The TSA - Fondling your junk, for nothing: Epic Search Fail - Page 9 - Politics and Economics

Exactly. It's so they don't come, "gain information" and then leave. Luckily for us, when they actually go through security and get on a flight, they forget all the information they just gained about security.

Quote:

According to Aguilar, Tyner is under investigation for leaving the security area without permission. That’s prohibited, among other reasons, to prevent potential terrorists from entering security, gaining information, and leaving.

11-16-2010 , 03:17 PM

#202

Gin 'n Tonic

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 6,305

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustASpectator

Can someone explain the claim that when I buy an airline ticket and show up at an airport I am waiving my rights to not be molested and/or blasted with radiation?

I mean, the part I don't understand is how it is remotely possible that I would be fined for leaving the premises instead of allowing myself to be subjected to these ridiculous screening techniques.

Where in writing am I agreeing to this situation?

You realise that you're getting about half a chest x-ray every time you fly cross-country right? Citation

I mean, yeah, less is better, but if you're that concerned at being blasted (!!!) with radiation you probably shouldn't be flying at all.

11-16-2010 , 03:21 PM

#203

qdmcg

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 4,870

lol, im way too lazy to upload the picture, but drudge has janetN with the sub-caption "TSA Now Putting Hands Down Pants"

link to article

http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-now-...ers-pants.html

11-16-2010 , 03:21 PM

#204

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

But the terrrurorists will just try to board a plane, if they get screened, refuse and go home. If not, DEATH TO AMERICA!!!!

I know you are being sarcastic, but people randomly chosen who then refuse should be followed up on.

Doing otherwise just means attackers can shop around and wait until they can stroll through without being scanned.

The fine is wrong, but a followup investigation is actually logical and doing otherwise makes the window dressing even less effective.

It is the same logic to why screening only "terrorist looking people" is less effective when you have a limit to what percent you can or will screen.

11-16-2010 , 03:30 PM

#205

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian J

left and right coming together! Can i get an amen!

Nope. Dvault gonna frown all over the fight against this because he doesn't like some of the people opposing it.

11-16-2010 , 03:33 PM

#206

Adebisi

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,965

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

A big part of the problem here, IMO, is people pretending that terrorists at American airports are a legitimate threat. If Al Qaeda wants to bomb/hijack a plane over the U.S., they're not going to get on in the U.S. where there are a dozen layers of security. They are going to get on in some 3rd world ********, and just wait until they are over the U.S. to do their thing.

11-16-2010 , 03:36 PM

#207

NameOnTheCake

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 19,597

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

I disagree with all of this

11-16-2010 , 03:42 PM

#208

Slowroll The Nuts

banned

Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 159

Would this help? Ok lets say u get the patdown when u opt out of the scanner. Before they pat your junk down you get a huge boner, this way the TSA people will be all like damn this isnt fun anymore because i have to patdown mens boners. Then they take the scanners out and we win

11-16-2010 , 03:45 PM

#209

qdmcg

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 4,870

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slowroll The Nuts

i was thinking about this. i suspect the TSA gets in your face at some point while you're attempting to get a boner. though maybe just indicating to them that you are really going to enjoy the pat down might bother them enough

11-16-2010 , 03:45 PM

#210

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adebisi

Yeah, this is probably a better argument to those who want extra security but get pissed when this guy is getting investigated.

There are ways to provide security without being intrusive and having no actual benefit im sure. Bomb sniffers seems to be one way, i also read about a new comp program that monitors CCTV for psychological behaviour that is a couple years out.

Whilst i disagree with the porno scanners and the Thai massage frisking; investigating people who act suspiciously, such as refusing to go through security measures, seems to be a logical move.

11-16-2010 , 03:52 PM

#211

tomdemaine

Just tries harder

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 20,065

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slowroll The Nuts

You can produce erections on demand?

11-16-2010 , 03:53 PM

#212

ErikTheDread

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,124

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomdemaine

You can produce erections on demand?

You can't?

11-16-2010 , 03:55 PM

#213

tomdemaine

Just tries harder

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 20,065

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

Why not just put an armed guard or two on each plane and x-ray peoples bags for bomb stuff. Problem solved right?

11-16-2010 , 03:57 PM

#214

JayTeeMe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 29,409

What if the bomb is in their underwear?

11-16-2010 , 03:59 PM

#215

JustASpectator

veteran

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 2,096

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

Yeah, this is probably a better argument to those who want extra security but get pissed when this guy is getting investigated.

There are ways to provide security without being intrusive and having no actual benefit im sure. Bomb sniffers seems to be one way, i also read about a new comp program that monitors CCTV for psychological behaviour that is a couple years out.

Whilst i disagree with the porno scanners and the Thai massage frisking; investigating people who act suspiciously, such as refusing to go through security measures, seems to be a logical move.

It's not logical when the only two security measures you have a choice of are the radioactive strip search and the "milk-milk-lemonade, round the corner fudge is made" routine on you by a stranger.

11-16-2010 , 03:59 PM

#216

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomdemaine

Why not just put an armed guard or two on each plane and x-ray peoples bags for bomb stuff. Problem solved right?

notsureifserious.jpg

It feels like a trap, but i have no problem with air marshals and x raying bags.

11-16-2010 , 04:02 PM

#217

ErikTheDread

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,124

We need to make huge investments in designing groping robots that can examine people in a completely impersonal way.

And there would be a variety of ways to sell it: It's a jobs program! It's an investment in our future! If you object to it, the terrorists win!

11-16-2010 , 04:04 PM

#218

tomdemaine

Just tries harder

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 20,065

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

notsureifserious.jpg

It feels like a trap, but i have no problem with air marshals and x raying bags.

I was being fully serious. I don't see why that isn't the answer. Saves everyone time and money and actually makes people safe.

11-16-2010 , 04:06 PM

#219

JayTeeMe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 29,409

did you see my post?

11-16-2010 , 04:15 PM

#220

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

Tbh there is little reason to have more security than on the subway at rush hour. As ive said before, if you want to cause some mayhem a few pipe bombs taped under seats on public transport timed to pop during rush hour would cause way more terror than a suicide plane flight given you can cause huge mayhem with a really small cell.

X-rays (walk through and bag x-rays, air marshals, explosive sniffing machines and other similar none intrusive measures should offset the obvious dangers that you arent getting rescued if it goes wrong and give people the sense of extra safety. Basically what happened pre 9/11.

11-16-2010 , 04:15 PM

#221

tomdemaine

Just tries harder

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 20,065

I guess that's a fair point. Sniffer dogs around the airport maybe? Also why are we so concerned about planes if it's just a matter of deaths and not a hijacking? Couldn't a terrorist do a lot more damage with a lot less risk of being caught in the average mall or stadium?

11-16-2010 , 04:21 PM

#222

Dids

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 60,871

Could somebody spell out the meaningful negatives to the body scan?

Obviously the way the guy linked in the OP was treated wasn't right. However, he handled himself like an *******, and that's part of why things went down the way they did.

That said- the health concerns, the "omg somebody's going to look at my junk" concerns. all strike me as really silly.

11-16-2010 , 04:25 PM

#223

ErikTheDread

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,124

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomdemaine

Also why are we so concerned about planes..

AFAICT, only because the 9/11 attacks happened to involve planes. As usual, we're looking backwards. Bin Laden's a smart guy so I'd have to guess that the next large-death-toll attack he launches won't involve planes. If it does involve X, we'll then look backwards again and freak out about X.

11-16-2010 , 04:26 PM

#224

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

What's silly about being concerned about someone forcing you to be seen naked when it doesn't actually make people any safer than other available methods?

11-16-2010 , 04:26 PM

#225

Fedorfan

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,928

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=126833083

Quote:

"Ionizing radiation such as the X-rays used in these scanners have the potential to induce chromosome damage, and that can lead to cancer," Agard says.

The San Francisco group thinks both the machine's manufacturer, Rapiscan, and government officials have miscalculated the dose that the X-ray scanners deliver to the skin — where nearly all the radiation is concentrated.

The stated dose — about .02 microsieverts, a medical unit of radiation — is averaged over the whole body, members of the UCSF group said in interviews. But they maintain that if the dose is calculated as what gets deposited in the skin, the number would be higher, though how much higher is unclear.

Page 9 of 60

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 29 59

Last

...

Page 9 of 60

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 29 59

Last