Airport Screening Abuse Growing

[1shot(bob)]

So I don't think #1 or #2 fit here....I guess it is just a matter of perception I don't see a problem with it and you do...I guess we can agree to disagree

So if your neighbor on the next block was arrested for having a meth lab you think it's OK for your house to be searched for a meth lab. Since he is doing it, you must be considered as possibly doing so as well. (definition 1)
And since every house in your neighborhood is searched at will for meth, that makes it OK. (definition 2)

So at what point do you think it does become 'unreasonable'?

 

[Super Dave]

The constitution grants freedom from unreasonable search and seizure...This is not unreasonable if you want to fly.

I agree with this completely. You are not being searched against your will. If you don't want to comply, you simply don't have to fly. Sweet new ryming slogan!

It may be federally ran and watched, but it is still a private industry. If I owned an airline, I'd probably have all kinds of stupid rules to follow on my planes. No yellow hats. Every one sings a Sesame Street song after take off. Stuff like that. This is why they will never put me in a position of power.

Besides, what are you worried about taking on the plane that you are not supposed to? What do you have to hide? I have nothing.


.

 

[donner]

If you refuse to allow your child to be scanned, your child will have their genitals touched. Still think I'm exaggerating or these reports are inaccurate?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AA55S20101111?ref=nf

You'll notice that the incident you reference has nothing to do with the scan. Or rather, the article mixes incidents.

It says clearly that the boy was selected for additional screening after going through the metal detector. It wasn't that his father refused the full body scan. This sort of 'extra screening' has been going on for some number of years.

If you want to argue that the pat down is invasive that is fine, but i think any time you do a screening that involves physical contact you are going to have people who feel they are being violated.

Also, and i am genuinely curious about this, what is the alternative? I don't personally believe we should give up our rights for our safety, but i also recognize that there are times when we have to trust other people to ensure our safety. Flying is one of those times. If you don't want to entrust someone else then don't fly.

Seriously, though, how should airport screenings be conducted?

 

[4play]

Just put your tin foil underbritches on and go for it.

I had to go through the body image scanner at the Vegas airport, I noticed of about 10 people that I saw going through it they were all adult males. It kind of made me wonder who was doing the observations, and who was making the decisions for the extra searches.

I can just see it now where two TSA employees working together to decide who gets screened so the other gets to view the products. Just dont piss em off and you might have a good deal going.

 

[Danny Tanner]

I agree with this completely. You are not being searched against your will. If you don't want to comply, you simply don't have to fly. Sweet new ryming slogan!

It may be federally ran and watched, but it is still a private industry. If I owned an airline, I'd probably have all kinds of stupid rules to follow on my planes. No yellow hats. Every one sings a Sesame Street song after take off. Stuff like that. This is why they will never put me in a position of power.

Besides, what are you worried about taking on the plane that you are not supposed to? What do you have to hide? I have nothing.


.

A penis of brontosauric like proportion.

 

[jbarnett]

If people are so upset with the policy they should take a bus...or drive...I get so sick and tired of people saying, "this is a violation of my rights...." bla...bla...bla...show me where it says in the Constitution that you have the right to fly and not be screened. You will look a lifetime and never find it because its not a right it is a choice...if you don't like it don't fly take a diffrent mode of transportation.

That is the funniest thing I have read all week. What time is the opening act?

 

[Danny Tanner]

I've been selected for screening once after 2001. It was in 2003 at the Denver airport. I had to pull my shorts up as high as I could (displaying my muffin crease to the entire airport) and roll my wasteband down as far as I could without showing the world my money-maker. It was a little embarrassing and I don't know what it was that made me stand out, the only thing I could think of was I was flying solo.

 

[jbarnett]

You'll notice that the incident you reference has nothing to do with the scan. Or rather, the article mixes incidents.

It says clearly that the boy was selected for additional screening after going through the metal detector. It wasn't that his father refused the full body scan. This sort of 'extra screening' has been going on for some number of years.

If you want to argue that the pat down is invasive that is fine, but i think any time you do a screening that involves physical contact you are going to have people who feel they are being violated.

Also, and i am genuinely curious about this, what is the alternative? I don't personally believe we should give up our rights for our safety, but i also recognize that there are times when we have to trust other people to ensure our safety. Flying is one of those times. If you don't want to entrust someone else then don't fly.

Seriously, though, how should airport screenings be conducted?

What do you think they are accomplishing by doing airport screenings?
Not counting giving you a false sense of security.

 

[Super Dave]

So if your neighbor on the next block was arrested for having a meth lab you think it's OK for your house to be searched for a meth lab. Since he is doing it, you must be considered as possibly doing so as well. (definition 1)
And since every house in your neighborhood is searched at will for meth, that makes it OK. (definition 2)

So at what point do you think it does become 'unreasonable'?

No, your neighbor got busted because they got turned in, or were caught selling, or something like that. Your neighbor's house can not take off, and be turned in to a big, flying weapon. Different circumstances all together.

Simular circumstances? Drunk driver check point. You are not being checked because the guy ahead of you is drunk, but because they are checking EVERYBODY. Why? because they don't want the one that is driving the deadly weapon (while drunk) to kill the rest of the innocent people on the road.

If you aren't breaking any laws, what are you so worried about?


.

 

[donner]

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).

Both are done in the name of safety and conducted by government agents.