posted
I just figured the board could use a little common ground. Think of me as a a uniter, not a divider. I want to reach across the aisle. Etc. Like Bush and Obama, except I really do have a bi-partisan goal here, I'm not just mouthing empty platitudes. I really do want us all to come together.
For what purpose?
Why, the one topic of the day that has people on the Left and the Right in total agreement: Bitching about the TSA!
So yeah. The TSA. It's gotten pretty ridiculous. I don't think there's another topic out there on which you could possibly find agreement between all these sources... MSNBC, Reason, Popular Mechanics, Fox News, MSNBC again, the Examiner, Gizmodo... yeah the list can really go on, if you want it to. It's... somethin' else.
About the only silver lining I can see is apparently even TSA workers hate the TSA. A lot.
Yeah that's a pretty lousy silver lining.
So. What does Hatrack think? I sort of doubt we'll be seeing a robust debate here, unless somebody wants to play devil's advocate. But that's okay. I'm here to bring people together, not drive them apart. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been wondering something through this whole debacle.
How does Israel do it?
I have a lot of problems with Israel, but when it comes to internal security, they certainly know the ins and outs. While I don't look forward to the days of having bags checked before entering malls, I'm wondering if their security requirements are quite so invasive and asinine as ours.
In general though, I think we're sacrificing common sense for the sake of political correctness. I'm not saying I'm for full-on racial profiling. But this is a situation where every flier really isn't equally suspect.
Then again, I don't fly that often, so I don't have a vested interest.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
So, while there's lots of noise about this, it's coming from a vocal minority, bipartisan as it may be.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've been wondering something through this whole debacle.
How does Israel do it?
By having a population that's fractionally the size of ours, a landmass that's fractionally the size ours, and having a population that's conditioned to accept security and the fact that they are a constant terrorist target since birth?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reddit can't shut up about this. I'm pretty sure that the whole exercise is what they call 'security theater' — security countermeasures intended to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to actually improve security. And it's probably not doing a great job of increasing the feeling of security, either. I think the only thing that even remotely justifies this whole act is that the American public is paralyzingly, reactively afraid of terrorism, and as a result has to spend billions upon billions against it since even a single airline incident would cause us to react by grinding air travel and commerce to a much more halted state.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before I moved to Spain, I had never had to walk through a metal detector or have my bag x-rayed before going into a small museum, or a local council office, or boarding a train. You also have to show your ID for everything here.
Despite Britain and Spain historically having about the same amount of terrorist threat, one had historically stayed much more relaxed about it than the other (look at 20th century history to see why). As a kid in late 80s and early 90s London, I remember being evacuated from museums etc because of bomb threats. But generally there weren't posters up of 'most wanted suspects' etc.
It's changing in the UK now, of course. Everyone's getting more paranoid. But I think that nationally you can basically choose to embrace paranoia at all times, or not.
My gripe with airports is that the last few times I've flown, everyone with high-heeled shoes (even tiny, narrow stilettos) has been told to remove them, but all the passengers wearing sneakers (which the guy actually tried to use) were allowed to keep them on. Maybe they think that women won't complain as much as men about standing barefoot on a dirty floor. Whatever the reason, it doesn't inspire confidence.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I know, a lot of the success of Israel's flight screening process has come from the fact that their screening agents are highly trained and aggressive at asking questions and examining anyone who appears the slightest bit suspicious to them. I know one diplomat who has flown in and out of Israel many times, who happens to be a Jew with an Egyptian name, and she has told me that they simply appear to be in close control of the screening process- aggressively questioning people about their plans, reasons for flying, background details, etc.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
So, while there's lots of noise about this, it's coming from a vocal minority, bipartisan as it may be.
This. I really don't care if someone who has to look at fuzzy images of genitals all day sees a fuzzy image of my genitals, especially if these things are better than metal detectors at finding things concealed on ones person. I don't know if being a non-well-endowed female, or someone who's more comfortable with bodies and their functions than average fuels my complete apathy, but people need to get over themselves.
I've flown out of Logan several times this year, and yes, they have the full body scanners. Half the time, you walk past them and just go through the metal detector. Honestly, there was only one, and it slowed the line a bit that was the worst thing. That's the worst part (but it takes forever for stuff to go through anyway)/
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: My gripe with airports is that the last few times I've flown, everyone with high-heeled shoes (even tiny, narrow stilettos) has been told to remove them, but all the passengers wearing sneakers (which the guy actually tried to use) were allowed to keep them on. Maybe they think that women won't complain as much as men about standing barefoot on a dirty floor. Whatever the reason, it doesn't inspire confidence.
I can't see why women would complain less than men about standing on a dirty floor. Presumably people who wear stilettos aren't wearing nice thick socks. My only theory is that women who wear shoes to an event that involve dancing end up taking them off anyway.
PSA: Don't bring your drink onto the dance floor. It's gross.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
El-Al has security people who interview every passenger about what their planning to do on their trip. They also ask if the baggage was left unattended at any time etc.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I did some noodling around on the subject and I found that (surprise!) the left and the right aren't in agreement about this. The activist left and the libertarians are the only groups generally aligned on this, and the touted 'Left and the Right in total agreement' part is, well, not real. For the most part, your average right-winger will agree with the casus belli on your junk as articulated by the outgoing head of the TSA:
quote:"This is war. These people are trying to kill us. They got on the planes in September 11th, 2001, killed 3,000 people. And they will do it again as many times as they can," Hawley said.
"There's been a lot of criticism about people who clearly are not terrorists. The 90-year-old little old lady. …My mother, in fact…was patted down, and pulled aside. It doesn't make any sense. It's not common sense," Stahl remarked.
"You can't say to al Qaeda, 'If you give us somebody who looks like they're 90 years old or nine months old, you're going to get a free pass.' Because I guarantee you, they are watching. They notice it. And that's where they'll come," Hawley warned.
Boom! Terrorism! Terrorists! al Qaeda! Ergo, even your grandma needs to get felt up. And, apparently, a huge portion of americans jump like a dog to support this sentiment. There's a pretty easy reason for that: it hits on all the typical omg terror button stuff which we americans — or at least a significant portion derived from thereof — spent a good six or so years doggedly and predictably responding to in support of things like the Department of Homeland Security and the USA PATRIOT act. And two wars, illegal wiretaps, extraordinary rendition, and torture. This one only pokes its head out as an issue because now the jackbooted thugs (in this case, ill-equipped and undertrained TSA agents) are feeling us up and that's such a hassle.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: As far as I know, a lot of the success of Israel's flight screening process has come from the fact that their screening agents are highly trained and aggressive at asking questions and examining anyone who appears the slightest bit suspicious to them.
Definitely true. Their checkers are better paid and FAR better trained than TSA personnel. And since most adult Israelis are military vets, it's easy for them to all be.
They are also far more concerned (with good historical cause) about checked bags than about check-ins. You have to identify your bags again after you have cleared security, shortly before the flight leaves. (And if it's a flight where you change planes, again before the second leg.) Any bags that are un-identified don't go on the plane (and probably get taken apart and examined with microscopes!)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You have to identify your bags again after you have cleared security, shortly before the flight leaves. (And if it's a flight where you change planes, again before the second leg.) Any bags that are un-identified don't go on the plane (and probably get taken apart and examined with microscopes!)
Why would this work?
Wouldn't the best way to bomb a plane with a checked bag be to check it, go in through security, identify your bag at the gate, then miss the plane on purpose and leave the airport?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed the terrorists are trying to kill us. Why then is the TSA so helpfully packing passengers who, by definition, haven't been screened into long lines?
quote:This one only pokes its head out as an issue because now the jackbooted thugs (in this case, ill-equipped and undertrained TSA agents) are feeling us up and that's such a hassle.
My partner pointed out that a certain segment of the population has been subjected to this for many years. People who travel in wheelchairs obviously can't use the metal detector. So they've been getting the patdowns whenever they fly.
A friend who uses a wheelchair had the following comment on Facebook:
quote:You know, TSA agents have been using the back of their hand to touch my privates for years - it's what they do to wheelchair users. It's about time they got around to coppin' a feel from the rest of y'all.
Not sure that I have anything to add - since I am doing my best to avoid flying or most any kind of extended travel these days.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can anyone think of any major bombs that the TSA screening has caught? I can't, off the top of my head.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One interesting point is what 538 brought up:
quote:Other passengers may substitute car travel for air travel. But this too has its consequences, since car travel is much more dangerous than air travel over all. According to the Cornell study, roughly 130 inconvenienced travelers died every three months as a result of additional traffic fatalities brought on by substituting ground transit for air transit. That’s the equivalent of four fully-loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year.
We often think of security in terms of "how much security should we add to save lives?" which is biased toward more security at any cost when the question should be "how do we minimise loss of life?"
* Another thought, one calculation is that with 809 million passengers per year on flights in the US, if each person was delayed by 20 minutes (and assuming life expectancy of 81 years) by these scanners, we could be talking in the region of 380 life equivalents that are wasted
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Why, the one topic of the day that has people on the Left and the Right in total agreement: Bitching about the TSA!
quote: You have to identify your bags again after you have cleared security, shortly before the flight leaves. (And if it's a flight where you change planes, again before the second leg.) Any bags that are un-identified don't go on the plane (and probably get taken apart and examined with microscopes!)
Why would this work?
Wouldn't the best way to bomb a plane with a checked bag be to check it, go in through security, identify your bag at the gate, then miss the plane on purpose and leave the airport?
You go directly from IDing your bag to the plane. I should have made that clearer.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So I did some noodling around on the subject and I found that (surprise!) the left and the right aren't in agreement about this. The activist left and the libertarians are the only groups generally aligned on this, and the touted 'Left and the Right in total agreement' part is, well, not real. For the most part, your average right-winger will agree with the casus belli on your junk as articulated by the outgoing head of the TSA.
Actually some on the radical right (Free Republic etc) are opposing it on the grounds that they don't know if the TSA agent is gay and getting cheap thrills from patting them down. Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp virtually every conservative blog I've visited has been irate about the TSA. Now, it is true that the conservative blogosphere seems to skew more libertarian and less socially conservative than conservatives as a whole, but the few clips on this topic that I've seen from Fox News I've seen have also been pretty negative.
So, as Raymond said, I'm curious if you have any precise numbers? Some conservatives will give up a lot in the name of fighting terrorism, but they also tend to be more sensitive about their "private parts" (or the private parts of their 3 year old daughters) than leftist or libertarians, which would further muddy the issue.
I figure that there are some terrorist-fearing conservatives that might have rolled over on the body scanners/invasive pat downs had they been introduced by, say, Bush's TSA director. They probably would have been uncomfortable with it, but gone ahead anyway. But this is Barack Hussein Obama who's trying to see and/or feel their junk, which undoubtedly makes it that much worse. Some people, regardless of political orientation, are stupid drones. But I try not to focus too much of my time thinking about them.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, conservatives are marginally more in support of the TSA full body policies and greatly more in support of racial profiling (to the extent that, between conservatives, liberals, and independents, only liberals provide a majority saying racial profiling is unjustified). They JUST ran a poll on the 15th that tallied these and it is cited by silver & co in MattP's link:
So, while there's lots of noise about this, it's coming from a vocal minority, bipartisan as it may be.
But, for the most part, a great majority (80% plus) are currently polled as being in support of the TSA policies; it will take more time before publicity of the backlash (mostly by liberal swine on social networking sites seeding the media, as it has been so far) begins to result in the double-digit shifts in public opinion necessary for majority support on either or both sides for revoking new TSA policy.
But the odds of conservative majority support being easier to garner than liberal majority support is very low, and, more to the point, the premise of the left and the right having agreement in fighting the TSA is currently a pleasant but fictional narrative.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused, Samp. Opinions on racial profiling have nothing to do with this. I'm not saying the Left and the Right agree on what should be done. My premise was that they agree this current strategy is awful.
Now, Matt has a fair point that I guess I was overestimating how many people on either side are actually outraged. But Samp you yourself just said conservatives are only marginally more in support of the scanner/grope option currently used. So I'm really not sure how you're justifying your premise.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, one pleasant comment from one of the highlighted comments on 538:
quote:The US wants to increase the number of foreign visitors, but the word is out about the hassle of traveling to and within the US. The Commerce Department should not be surprised that travel to the US is down. I've recently done my part for that. I'm involved with planning of an international conference that was scheduled to be held in Philadelphia in Fall 2012. I succeeded in convincing my colleagues that we should not subject the attendees to the TSA or, for those who do not live in one of the 35 visa waiver countries, the challenges and expenses of obtaining a visa. So we will meet in Toronto instead. It's not a *huge* event, but it's big enough to be worth a couple of million dollars to the host city's hotels, restaurants, and taxis. I know that I have no power as an individual citizen to restore my rights under the Fourth Amendment, but I'm glad that I can express my displeasure in economic terms and save others from the indignities of the American airport security system.
So there is a tiny silver lining.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I'm confused, Samp. Opinions on racial profiling have nothing to do with this.
I mentioned it because those were the two issues on the TSA procedures that people were polled about. The first, as I mentioned, was agreement on the TSA full body procedure/scans.
quote:I'm not saying the Left and the Right agree on what should be done. My premise was that they agree this current strategy is awful.
Your premise is wrong, is the issue. over 80% of people currently support the TSA full body procedure. The support among conservatives is marginally higher but for the most part it currently has overwhelming support from both sides. Please read MattP's link.
quote:But Samp you yourself just said conservatives are only marginally more in support of the scanner/grope option currently used. So I'm really not sure how you're justifying your premise.
I don't understand what's not to get. Conservatives are more marginally more in support of the TSA procedures in use than liberals. It means they support it a little bit more than liberals. Both sides overwhelmingly support it. Is that understandable?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride: Actually some on the radical right (Free Republic etc) are opposing it on the grounds that they don't know if the TSA agent is gay and getting cheap thrills from patting them down.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've been wondering something through this whole debacle.
How does Israel do it?
By having a population that's fractionally the size of ours, a landmass that's fractionally the size ours, and having a population that's conditioned to accept security and the fact that they are a constant terrorist target since birth?
Sure, but that doesn't really answer my question.
I meant, obviously, how do they do it procedurally. At the end of the day it comes down to training and procedure. What can we learn from them? What are we doing that is unnecessarily invasive but adds nothing to our security? It seems to me that the type of questioning that Israeli security officials do could be helpful in US airports.
They tell you that you need to arrive hours and hours before your flight leaves, which I do, but then I end up waiting in the lounge for two hours after flying through the security checkpoint without much fanfare. If people are already conditioned to arrive with that much leeway, might as well make use of it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of the problem with airport screening is that the probability that a passenger is carrying a bomb or some other weapon is one in millions. Even if you were to profile for terrorists, that probably would only increase the odds by about a a factor of 10 make it still zero for any practical purpose.
Add to that the fact that finding ways around any security measure is far far easier than coming up with better security measures. The first time I got the airport pat down (not long after 911), they politely didn't check my breast or my crotch. The thought that ran through my mind was, "If I were a terrorist, I'd hide the bomb in my bra". I'm shocked it took as many years as it did before a terrorist tried carrying plastic explosives in his shorts.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read an interesting article on "false positives" a while back. It's got to be a deathly boring job looking at x-rays of peoples computers and underwear. It's so unlikely that a TSA agent will actually find a bomb or weapon in screening (the overwhelming majority will never find one in an entire career) that it's a constant challenge to keep them alert and careful. So the computers randomly add stuff to the images during screening to test whether agents would actually find a bomb were it there. So when you are wondering what they might possibly have seen in the x-ray image to trigger a search or your bags of a pat down, chances are good it wasn't something in your bag or on your body at all -- you were just part of a TSA agent test.
BTW, The article went on to say that agents missed around half of the stuff in the "doped" images so chances of them missing a bomb when its actually there are pretty high. The real value in security screening is that it deters people from trying and not that its' effective in actually catching determined and clever terrorists.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So how much of screening isn't actually about finding something, and is actually about deterrence, or perhaps, morale boosting propaganda?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I'm confused, Samp. Opinions on racial profiling have nothing to do with this.
I mentioned it because those were the two issues on the TSA procedures that people were polled about. The first, as I mentioned, was agreement on the TSA full body procedure/scans.
quote:I'm not saying the Left and the Right agree on what should be done. My premise was that they agree this current strategy is awful.
Your premise is wrong, is the issue. over 80% of people currently support the TSA full body procedure. The support among conservatives is marginally higher but for the most part it currently has overwhelming support from both sides. Please read MattP's link.
quote:But Samp you yourself just said conservatives are only marginally more in support of the scanner/grope option currently used. So I'm really not sure how you're justifying your premise.
I don't understand what's not to get. Conservatives are more marginally more in support of the TSA procedures in use than liberals. It means they support it a little bit more than liberals. Both sides overwhelmingly support it. Is that understandable?
Okay, so you're not disagreeing with the idea that Left and Right have come together on this issue. You're just objecting to my assertion that Left and Right are united against it. Most people aren't against it at all, therefore I am wrong. That makes perfect sense. I actually didn't realize that was your point till now. Sorry. In other news, it's depressing that so many people are apparently okay with this.
But the idea that opposition (or, hell, support) is largely unrelated to political affiliation is correct, by your own admission. Unless you use the word "marginally" vastly different than I do...
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The radiation exposure would be my concern as well. Being seen distortedly naked wouldn't bother me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I've seen some people make that comment, Destineer, and it makes a certain amount of sense to me. That the objections are rooted in puritanical body shame issues etc. But does that mean that we should not respect these people's desires for privacy? When it comes to their body?
Whether their reason is religious, or because they've been sexually abused, or whatever, it's nevertheless a real cost for some people. It seems to me they should have sovereignty over their bodies, no?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're going through this right now with religious concerns regarding women who want to wear the veil in court rooms. No, I don't think that people should have total sovereignty in every situation. If it is determined that some invasion of personal space is reasonably necessary for airport security, then I think a reasonable sacrifice is necessary. But, you still have the option of simply not flying. You know going in what you're getting yourself into.
Of course, we can argue over what defines "reasonable." Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Apparently the conditions for shipping packages via air to the United States have now become so restrictive that the Japanese Post Office has announced that, effective Nov. 17, it will no longer accept any packages weighing over a pound for shipment to the US by any method that involves air transport (including EMS, airmail, and SAL). Except for large corporate mailers, everything over a pound must apparently now come by sea. Asahi Shimbun is reporting that the Japanese equivalents of FedEx and UPS have followed suit. I assume that airmail service remains in effect for the remaining 200 countries across the globe that have not lost their collective minds.
I do read/speak Japanese and regularly use it in my work, but it was actually my Japanese-speaking wife who brought the news to my attention through her cries of anguish when she read the news: This effectively cuts off her supply of dry goods, books, and magazines; ruins Christmas for our daughter (at least from the Japanese side of the family); and means we'll not be getting any mochi for o-shougatsu. Having spent sixteen years in Japan (though currently living in the US), one of my basic guiding principles is that if your procedures are too burdensome even for the Japanese to bother complying with, you've probably gone a bit too far.
quote:>> I travel fairly often within China, and I've NEVER been ordered to take off clothing or otherwise been humiliated by security personnel. At the Guiyang airport security opened my bag, took out a large knife and bottle of liquor, and only said " You'll have to check this bag." . No threats of prison, no charges.
For me at least travel in China is much more pleasant than in the US, because I don't have to deal with surly prison guards.<<
quote:>>China does pat downs, usually by attractive twentysomething female officers, and as far as I know, no one complains. The TSA should study this approach.<<
quote:As a 12+ year resident of Shenzhen... I did want to confirm your experience with security in this place where dissidents are locked up: I've only had to take off my shoes once when passing through airport security and have never once had to open up (or turn on) my computer or any other electronic device.
My favorite experience, though, was this: I tend to glower at the folks doing the bag searches before getting on the plane. I guess the agents sense the glowering because twice now, I've the Chinese security agents apologize to me for having to do this... one apologized and then whispered to me "Sorry. The Americans make us do this. It's useless, I'm embarrassed." On the other occasion, the agent verbally apologized and gave a quick head bow as he rezipped my bag.
On the flight where the first Chinese agent apologized to me, when we arrived in the US and deplaned, we were met by two US agents and a German shepherd which sniffed us all as we passed by. One of the agents must have been 250 pounds and towered over the deplaning passengers, most of whom were Asian. The agents had their batons out, guns visible, and tasers.
What a contrast - an apology from Chinese security agents at the start of the trip and intimidation upon arriving in the US. Welcome to the land of the free and home of the brave. That the governing classes who so piously mouth platitudes about American exceptionalism are silent in the face of these atrocities to the liberties of innocents says more about America's decline than any of the numerous economic comparisons.<<
quote:And in Israel, the former head of airport security says the new imaging machines don't do any good.
quote: I am on the verge of re-deploying from Afghanistan after a 10-month combat tour that involved having to deal with, among other things, conducting searches of local nationals when involved with security tasks within my Infantry company. At no time were we permitted or even encouraged to search children or women. In fact, this would have been considered an extreme violation of acceptable cultural practice and given the way word travels here, been a propaganda victory for the Taliban.
Yet somehow the TSA is engaged in this at home while my unit and I spent our tour unable to safeguard ourselves equally in an environment where the Taliban have often disguised themselves in burkas and used children as both spies and fighters. ... These people terrify us as much as we allow them to. Apparently FDR's idea about "the only thing to fear" is lost on TSA and the current administration.<<
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: You know, if it's convenient and safe, I'll go through these scanners without a second thought. My doctor already sees me naked. Who cares
Your doctor isn't ogling you, he's a doctor. Along with all the requisite very intensive schooling and all of that, and medical ethics and etc etc etc.
Your doctor probably also wouldn't dick up your stoma before you catch your flight.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: We're going through this right now with religious concerns regarding women who want to wear the veil in court rooms. No, I don't think that people should have total sovereignty in every situation. If it is determined that some invasion of personal space is reasonably necessary for airport security, then I think a reasonable sacrifice is necessary. But, you still have the option of simply not flying. You know going in what you're getting yourself into.
Of course, we can argue over what defines "reasonable."
This is kind of where I am on the issue as well; it entirely comes down to whether or not it is determinable that this is a reasonable sacrifice and if it is necessary. It seems like neither is the case.
But it has made us a subject of humor, internationally.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: You know, if it's convenient and safe, I'll go through these scanners without a second thought. My doctor already sees me naked. Who cares
Your doctor isn't ogling you, he's a doctor. Along with all the requisite very intensive schooling and all of that, and medical ethics and etc etc etc.
Your doctor probably also wouldn't dick up your stoma before you catch your flight.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: We're going through this right now with religious concerns regarding women who want to wear the veil in court rooms. No, I don't think that people should have total sovereignty in every situation. If it is determined that some invasion of personal space is reasonably necessary for airport security, then I think a reasonable sacrifice is necessary. But, you still have the option of simply not flying. You know going in what you're getting yourself into.
Of course, we can argue over what defines "reasonable."
This is kind of where I am on the issue as well; it entirely comes down to whether or not it is determinable that this is a reasonable sacrifice and if it is necessary. It seems like neither is the case.
Yes. This exactly!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The polls showed a majority of Americans were in favor of the TSA's procedures. Was that a majority of all Americans, or a majority of Americans who fly?
I think there may be a difference between the two results, and it may be increasing.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really couldn't care less about "scanners seeing me naked". They see SO MANY people that I'm sure I'm nothing special to them. The radiation, however, could be an issue. I don't fly frequently enough for it to matter much for me (though I will be flying 3 times in the next 2 months - a record for me!), but I'm sure people who fly multiple times a week might have bigger concerns.
I'm not sure that I really buy into the increased security aspect. How much better are these scanners, really, than the metal detectors we've all known and loved for decades now? I think it's obvious that their purpose is deterrence rather than actually catching someone in the process, but do they really do that better than metal detectors? After all, they probably do little to deter serious terrorists. The people they do deter are random nut jobs, angsty teenagers, and probably someone who might have a fleeting obsession with some radical idea that involves killing lots of people.
So, since we're not talking about highly sophisticated people, do they really deter anyone more than previous screening methods did? I have a hard time believing that they do. That means we've spent lots (anyone have a $$ figure?) of money on nothing. But hey, it's not like we don't have extra cash sitting around, right?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that it's a practical view point but I agree with prior comments (or hints at least) that we should just get rid of security at the airport and make sure the cockpit is well reinforced enough that the pilots can put the plane down before anyone breaks through. i.e. Make sure that the most people a terrorist can kill with a plane is the people on the plane. It all seems so preposterous.
Amusing anecdote: several years ago I was on a layover in the Midwest waiting to board a delayed flight to ... somewhere. I don't even remember. As I was standing there I struck up a nice little small-talk chat with the man behind me. We turned the discussion to airline security and I mentioned the fact that the requirment we have a ticket to access the terminals was ridiculous. When he asked me to expound I pointed out that Southwest allows you to print tickets from home, and they aren't actually scanned until you board. It would be beyond easy to print out a hoard of real looking tickets that didn't work, or just many copies of the same ticket and use them to get through security (all this leaving aside the fact that any worthwhile terrorist should be able to scrape together enough money for a short trip somewhere). He thought for a second and told me that was intriguing, he'd never thought of that. Then he explained his job was with the department of homeland security brainstorming ways terrorists could beat the airport system and trying to stop them.
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I really couldn't care less about "scanners seeing me naked". They see SO MANY people that I'm sure I'm nothing special to them.
I'll tell you right now that if I get back down to a size 6, I'll care. A LOT. The image isn't that fuzzy, and then I have to stand there in front of the random stranger not fuzzy. If they'd had this when I was a teenager I'd have been losing my mind at the idea. I got leered at enough by strangers without the free pass to get me naked or feel me up.
quote: The radiation, however, could be an issue.
What I find most interesting there is that I've seen the radiation mentioned in every article on the scanners and I have yet to see a press release actually tell us how much radiation we're talking. Does the guy in the booth wear a lead vest like my dentist does? Should he be?
I enjoyed Seth Godin's marketing blog on the scanners. Seth's blog If your job is to make us feel good about flying and you're making your customers angry, you're doing it wrong.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: The polls showed a majority of Americans were in favor of the TSA's procedures. Was that a majority of all Americans, or a majority of Americans who fly?
yet again, mattp's link.
quote:In general, surveying Americans on issues related to airport security is problematic because most Americans fly rarely, if ever. A Gallup poll conducted in 2008, for instance, found that just 44 percent of Americans reported having flown at least once in the past year. In fact, this is probably an overestimate. The Gallup poll reported that American adults had taken an average of 1.7 round trips by airplane in the past year. Statistics compiled by the Department of Transportation, however, found a total of about 800 million passengers boarded flights offered by U.S.-based carriers in 2008. Since a typical round-trip consists of either 2 or 4 flights (depending on whether there is a layover or not; a round-trip might also involve as many as 6 or 8 flights when there are multiple layovers), this implies that there were something on the order of 250 million round trips made by airplane in 2008, which would be fewer than one per American, rather than the 1.7 trips that the Gallup poll found. My guess is that the fraction of Americans who travel by plane each year is in fact probably not more than about 1 in 3.
In addition, these flights are concentrated among relatively few people. A study by the market-research firm Arbitron found, for instance, that frequent fliers — those who take 4 or more round trips per year — account for the 57 percent majority of all air travel, even though they make up just 18 percent of air travelers and something like 7 percent of the overall American population.
At least one past survey has identified differences in perceptions about airport security procedures between frequent and occasional fliers. This was a 2007 Gallup poll, which found that while just 26 percent of occasional travels were dissatisfied with airport security, the level rose to 37 percent among those who fly more frequently.
What I think we need to know then, is how those who have actually traveled through an airport that uses the full-body scanners feel about them — particularly if they’re people who fly frequently and are therefore going to bear the burden of any inconvenience, embarrassment, invasion of privacy or health risk brought on by the new technology.
My guess is that a majority of such passengers will still approve of them: Americans are willing to tolerate a great number of things at the airport that they would never stand for in other parts of their lives. (Imagine, for instance, if you had to pass through a metal detector on the way into the shopping mall, or were diverted for 15 minutes through a security checkpoint every time that you wanted to drive on the Interstate.)
But the holiday travel period — when nerves are always frayed and the weather is often at its worst — will be a significant test of the new system. I would advise passengers to get to the airport early, particularly if they are flying out of airports, like San Diego, where the systems have been installed very recently.
What I find most interesting there is that I've seen the radiation mentioned in every article on the scanners and I have yet to see a press release actually tell us how much radiation we're talking. Does the guy in the booth wear a lead vest like my dentist does? Should he be?
I had to search quite a bit to get this information and the answer isn't straight forward. The official dose rating for an airport scanner is 0.01 mrem. For comparison, the typical dose on US coast to coast airplane flight is 4 mrem. Some experts say that the dose from X-ray scanners may be 10 times the official number but that still puts it at 1/40th the dose from from a cross country airline flight.
But the answer is actually much more complicated than that. The so called "backscatter x-ray detectors" don't use x-rays at all. They use T-rays (terraherz (10^12) radiation), which falls between the microwave and far IR regions. Photon energy is directly proportional to frequency. For perspective, a 1x10^12 radiation will have a photon energy of ~0.02 eV. Visible light has a photon energy of ~2eV and dental x-rays have a photon energy of 69500 eV. T-rays are not ionizing radiation. They have far far too little energy to ionize anything. This is essentially the same energy range as cell phones and microwave ovens and the dangers posed by radiation in this frequency range are still highly controversial. Unlike ionizing radiation, T-rays are extremely unlikely to cause any damage at low enough power yet definitely cause significant damage at high enough power. No one really knows what the dangers are of frequent low power exposure.
The bottom line, as far as I can determine: the worst likely scenario based on the known physics of T-rays is that the scanner increases the radiation exposure of airline flight by around 2%. If you talk on your cell phone for 5 minutes a day and aren't worried about getting brain cancer as a result, you shouldn't worry about spending a few seconds in an airport scanner even if you fly every day.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
TSA responds to the "don't touch my junk" video by now arresting people filming TSA screenings. You see, as the vids may be useful to terr'ists and not because they may embarrass the TSA or anything.
Also, the TSA is right now backing away from previously stating that their policies are not going to change. Behold what Reddit can spark when it gets angry enough.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I was flying just me, I probably would do the x-ray thing- the pat down seems extremely invasive to me. However, my next plan for flying is me and my girls- a 4 year old and an infant. Considering that Britain is currently trying to decide if the scanner pics are child porn, I am not sure about the whole thing. Also, I am less willing to risk their health esp since infants probably have different tolerances to x-rays than adults. (My older girl didn't have x-rays at dentist until she was 3 and a half so I might be a little on the neurotic side there).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
scholarette, The scanners do not use x-rays. I think that might be one of the biggest misconceptions out there. If you are worried about the radiation dose your little girls would get from the scanners, you should be >100 times more worried about the radiation dose from flying.
I find it kind of ironic that Britain is debating whether or not the scanners are "child pornography" since its pretty common in the UK for young children to run completely naked on beaches and at public pools.
[ November 22, 2010, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
