Airport Screening Abuse Growing

[Super Dave]

I think there is a different argument to be had about whether the government should be providing security for what amount to private business.

That said, flying is still a private venture for all intensive purposes.

There are lots of parts of this argument that cut both ways for me. The government highly regulates the airline industry. I mean how many other businesses can say that 'federal law requires compliance with all crew member instructions'? But the government isn't requiring that i use the airline's services, so the government isn't forcing me into any situation where i have to give up my right to privacy. If i need to fly then that is a choice i make.

I think they government saw a need, because the airlines would not do it on their own. They (privately owned airlines) hardly maintained planes propperly prior to "the man" stepping in, if you recall.

The airline business is a private venue for certain. Our country's air space, is another thing all together. I think it's more about that. National security kind of stuff. Try flying a little plane and go far off course (you have to provide your flight path to fly, as I understand it). See what happens. First they will contact you on the radio to correct your path.

 

[donner]

In none of those cases do I surrender my rights.
I have no expectation of privacy at Walmart, Target or anywhere that has security cameras. I do have a right to not be searched by them.
Anytime I sign and NDA it is my choice to do so. Again, it's not the government doing it so it's not a violation.

Safety, or freedom. You choose

you have a choice not to fly. At no time has the government compelled you to fly (or shop at walmart).

Why do you assume you have an expectation of privacy when flying?

 

[waltham41]

I don't like the new policies and I agree there are most likely abuses of the system going on..... but what do we say when an airplane blows up in the air or is used as a weapon because someone smuggled a weapon or bomb on board?

Then everyone yells "Why was security not bumped up?"

Unfortunately this is not our great granddaddy's world we are living in these days, and I don't see it going back to those kinder, more gentle days.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I don't like the new policies and I agree there are most likely abuses of the system going on..... but what do we say when an airplane blows up in the air or is used as a weapon because someone smuggled a weapon or bomb on board?

Then everyone yells "Why was security not bumped up?"

Unfortunately this is not our great granddaddy's world we are living in these days, and I don't see it going back to those kinder, more gentle days.

Studying history, those days were not "kinder, more gentle".

Back then, if something happened in California, you'd likely not hear about it in Oklahoma unless it was truly catastrophic. Now, someone launches an RPG in Jerusalem and it's the headline in every media outlet around the world.

So as I said before, should the government screen you prior to allowing you to dine in a restaurant? How about prior to allowing you to enter an abortion clinic? Or a school? Or your place of worship (if you have one)?

 

[dak]

I think they government saw a need, because the airlines would not do it on their own. They (privately owned airlines) hardly maintained planes propperly prior to "the man" stepping in, if you recall.

The airline business is a private venue for certain. Our country's air space, is another thing all together. I think it's more about that. National security kind of stuff. Try flying a little plane and go far off course (you have to provide your flight path to fly, as I understand it). See what happens. First they will contact you on the radio to correct your path.

You don't really have to provide a flight path or flight plan unless in controlled airspace(all of it is pretty much) or under IFR(instrument flight rules). For instance, flying from Tulsa or Riverside you can terminate radar services and go VFR(visual flight rules) and change to whatever direction you want as long as you follow altitude rules and stay out of controlled airspace they can't say squat. Staying on their radar(pun intended) and in communication is a good thing when flying a small plane, seeing other traffic is harder than you think and is useful just in case even on a day when the weather is perfect.

As for national security, there are plenty of TFRs, prohibited areas, ADIZ, etc which will get you attention if you get close to or over them. Down in Texas you're not allowed to overfly Bush's house for instance.

FAR/AIMs are pretty much required to fly nowadays, 1000+ pages of regulations and procedures for flying.

 

[RidgeHunter]

I think there is a different argument to be had about whether the government should be providing security for what amount to private business.

That said, flying is still a private venture for all intents and purposes.

There are lots of parts of this argument that cut both ways for me. The government highly regulates the airline industry. I mean how many other businesses can say that 'federal law requires compliance with all crew member instructions'? But the government isn't requiring that i use the airline's services, so the government isn't forcing me into any situation where i have to give up my right to privacy. If i need to fly then that is a choice i make.

Your point may be strong, but your practical logic you are using to support it is weak. Especially when you seem to contradict yourself quite often.

I think this is an issue that mirrors another controversial issue we often discuss here. I don't see how this that different from DUI checkpoints (which i have a big problem with).

It seems you have a "big problem" with DUI checkpoints, but not a TSA screening? If so, explain the distinction between the two.

If you want to allow and exception for airlines because it's justified in the name of public safety to you, that's one thing. But the "they are not forcing you to use that service" is just poor logic unless you are willing to accept similar screenings for the patrons of any private business without the need for justification.

What justifies it, the need for public safety/national security or the fact that they are not forcing anyone to fly? The first point can be argued, the second point is borderline ridiculous.

 

[Super Dave]

It's absolutely ridiculous that we spent billions on this crap, when a good $50 door lock on the cockpit would solve the entire problem.

Government is the epitome of stupid.

This is actually a really true statement. Well, both are. They could just make the damned plane's cockpit way more secure, and the fact that "the man" is the epitome of stupid.

Papal, you're a smart feller!


.

 

[Werewolf]

I don't like the new policies and I agree there are most likely abuses of the system going on..... but what do we say when an airplane blows up in the air or is used as a weapon because someone smuggled a weapon or bomb on board?

Then everyone yells "Why was security not bumped up?"

No...
That's what the sheep bleat who believe that the government and not themselves are responsible for their safety.

As another poster noted would there even have been a 9/11 if passengers had been armed?

Unfortunately this is not our great granddaddy's world we are living in these days, and I don't see it going back to those kinder, more gentle days.

No it's not...
Wonder why.

 

[donner]

Your point may be strong, but your practical logic you are using to support it is weak. Especially when you seem to contradict yourself quite often.


It seems you have a "big problem" with DUI checkpoints, but not a TSA screening? If so, explain the distinction between the two.

If you want to allow and exception for airlines because it's justified in the name of public safety to you, that's one thing. But the "they are not forcing you to use that service" is just poor logic unless you are willing to accept similar screenings for the patrons of any private business without the need for justification.

What justifies it, the need for public safety/national security or the fact that they are not forcing anyone to fly? The first point can be argued, the second point is borderline ridiculous.

I fully admit that i'm torn about these two issues. However, i do see there as being a few key differences between the situations.

I think it's ridiculous that the police can setup a checkpoint and test everyone for DUI and if you refuse you are violation of the law and subject to arrest. I have a problem with the fact that it's all based on what road you happen to be driving on at that moment in time. You have no way of knowing if road A will be blocked or if its road B and choosing the one with the roadblock immediately requires you to submit to a search.

I see airports as being slightly different because you know ahead of time that you are subject to screening. If you still want to proceed to your flight you have to submit to the screening. If you don't want to submit to the screening then you can turn around and leave with no penalty other than not being allowed onto a private transport. It may be inconvenient, but you can find an alternative route flying.

One you can avoid ahead of time while the other you have no choice about when you find yourself in that situation.

Now, if the checkpoints really bothered me then i could easily take a cab or catch a ride, i understand this and maybe i should consider it more often.

But the "they are not forcing you to use that service" is just poor logic unless you are willing to accept similar screenings for the patrons of any private business without the need for justification.

I am perfectly willing to accept similar screenings because I am understand that i have a choice in such matters. If my bank wanted to require me to submit to a full body scan then i'd find another bank. If all banks required it then i'd have to decide if i wanted to change my views or not do business with banks.

However, i'd have strong objections to the government installing scanners in say a courthouse or other public building that i might be required to visit.

So far no one has made any compelling argument why you MUST go through airport security. The only thing people have said is that 'driving isn't always practical', which is may not be, but that isn't the fault of the government.

 

[orangecrush1007]

They already have several thousand dollar bulletproof doors on commercial acft.
What good does that do when bombs are in luggage of mail/freight that is not checked.
I say put a banana in your shorts and go through security and demand
A female TSA screener( or male) for a patdown, then start moaning real
Loud and squirming and yell out "yes, yes, don't stop"
People pay good money to have hands laid all over them.