--be an assault or battery, depending on the law of the jurisdiction in which it occurred.

But honestly, the status of the law is not what makes most people decide if something is right or not. People do not like a lot of laws. So I am considering this from a common sense perspective.

If these measures are truly essential to our safety, as the TSA has told Congress this week, then why were they not implemented until now? The TSA has had hands and I have had genitals for the entire time that the TSA has been doing this job. Why did they not do something that is essential to my safety until now? For nine years, the TSA has not been doing its job and letting all of us fly unsafely (according to what it told Congress this week). If I did not do my job for nine years, I would be fired. So why is it different for them? You pay taxes that fund this Agency. Do you like funding an Agency that by its own definition has not been doing its job?

As for the "don't like it, don't fly folks," we pay for this Agency, we paid for the stimulus plan that the TSA used to buy the machines, and we paid for the bailouts that most of the commercial airlines lined up for after 9/11. I have an economic stake in this right to travel by air too. You do too.

Or maybe I just do not like what I am seeing in my airports these days. Instead of being baffled by the attention this issue is receiving, read it and make up your own mind. Not everyone is having the minimal issues you are with the system. I simply cannot watch the videos of how children are being treated in them. While you may want to say I consented to this treatment by flying, children lack the capacity to consent in most jurisdictions and certainly in mine. It does not matter whether their parents say yes or no.

Moreover, there is the issue of professionalism. Professional means a lot of things to a lot of people, but in two areas it comes with peer review and threat of being sued when you screw up. One is law and one is medicine. These agents have been instructed to say that these searches are legal. Most are not lawyers. Second, the enhanced pat down is likened to an medical examination. Most of the TSA are not doctors.

When a lawyer or a doctor screws up, they are subject to discipline by a bar or board. Moreover, they are subject to malpractice proceedings. It really is not fair to lump the practices of the TSA into these categories.

And I do not hate the officers performing these searches. Nearly all of them hate this process far more than most of us flying. The problem is that lawyers usually have seven years of higher education and doctors eclipse that number easily. The officers of the TSA are too numerous to consistently administer the procedures and they have not been trained for years in what they are doing. They do not know if what they are doing is right. When it comes out that it was wrong, they will also be the ones that take the fall for what an overreaching agency did.

But when I fear the checkpoint in the my own country more than I fear the checkpoint in a third world, something is clearly wrong. When I am in a third world country, which I have been within the last year, I expect to be subject to those laws. When I am in the United States, I expect to be subject to and protected by ours. Right now, I am not.

But truthfully, it does not surprise me a bit that you do not have a problem with the current procedures. It does not affect you adversely. When it does, you may feel differently, and you will be stunned that not everyone else agrees with your stance on the cavity searches, or whatever else is necessary next year.

If you tell me that we must have these procedures to have air travel in the United States, we can amend the Constitution at any time to allow just that. The self created and constantly changing procedures of a relatively newly formed agency are not the law of this country.

Every one of the officers that work under the TSA swore to uphold the Constitution. Change it to fit what they are doing if want this to be legal. Even if you do not buy off on the constitutionality of it, tell me why it is essential to touch my junk today when it has not been since the formation of the TSA. It was either essential then or the TSA has failed to do its job since its inception. Either way, having the TSA do this is not right.

There are any number of lawyers who post here, so I pose this question to them (regardless of personal feelings about the matter): Don't both the body scans and the "enhanced" pat-downs violate the 4th amendment?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Since TSA are government agents, aren't these measures violating people's civil rights? If so, then how can we justify it? I'm all for safe flying but there have to be better, less invasive, non-civil-rights-violating solutions, no?

Ahhh, I see that Mr 4 already addressed my issue before my post. Any consenting opinions out there?

Well, everytime it escalates, I am reminded of the first almost innocuous security checks after the rash of high-jackings to Cuba and my initial reaction. I thought that the process did not make air travel any safer, but it did create the opening for another non-productive industry.

While all these folks who worry that their asses are somehow immune from distasters — mechanical, natural, or aggressive — celebrate their personal safety over each new layer of intrusive annoyance, please think of the economy.

How can the economy grow if so much of our resources are siphoned off into nonproductive enterprise? Security screenings do not add to GDP. Goverment activities do not contribute to GDP, either.

While you're thinking about GDP, think also about outsourced offshore manufacturing and services — they may contribute to corporate earnings but they do not contribute to US GDP. And the combination of enhanced automated productivity with offshore work leaves fewer and fewer opportunities to earn. With fewer American job opportunties, there will be fewer Americans working. So right next to security, employment opportunity is another joke for politicians and corporate fat cats to launch out of the other side of their mouth.

We must also remember that anyone who is incapable of standing unsupported in the scanner [users of walkers and wheelchairs, for instance] is going to be searched by hand. They don't have the option of just accepting the scanner. Why should the elderly and disabled have no recourse but to bear the indignity of the new patdown?

The full body scans AND the pat downs are pure bullshit. Unless the news media has been holding out on us regarding attempted attacks on the airlines by terrorists in this country, NO WAY are either of these warranted.

The "small percent" of airports currently mandating either or both of these securiy is also meaningless. Nothing stops the government from pushing the envelope when it comes to violating privacy.

And I should know, I've worked for the SOBS for over 20 years now. Give 'em an inch and well . . . .

Like I said on Fark, one guy tucks some "explosives" under his taint, and a year later, millions of Americans get groped at the airport. What Fredo said about more serious security lapses (ie, loading of cargo and other things onto the plane) is right on, it seems to me.

I'm more worried (to the extent that I'm worried at all) about the cargo and other items going onto the plane than what any of the passengers are carrying on their person. How many airline/airport employees have access to the planes? How hard would it be to get a bomb-like device onto the plane between flights (or at the end of the day, when they supposedly clean the planes)? My suspicion is, not all that difficult. Kinda surprised it hasn't happened already. Seems to me it's a lot easier as well as more efficient, to scrutinize every object that goes in the plane, rather than feeling up the goodies of every passenger to counter the extremely small chance that some guy is able to smuggle enough explosives underneath his package to blow up a plane. If I was gonna blow up a plane, I wouldn't try to smuggle shit through the checkpoints. I'd get a job at the airport (or a counterfeit badge that would get me access to planes).

This bugs me a lot. I am from Canada and have a bunch of relatives in the States. Ever since 9/11 it has been a pain in the ass to go visit them because of all the changes. Every time there is a change, terrorists have always found ways to circumvent them so it really hasn't helped me feel safe much.

I don't like the thought of being groped or having a naked picture of me taken which can be saved and distributed just to see my relatives. To those who say don't fly, well I try not to but in the case of racing to a death bed, well, gotta go and F-U.

The lawyer above stating that the TSA is a body that your tax dollars go to has a point. You pay for them to do a job that they don't do which is sad really. In order for TSA to do their jobs better, IMO, is to hire, train, pay appropriately and maintain good staff which would be more cost efficient than an X-ray machines or having a whole bunch of bad apples groping away. Intelligence is the key.

Somebody up there mentioned about TSA staff not changing their gloves between gropes. I hope that my cousins who are deathly allergic to peanuts who choose airlines based on no peanuts served in them, don't run into these types while traveling this Thanksgiving. I would hate for them or others like them having a severe reaction because the TSA guys didn't change their gloves when the person groped previously had eaten peanuts.

I feel horrified for victims of assault having to go through all of this stuff. It must be unimaginably awful for them and thank you to the above who have focused on this point.

Well anyways to try to be positive about something, Happy Thanksgiving.

To everyone making some form of the argument "You don't have to fly / There are other transportation options", stop wasting our time with your false options. Even discounting the rest of the world, we live in a country 3000 miles wide (not including the recent bits). Driving/walking/hitching is not a reasonably option in many cases. We know it, you know it, so just stop.

I realize I'm not everyone, and I realize that everyone has a different level of comfort when it comes to things like this, both a body/modesty level of comfort as well as an ethical/privacy level of comfort. I just fail to see the problem or identify with the people that appear to be outraged at it.

And, stupid question, how do we know it hasn't prevented any attacks? Just because we haven't caught anyone redhanded (or red-testicled) with whatever weapon doesn't mean there weren't dozens of individuals that aborted plans because they were deterred by the security measures. It seems to me that the real benefit of these measures is the deterrent factor, stopping something before they even get as far as the security lines. Just because we're not finding box cutters on every third person doesn't mean it's not working. How many people didn't even bother to sneak their taint-bomb on the plane because they know that shit's gonna get found?

You can't measure or account for that, to prove either my point or yours.

I'm willing to trust it as part of a larger plan, if for nothing more than that it seems like a good idea. If used in conjunction with the known elements. By no means do I suggest that we rely solely on the scans/pats for our safety.

I don't know, and it's a pretty weak position, but I think it's beneficial. It just logically makes sense in my brain that there has to have been some benefit from making it more difficult to get weapons on a plane.

I'll never forget seeing a demonstration when I was in paramedic school that the sheriff's department did, just to prove a point about safety with patients in the back of an ambulance. He stood at the front of the class, looking like a perfectly normal guy, and then proceeded to take 11 handguns, 7 knives, a machete and a shotgun off of his person. He was wearing jeans and a long sleeved shirt. Had he not shown them to me, I would have never known they were there. Granted the shotgun was a sawed-off, but still.

And I covet your use of italics, if only because I am retarded in the ways of formatting.

KV beat me to it.

The security mechanisms are generally a joke for anyone with even a pittance of education.

As I said before, sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The odds of being killed by a terrorist while aboard an airplane are roughly 20 in a billion. But hey, why act rationally when we can create massive delays while inconveniencing our citizens with a totally asinine examination that will cost them millions of dollars while further debasing their civil liberties! If you think this precaution is needed or will act as a deterrent you're a pathetic moron who should stop breathing my oxygen. That is all.

What I find beyond the pale about this is that the full body scans were originally offered as an alternative to full pat-downs for passengers singled out for further screening, then the TSA decided that all passengers should be subject to full body scans (and the only reason it isn't at every airport right now is that the machines have not yet been installed at all airports), with the only alternative being the invasive full pat-down.

So, the TSA has decided to treat all of us like we are potential terrorists because...it can. And supposedly it will make our planes safer. Of course, a full body scan and/or a full pat-down will not be able to tell if someone has had explosives surgically implanted in their abdominal cavity, so I guess CT scans as part of airport security are the next step to ensure the safety of all passengers.

Just a side point, have you noticed that every single attempt to smuggle explosives on to a plane targeting Americans since September 11th has been on a plane that took off in a different country, and the terrorists have been foreign nationals? I don't think that the TSA can do anything about that, but the people who can, the intelligence services, have their heads so far up their fucking asses that they can't do their fucking job and get some human intelligence on people that are actually a threat to Americans so that we don't need all this mommy state security bullshit because the people we need to look out for are either in jail or dead. Dumbasses...

(For the record, I'm not some crazed libertarian here. I voted for Obama, and I am damn proud of that fact. Also, fuck Palin.)

IMHO, those of you who make light of the "grope" really shouldn't do so until you experience it for yourselves. As a woman and as a human, I felt thoroughly violated after the process, and I'm immensely disappointed that the feminists aren't making any issue at all of this. Of course, to say any more would make me sound rather hysterical, so I'll just stop right there.

The TSA, unfortunately, doesn't give a shit about the 4th amendment. It's an administration and can do whatever the hell it wants to do until one of the three branches successfully challenges its tactics. And it's so bloody political out there that neither the executive, legislative, or judicial branches have the guts to do just that. They wouldn't want to jeopardize their salaries, you see...

I say instead of commenting here on Pajiba (no offense to our awesome site) tell it to your congressional reps!

Well put JJ. Hadn't thought out that line.

And T, I in fact am still breathing your oxygen. I've even started taking deeper breaths whilst making my best moron face.

Frankly, as someone who doesn't have to put up with such security measures where I live, yet, I find it a bit disturbing. I understand the need for increased security, but I feel like it can go over the top, just like the story about the breast cancer survivor.
This summer I vacationed in France and before boarding the return flight I passed through the regular metal scanner and my jean caps made it go off. They then applied the portable one, which of course went off too, and I showed them the front button which was the exact area that had beeped. They still "frisked" me. I'm quite convinced that had I complained they would have strip-searched me.

None of these security measures protect anyone against an attack. I'm pretty sure the terrorists are cooking up something entirely different than a standard hijacking.

Something unforeseen and completely unexpected.

That scares me.

I’m a frequent flier and on at least one monthly flight out of JFK, and I am pissed. I have zero desire to be radiated (there are two kinds of machines and the safety of the one kind is being called in to question.) I also don’t think that it’s reasonable for the government to keep a naked image of me in their random TSA database. So I guess that I get to have a TSA agent get to third base with me instead – without even buying me dinner first!

I am not worried about people carrying stuff on to planes anymore – post September 11 passenger behavior has shown that they will subdue any threat. This is safety theater plain and simple. We still aren’t checking all of the baggage in the cargo compartment – you know…the easiest way to place a bomb on a plane.

People taking down planes no longer scares me - I live in NYC and the biggest fear I have is the release of some sort of nerve gas on the subway. The small attack in the Tokyo subway system a few years ago yielded a thousand wounded and 13 dead. You release that gas via a multitude operatives in the subway system, and you could have thousands dead. God forbid.

First of all, TSA pat-downs are, frankly, not even analogous to subway harassment, much less mass rape.

I am pretty firmly against both the pat-down and the full body scan. In my (completely non-legally trained) mind, this is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. Simply trying to get from point A to point B is not just cause to be searched in such an invasive manner. I "choose" to fly because I "choose" to spend time with my various family members who live as far west as Vancouver and as far east as Norway and because I "choose" a profession which requires the occasional national and international meeting in order for me to have any hope of advancement or job security.

Apart from it being a gross invasion, I see zero evidence that these new security measures will have/have had any positive impact on the safety of air travel. Even if these scanners/pat-downs were in any way effective, until they'd be in every airport around the world I don't see how anyone can argue that there would be any effect whatsoever. I can't imagine that it would be very difficult for your average ill-willed person to figure out which airports have these new measures and design his/her terrorist plans to avoid them.

Also-if a person intends to blow up a plane on which they are passengers, they clearly do not have a huge sense of self-preservation. There would be nothing stopping these people from swallowing an explosive or using one as a suppository. That would be the easiest, surest way of getting these things on board. If this person's main intent is to kill a lot of US citizens, he/she would be better served targeting the subway systems because there are more people there and no security at all.

Furthermore, it would be a very difficult endeavor at this point to hijack a plane to use as a missile as in 9/11 for many reasons, including the locked cockpit (which is one of the only measures beyond metal detectors that I see as reasonable) and that the entire rest of the passengers in the plane would do anything to take out the terrorists (they know they're going to die if nothing's done so I bet at least some would put up a considerable fight).

And finally, as just a tongue in cheek observation, because these measures are supported by our tax dollars, we are paying someone to dispassionately touch us inappropriately. Therefore we are (mostly) resistant Johns to government prostitutes.

@samantha t - Say you. Many others differ.

Grovera, and what is it exactly you are trying to do?

The body scanners are already sitting at the international airport in this town. Very few people pass through them. Some of them are selected at random, but mostly they present some sort of credible excuse to look a little more closely. Yes, there is some racial profiling that gets factored in. Tragic. But necessary.

I don't presume to think that the people against the possibility of either being ruffled or scanned with radiation (I'll let that absurdity slide as you're legs are still fresh) supersede the topicality of real threats to this nation. Namely, that fucking moronic Americans are more concerned about their comfort than the 4th Amendment (which is used ridiculously to shield themselves as flying on a plane with a hundred other people presents 'a' risk). And before the 2002, it was pretty easy to get things through airports. Which it will be again if, like Border Patrol checkpoints, we give people an automatic pass because they use the proper accent and idioms. The background check badge is an awful solution someone came up with despite us standing in the way.

You do think the TSA wants Avatar/Dr. Manhattan pics of your junk. One of the first things I did when I heard about the hubbub was look up how the scanners actually work. Millimeter wave scanners and backscatter X-rays are the two primary functions of the TSA scanners. It is unreasonable to reach a hand up a strangers crevasse. It is not, however, unreasonable to look inside that cavern with backscatter X-ray to see if a nuclear warhead is wedged up there. Now, I know that suitcase bombs on a plane are less likely than terrorists using a Poo stick, but the clear fact remains that plane attacks originating from Europe or another country are fine and good from where we're sitting. We have all the time it takes to cross an ocean to make our move. 15 minutes to scramble the jets. Guess how long it takes to get from New York to Boston by 747? At top speed of 538 miles per hour for a 747, that's not enough time.

Not that I give a fuck about TSA scanners. And I've been delayed on New Years Eve.

So, whatever man. Be concerned about yourself and what you have to do to get through customs or attend some holiday. Don't worry at all about asymmetrical warfare, bleeding our economy, weighing dollars versus lives, the fat twats and their bleeding heart counterparts making this country aggressively mediocre. Or you know, the world of problems that need addressing over this shit. I'd tell you what I really think, but it'd find me one day. Just tell me more about how all this affects you.

Or correct my definition of freedom for me.

If you can believe it, my next project surrounds an idea that rewards politicians for telling the truth. So, yes, furtive goals and my own Harvey and green doors.

And welcome back.

And I do apologize for being unlikeable. I just feel like losing it sometimes, and I've been calling Sens. about the Food Safety and Modernization Act last week. It should pass with large supplier member fees to run the inspections, AND small farm-to-market caveats. Without those Big Ag will merely get another mallet to thwart co-ops and any remaining poultry competitors. Call your Sens., today Che, as the cloture has been passed eons ago and the vote will likely be this evening.