Terminalcoffee discussion
Helping You To Know The News
>
TSA security screenings?
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Lobstergirl, el principe
(new)
Nov 19, 2010 06:38PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
Mod
Mod
No, I'm serious.
"TSA won't grope John Boehner"
http://gawker.com/5694730/tsa-wont-gr...
Lobstergirl wrote: "TSA won't grope John Boehner"Who would?
Shouldn't the headline read, "TSA won't grope John's Boner?"
Lobstergirl wrote: "Sarah's post @48 I think is most relevant. The terrorists are always going to be a step ahead of us because our security systems are reactive rather than proactive. We are trying to protect ourse..."we give up our liberty to gain security and we have neither.
do you guys feel "groped" during a doc's exam?
TSA agents are not doctors. I also don't feel "groped" when my wife is being playful.If the groping represented a significant increase in security it might be acceptable. The fact that it does not make anyone safer makes your point (if I read it correctly) moot.
i just asked because i have had diff pat downs for events, by cops and by other security deals and i have not felt groped. wondering if it felt more like that with all of the media talking about it and that made everyone more aware
how can it not make anyone safer? why do they ever do a pat down then?
The illusion of security. It gives politicians and the TSA cover. "Look at us, we're doing something."
It would be interesting to see numbers on what they have ever found. I presume we would hear if they found much, but maybe not.
good article. again i say that terrorist have done their job. we are terrified
me neither. i was in central america during 9/11 and had to fly home afterward and really never thought too much about safety flying. i meant as a whole. people are afraid and things are confused. that is what terrorism is. the word comes from the latin word to frighten
I don't think people are as much afraid as they are pissed off or annoyed. The search procedures in place are reactive (as someone else said before.) We are no safer now. The people that want to blow up planes or buildings or whatever will do just that because they are on a mission. Personally, I have no problem going through a metal detector or a scanner. I will continue to fly, even if I have to spend two hours in security to take a one hour flight.
I was going thru security at Denver a couple of years ago -- before they made you take your shoes off. Thge agent said he recommended that I take mine off. I said that I thought I would be okay not doing it. After I went through the detector without incident, he made me step over to the side for "additional screening." Yup -- he got his way with me after all. It wasn't long after that when the so-called shoe bomber changed that process semingly forever.
Kevin "El Liso Grande" wrote: "i just asked because i have had diff pat downs for events, by cops and by other security deals and i have not felt groped. wondering if it felt more like that with all of the media talking about it..."These are apparently significantly more invasive pat-downs. But I'd still take the pat-down over needless repeated exposure to x-rays.
Can you imagine the confusion and fear of a toddler being felt up by a stranger? 2 year olds do not understand why this is going on...
Well, a toddler might not make any judgements on the situation, since they're used to being mauled by relatives. But how about a parent choosing between unnecessary x-rays and an invasive pat down?And have TSA screeners been vetted on the sex offender lists?
And why is everyone framing this as a question of discomfort or convenience, without any questions over the health risk?
Mod
I agree with you on health risk. We need to be looking at every aspect of this. Privacy, discomfort, inconvenience, health.
And the constitutional issue of illegal search and seizure.
The images and pat-downs won't deter a determined and canny terrorist. Won't he have figured out a way around these screenings by now? Much better to have TSA people trained to read body language; to have them look into the eyes of the passengers; to inform passengers about what to look for; to have personnel and passengers on the watch with an eagle eye; and to have a marshal on each flight. Money well spent. Forget the new scanners and invasive pat-downs.
The terrorists are watching and laughing, and if we continue with these invasive procedures that violate the rights we've fought for, then they've won a daily victory without lifting a finger.
I guess today, between the crowds, bad weather, and screening issues is going to be one nasty travel day. The delays were already piling up according to the news.
Mod
I think they're open to touching individuals of both genders.
I read this in a Sun article this morning:"Other opponents of the TSA's use of imaging technology have expressed concern about its potential health effects — suggesting that the machines could expose fliers to dangerous levels of radiation.
But Mahadevappa Mahesh, associate professor of radiology and medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said the technologies used for whole-body imaging pose no significant risks.
One type of the device, known as millimeter-wave technology, uses radio waves to detect items under clothing and emits no X-rays whatsoever, Mahesh said. The millimeter wave machines are the type now installed at BWI.
The other technology, so-called "backscatter" machines, use such a low level of X-rays that one would have to go through the devices 1,000-2,000 times to get as much radiation as a standard medical chest X-ray, Mahesh said. That makes it "quite safe," even for small children and pregnant women, he said."
Sarah: Dr. Mahesh may be correct. But many doctors thought thalidomide was safe and look waht happened!Sure, theoccasional holiday traveler is not in danger. But how about frequent fliers who travel several days a week? The backscatter X-rays have not been around long enough for us to have significant data.
Three or four years from now the government may be saying..."...Oooops! We're sorry!"
Anyway I beleive that all cargo is NOT X-rayed---so what good does it does to screen passengers if something could be smuggled in cargo?
The current proceedures give only the illusion of safety.
Sarah Pi wrote: "And have TSA screeners been vetted on the sex offender lists?"Lobstergirl wrote:"My guess is that as Federal employees in a sensitive position TSA screeners have undergone a fairly thorough background check. Nearly all federal jobs require a background check.
Just want to point out that one only makes "the list" if one is caught.
Mary JL wrote: "Sarah: Dr. Mahesh may be correct. But many doctors thought thalidomide was safe and look waht happened!Sure, theoccasional holiday traveler is not in danger. But how about frequent fliers wh..."
Good point, Mary - the illusion of safety.
Although your comparison with thalidomide has just ensured that I will have nightmares about scanners. But it's a good point as well. When we rush to put things in place, it takes a while for the safety studies to catch up.
Anyone else ever have a moment when you just want to throw up your hands and say, "This is just too freaking complicated; give me a break"? I have one of those at least once a day. But things rock on.
Sorry, wrong thread. :blush:
Mod
"My mother is very ill, she has a form of leukemia," Weber said. "She had a blood transfusion the week before, just to bolster up her strength for this travel."
While going through security, the 95-year-old was taken by a TSA officer into a glassed-in area, where a pat-down was performed, Weber said. An agent told Weber "they felt something suspicious on (her mother's) leg and they couldn't determine what it was" -- leading them to take her into a private, closed room.
Soon after, Weber said, a TSA agent came out and told her that her mother's Depend undergarment was "wet and it was firm, and they couldn't check it thoroughly." The mother and daughter left to find a bathroom, at the TSA officer's request, to take off the adult diaper.
Weber said she burst into tears during the ordeal, forcing her own pat-down and other measures in accordance with TSA protocol. But she said her mother, a nurse for 65 years, "was very calm" despite being bothered by the fact that she had to go through the airport without underwear.
LG:All the comments we posted earlier on this thread still apply--just doubled!The TSA will continue to do whatever they wish until the government stops them. Or, until the traveling public screams so loud at the airlines that THEY (the airlines) will put pressure on the government to change things.
Why can't we stop this this? Or reform it? These stories of humiliations to traverls keep making the news and nothing seems to be done!
My brother recently spent just under 3 months in the Costa Rican rainforest and didn't shower the entire time. He had to go through security in a Texas airport, and a TSA officer went to pat him down, took a whiff of unwashed teenage boy, and told him he could go.
There you go, there's our solution: stinkiness.
just went through 5 airports (twice) and had no issues with TSA at all. nothing uncalled for, weird or skeevy. they most all seemed nice and trying to do a job without the swelled up arrogance of quazi-authority
Kevin: I suspect that the TSA treatment varies with the individual agent/airport/situation. So I am glad you were lucky.Some of the TSA are, no doubt, just trying to do their job.
A real problem is the inconsistency of the rules. Frequent travelers often complain they ask about bringing a certain itme. One wekk the answer is yes; the next airport it is a no.
Also, re message 101--when such overreacation DOES occur, there is no easy way for passengers to file complaints.
And I am still opposed to any checking unless they check every single person or none. We should not be subject to this type of government control.
i agree rules vary. and i think it is more fluff than anything. in kenya they scan you an luggage right when you walk into the airport, again after you check bags and then again on jetway before you board and yet everyone has things that slip by.
