Wow - are we desensitized?

Is there any significant difference, for these purposes, between a baby and a handbag?

All this "they're searching children" mock offense is ridiculous, it's all based on some notion that a child is necessarily innocent, therefore there's no need to search them, which ignores the notion that if children are excluded from security procedures than the way around security is to hide your contraband on a child.

Either you search everything or you search nothing. If you want TSA to search nothing, that's fine, that's a reasonable position, but don't float the idea that TSA should only search "some" things, that doesn't make any sense.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
Is there any significant difference, for these purposes, between a baby and a handbag?

All this "they're searching children" mock offense is ridiculous, it's all based on some notion that a child is necessarily innocent, therefore there's no need to search them, which ignores the notion that if children are excluded from security procedures than the way around security is to hide your contraband on a child.

Either you search everything or you search nothing. If you want TSA to search nothing, that's fine, that's a reasonable position, but don't float the idea that TSA should only search "some" things, that doesn't make any sense.
-harry
Click to expand...


I see your point - but TSA itself has already decided that there is a difference: they have 'modified patdowns' for kids/infants. Wouldn't that make it more likely for somebody to attempt to smuggle contraband on a kid? Maybe kids should be searched even more invasively?

I wasn't so much taken back by the search itself, it was more the attitudes that some of the parents were taking with their own kids.
 
mantakos said:
Is there any significant difference, for these purposes, between a baby and a handbag?
Click to expand...

Not really.

Either you search everything or you search nothing. If you want TSA to search nothing, that's fine, that's a reasonable position, but don't float the idea that TSA should only search "some" things, that doesn't make any sense.
-harry
Click to expand...

What they are doing now is creating a slightly effective deterrent to casual smuggling. If you try to sneak through with a pocket full of drugs, you have to consider the possibility that the nude-o-scope will catch it.

If, on the other hand, you are a determined suicide bomber, are you really deterred by the 10% (or less) chance that you may have to blow yourself up in the check lane instead of the airplane? Do you worry about the civil penalties that could be imposed if you walk out after getting selected for something more than the standard metal detector? Get real.

Then you have to consider the fact that many people that access the airplane and the so called "sterile" area aren't screened at all. You wana blow up an airliner? Get a job at Sysco. Or at Taco Bell. Or...

If you are going to have security, have real security - Not pretend security.
 
Really. Given the number of convicted felons and those who act like convicted felons working for the TSA, how hard would it really be to bribe one of these guys? Or a baggage handler? Or a caterer?

If the terrorists really want weapons on board, they'll get them.
 
steingar said:
Really. Given the number of convicted felons and those who act like convicted felons working for the TSA, how hard would it really be to bribe one of these guys? Or a baggage handler? Or a caterer?

If the terrorists really want weapons on board, they'll get them.
Click to expand...

Mostly people are using the airplanes to smuggle drugs. Half caught a blurb on the news the other day - drugs were being stuck into peoples bags at one airport and being removed at the other...

One that cracked me up - the guy that sits behind me came in with foot problems this morning and commented that he was wearing his light hiking boots. I suggested that sneakers might have been a better choice. He said he hasn't had any for several years - his last pair was stolen out of his luggage. Really. Some TSA employee stole a pair of used tennis shoes. :dunno:
 
Oh yeah, the War on Drugs. Way more important than freedom to Americans, who are happy to give up their rights to law enforcement and security agencies for drug interdiction.
 
steingar said:
If the terrorists really want weapons on board, they'll get them.
Click to expand...

Terrorism is a figment of the imagination of terrorists government agencies.

Yeah, I said it. and I don't care if I get flamed for it.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Terrorism is a figment of the imagination of terrorists government agencies.

Yeah, I said it. and I don't care if I get flamed for it.
Click to expand...

I don't think your 100% wrong, think the passengers will let an airliner get hijacked again?:no:
 
steingar said:
If you look at the most recent airline terror attempts, it was the passengers who busted them up.
Click to expand...

No surprise there - the rules of engagement changed after Sep 11.

Once the cockpit doors were reinforced, the pax were essentially told, "You are on your own."

Too bad that since we are our own security in the air, we aren't allowed to be our own security in the terminal and not have TSA at all. That would be interesting - probably wouldn't be very efficient if all pax were allowed to pat-down all others.
 
There is nothing dumber than the government doing anything about security. Sorry for those who find that objectionable but these people major in stupid and minor in annoying.
 
Matthew said:
No surprise there - the rules of engagement changed after Sep 11.

Once the cockpit doors were reinforced, the pax were essentially told, "You are on your own."

Too bad that since we are our own security in the air, we aren't allowed to be our own security in the terminal and not have TSA at all. That would be interesting - probably wouldn't be very efficient if all pax were allowed to pat-down all others.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree. I've had the thought on many occasions that if I were unfortunate enough to have been on any of those aircraft on 9/11, I'd have at least had a pocket knife in my pocket, and would not have hesitated to use it on a hijacker. Of course now nobody can carry something like that anymore...so pax are on their own, and verified to be unarmed in any way:thumbsup:
 
Matthew said:
No surprise there - the rules of engagement changed after Sep 11.

Once the cockpit doors were reinforced, the pax were essentially told, "You are on your own."

Too bad that since we are our own security in the air, we aren't allowed to be our own security in the terminal and not have TSA at all. That would be interesting - probably wouldn't be very efficient if all pax were allowed to pat-down all others.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea. How do you take down the exploding passenger in 17C, though?
 
Skylane81E said:
I don't think your 100% wrong, think the passengers will let an airliner get hijacked again?:no:
Click to expand...
Yes. Some pax will stand opposed, most won't.

Maybe the cabin crew should add to their brief to those sitting at E exits, "Will you also rise up to restrain other passengers should the need arise?" Any answer than a Hell Yes! disqualifies that individual.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Interesting idea. How do you take down the exploding passenger in 17C, though?
Click to expand...
It's not like an enterprising terrorist couldn't do that still today. I'd rather take my chances, and be armed myself, and if a passenger noted a suspicious person, then they'd be taken care of. Besides, the airline should do their OWN security checks. The airline should have the perfect right to protect airline property by whatever means they chose. The TSA does NOT have the right to violate the US Constitution on behalf of the airlines.

Ryan
 
Remember that the screener may well not have changed gloves between feeling-up the baby's diaper and groping you.
 
Matthew said:
Once the cockpit doors were reinforced, the pax were essentially told, "You are on your own."
Click to expand...

I am trying to figure out what you mean here. Basically, when the CABIN doors are closed, you are being told " You are on your own." There isn't anything the flight deck crew can really do in the back. Their job is to make sure the cockpit is secure so the bad guys can't use the airplane as a flying bomb.
 
RyanShort1 said:
It's not like an enterprising terrorist couldn't do that still today. I'd rather take my chances, and be armed myself, and if a passenger noted a suspicious person, then they'd be taken care of. Besides, the airline should do their OWN security checks. The airline should have the perfect right to protect airline property by whatever means they chose. The TSA does NOT have the right to violate the US Constitution on behalf of the airlines.

Ryan
Click to expand...


AMEN Brother Ryan!
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I am trying to figure out what you mean here. Basically, when the CABIN doors are closed, you are being told " You are on your own." There isn't anything the flight deck crew can really do in the back. Their job is to make sure the cockpit is secure so the bad guys can't use the airplane as a flying bomb.
Click to expand...

What I was trying to get at is that - until then, there seemed to be an idea that in a hijacking situation there would be some chance, or attempt, at negotiation or complying with demands. Maybe I'm wrong there, but that was my impression. After the doors were reinforced and it was made clear that they would not be opened, the pax understood they would have to be the first line of defense. United 93 passengers figured it out.

Some general attitudes have changed now, too. I think that until then, the idea of a suicide-hijacker/guided-bomb-terrorist wasn't really thought about by the general public. Now, it's about the only thing that runs through our heads.
 
RyanShort1 said:
It's not like an enterprising terrorist couldn't do that still today. I'd rather take my chances, and be armed myself, and if a passenger noted a suspicious person, then they'd be taken care of. Besides, the airline should do their OWN security checks. The airline should have the perfect right to protect airline property by whatever means they chose. The TSA does NOT have the right to violate the US Constitution on behalf of the airlines.

Ryan
Click to expand...

+100!!!
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
What part of the Constitution is being violated?
Click to expand...
I would guess the 4th amendment, but that was removed from the constitution long ago as part of the "war on drugs", where charter operations had their jets seized for transporting druggies (no reference, I saw it on 60 minutes (IIRC) a LONG time ago).

Is a strip search (virtual or real) reasonable simply on the choice of transportation?
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
What part of the Constitution is being violated?
Click to expand...

The first amendment. You are not free to express your opinions, and can be subjugated to administrative harassment for simply complaining about the proceedings and criminal penalties for noncompliance.

The fourth amendment, as mentioned. Only an imbecile would think that purchasing a ticket is consent for sexual assault/strip search, or whatever else the TSA and its minions dream up that day. Unreasonable search and seizure indeed.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I would guess the 4th amendment, but that was removed from the constitution long ago as part of the "war on drugs", where charter operations had their jets seized for transporting druggies (no reference, I saw it on 60 minutes (IIRC) a LONG time ago).
Click to expand...

You nailed it. A large portion of the actual and perceived erosion of the 4th Amendment is due exclusively to the WoD. And you first started seeing it via transportation, actually - drug couriers in airports, and on Greyhounds. Reading some of the appellate opinions from the '70's and '80's left my jaw open about what did or did not require "probable cause."

Is a strip search (virtual or real) reasonable simply on the choice of transportation?
Click to expand...

The ends don't justify the means (at least, they shouldn't). The 4th Amendment does not authorize a "no holds barred" approach.

Instead, what we've got is a situation where a situation determines the means that are "reasonably available" to combat it, but those means nevertheless have to justify the ends eventually reached (primarily, conviction and incarceration).

Also, keep in mind that the "reasonable" requirement of the 4th Amendment only deals with whether probably cause is required. If a particular government intrusion is unreasonable, that doesn't mean that it's verboten - it just means that it has to be supported by probable cause (you get an "in-between" with reasonable suspicion for investigatory stops). But, if the intrusion is reasonable, then it doesn't require probable cause or a warrant.

With these things in mind, I don't think there are too many people out there who would say that some degree of intrusion at an airport - when airplanes have demonstrably been repeated targets throughout the last airport - is reasonable. The question thus becomes the degree of intrusion that is reasonable.

Reasonability is a subjective standard. Opinions obviously vary. But, consider this: are the objections to strip (actual and virtual) searches widespread, or are they just vocal? From my observations, it's been more the latter than the former. When you've got a majority of people either supporting, or acquiescing, to a particular something, doesn't that automatically mean that the something is reasonable?

It's easy to say "bah, the majority doesn't know what's good for it." That may be, but then you get into issues of autocracy.

Anyway, if someone were to take this to court, the ultimate answer would be "a virtual strip search, in the face of repeated targeting of airlines using mechanisms that aren't readily detectable by less intrusive means, is reasonable."

Notice that there haven't been a flood of lawsuits filed over the TSA practices. That's because privacy advocates know that will be the result, and they also can be absolutely certain that once that particular floodgate is opened, there's no telling where it stops.
 
steingar said:
The first amendment. You are not free to express your opinions, and can be subjugated to administrative harassment for simply complaining about the proceedings and criminal penalties for noncompliance.
Click to expand...

I see why you say that, and it's actually an argument that I would buy. The problem is that the First Amendment is full of holes - what I (and obviously you) think the law should be is not what it is. Technically, the First Amendment should protect you from things like disorderly conduct, breach of the peace, obstructing government operations, and the like. But, it doesn't.

The fourth amendment, as mentioned. Only an imbecile would think that purchasing a ticket is consent for sexual assault/strip search, or whatever else the TSA and its minions dream up that day. Unreasonable search and seizure indeed.
Click to expand...

It's not so much consent as it is a waiver of your 4th Amendment rights. Even assuming that my post above is completely incorrect about the intrusion being deemed "reasonable," nobody forced you into that security line. Nobody can legitimately claim that they have to fly, that commercial travel is some kind of fundamental right, and that having to waive a 4th Amendment right thus creates some kind of "chilling effect" on their right to fly.

Voluntary waivers of the 4th Amendment occur regularly, probably every single minute of every day. It's a routine and long-recognized part of Constitutional law.

That's not to say I like it, but it is what it is.
 
"Monday, the TSA explained the search and said it conformed to security protocol. The trouble, a TSA spokeswoman said, was a stroller. It was too big for the X-ray belt, so it got a hand-check with an explosive trace detector and when that set off an alarm agents searched the baby."

I'm certainly not happy with the searches and have forgone several opportunities to fly to see relatives because of them, but when they get a positive reading in a swipe test of the stroller for explosives, what do you expect them to do? Ignore it? I would expect a hand search of both the parents and baby.
 
tparsons said:
"Monday, the TSA explained the search and said it conformed to security protocol. The trouble, a TSA spokeswoman said, was a stroller. It was too big for the X-ray belt, so it got a hand-check with an explosive trace detector and when that set off an alarm agents searched the baby."

I'm certainly not happy with the searches and have forgone several opportunities to fly to see relatives because of them, but when they get a positive reading in a swipe test of the stroller for explosives, what do you expect them to do? Ignore it? I would expect a hand search of both the parents and baby.
Click to expand...


I thought about that, too. The article says that after the alarm that TSA searched the baby. Didn't say if they also patted down the parents or dug through the diaper bag or anything else. If those parents are like most, the stroller gets dumped in the trunk of the car and who knows what other items were in there that cross contaminated it.
 
Matthew said:
I thought about that, too. The article says that after the alarm that TSA searched the baby. Didn't say if they also patted down the parents or dug through the diaper bag or anything else. If those parents are like most, the stroller gets dumped in the trunk of the car and who knows what other items were in there that cross contaminated it.
Click to expand...
Said items that cross contaminated most likely being lawn fertilizer:hairraise:. I had a computer bag that was almost always being "disassembled" by the TSA after it picked up some spilled fertilizer dust.
 
steingar said:
The first amendment. You are not free to express your opinions, and can be subjugated to administrative harassment for simply complaining about the proceedings and criminal penalties for noncompliance.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a recent thread purporting that simply expressing dissatisfaction with the TSA was enough to mark one as a terr'ist?
 
The WoD was a big driver of the gutting of the Fourth Amendment. In the early stages, the Government used Admiralty laws to seize planes and boats.

There are some that say - and I have not reached a personal conclusion whether or not I agree - that a big part of TSA's intrusive searches is really about the war on drugs wrapped up in the cloak of "security".

Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Anyway, if someone were to take this to court, the ultimate answer would be "a virtual strip search, in the face of repeated targeting of airlines using mechanisms that aren't readily detectable by less intrusive means, is reasonable."
Click to expand...

I'd submit that there are less intrusive means for the majority of the population, with special emphasis on the "heavy" traveler.

With TSA's data collection & retention, coupled with the airlines frequent flyer records, it should be easy to establish that passengers having 10, 15, 20, or 25 year records of airline travel (in some cases 3-5 million miles or more) represent lower risk than other "unknown" passengers. Those records already exist, and the TSA has routinely been collecting them through SecureFright and other systems.

Add a background check (those of us who are pilots already had FAA/TSA do an initial comb our records, and many have SIDA/DC FRZ/Clear Registered Traveler/CBP/US Govt. Clearance checks that go far beyond what TSA does for their own employees) and you can have a pretty high confidence that there is very little risk.

Reduce risk further by making said passengers subject to occasional random airport searches. Or minimal screening entering the airport.

One can argue that this is far less intrusive for those passengers that represent lower risk.

It should be noted that DHS (through CPB) already runs programs such as GlobalEntry, NEXUS, and SENTRI that give expedited customs & immigration processing to low risk passengers. Those that are enrolled in the program(s) are subject to occasional random searches to ensure continued compliance with the rules & laws. Those programs save immense amounts of time and reduce staffing needs without significantly increasing risk.

There is no reason that a similar program cannot be used for TSA screening. None.

Notice that there haven't been a flood of lawsuits filed over the TSA practices. That's because privacy advocates know that will be the result, and they also can be absolutely certain that once that particular floodgate is opened, there's no telling where it stops.
Click to expand...

Actually, there have been a number - not a flood, but a number - and the TSA/USG has either settled or used procedural means to prevent them from being heard. Bierfeldt was settled (he was the one that had campaign cash and was harassed by the TSA for having "too much money"), there were a couple of suits in the last 2-3 weeks where the TSA asserted that the cases were filed in the wrong courts & the judges agreed, and there was the case of the US citizen that was placed on the no-fly list to prevent him from returning to the US - he was finally allowed to return and the TSA has asserted that the case is now moot.

You are correct, though, that the stakes are very high. TSA wants the cases dismissed/not heard/not decided because they fear that an adverse decision to TSA interests will bring their entire house of cards crashing down. Privacy advocates fear that an an adverse decision will amount to complete elimination of the Fourth.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Wasn't there a recent thread purporting that simply expressing dissatisfaction with the TSA was enough to mark one as a terr'ist?
Click to expand...

Apparently reading the Constitution does, too. Welcome to Bizarro World. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top