Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - The unfortunate truth is most of you are hypocrites

All of you cry how unfair TSA is, yet you don't do anything about it. You are all talk, but no action.

Well, I have done something about it. I back up my talk. Ever since 9/11, I have sworn never to fly again, or even go to an airport, and I haven't. I have instead driven across country when I needed to. I find it is cheaper that way, and I get to do some sightseeing along the way and be a tourist. Why go through the hassle flying and airports involve?

Now let's get ready for all the responses like "I need to fly for my job" or "driving just takes too long". Well ok then, but don't complain about TSA when you choose to fly. Afterall, you chose that option when others existed. You can't complain, but I am allowed to complain, because I have boycotted flying. I mean what I say. I am not a hypocrite.

Considering that you have stated that your last flight was in 2000, and listed several reasons why you do not fly, I'm quite sure that decision was not difficult for you.

Many here have changed jobs, no longer holiday as they did in past, moved to a different location and/or country, and have made significant changes to their lives. Others choose to stand up at the checkpoint. Still others choose to educate the public.

Going from not flying to not flying isn't really that difficult. Moving, quitting a job, speaking out at the checkpoint, etc truly do take an effort.

I'm not sure driving from the US to Tokyo is going to work out well for me...

Ok, perhaps I should be nicer and not quick to judge others.

I just wish more people would act like me and stop flying altogether. Speak through your wallet. Then the airlines and TSA would get the message real fast. Either shape up, or we won't fly.

It has nothing to do with being 'nicer'. I certainly do not want to be painted with the same broad brush you are using on all TS&S posters. And I certainly don't want to be grouped together with at least some of the posters here.

We are all individuals, and make our own decisions. But to claim that one is making a statement against TSA by not flying, when one already was a non-flyer for over a decade, seems to be a little disingenuous to me.

How does refusing to fly help anything? What you should be doing is flying, and standing up for your rights. Refuse to go through the body scanners. Videotape your encounter with TSA and put it on youtube. Call the police to take a report and file a lawsuit if there are any violations of your rights. That is how you speak up and demand change. Running away and hiding is not going to change anything.

I have one particular skill that is very valuable to my customers. The customers willing to pay for that skill are geographically dispersed.

For me, flying does two things. It moves me and my skills vast distances very quickly. It allows me to sell my skills and to make a living. It is an integral part of my job. I do not fly except that it maximizes my productivity and allows to to make an income that feeds my family, pays my taxes, and supports my local charities without the burden of asking anyone else to do so.

In the time that the OP has stopped flying, I have investigated at least ten business opportunities, of which six got to the early planning stage, with one of the primary reasons being that I could get off the road with my work. For various reasons, financial viability, location, demographics and others, all of them would have put my family a great financial risk compared to my continuing to fly to work. I am currently investigating three more, two of which look pretty good but it is unsure whether the financial details will work out. The OP might be amazed at the amount of time and cash I have invested in doing just what he suggests while seeking that opportunity. I do not bemoan that. It is part of the due diligence in self employment.

So, I resist the encroachment in other ways. I write my representatives, multiple times. I challenge nonsensical rules and procedure right at the CP. I enter into discussions to gain knowledge about those procedures so that I can be more effective in my resistance.

In a sense, just not flying is more of a surrender, but that is just my opinion. The OP is free to express his dissatisfaction in whatever way he pleases.

Anyone who stopped flying in the year 2000 didn't make the decision due to the TSA.

I challenge nonsensical rules and procedure right at the CP. I enter into discussions to gain knowledge about those procedures so that I can be more effective in my resistance.

In a sense, just not flying is more of a surrender, but that is just my opinion.

I agree with this. The only sense that not flying might fix things could be that the airlines lose out on the revenue, but TSA certainly doesn't care about that, and, being a government monopoly, the airlines/airports/customers ultimately have very little say in TSA's operations.

This is one of the very big problems with a federalized system compared to a private system. TSA (and any other federal agency) will get funded because of the federal government's "unlimited" capacity to borrow and extort "voluntary" taxes from citizens. There's no meaningful response mechanism for customer feedback whatsoever, so there's no true way for market forces to bring about change. So, like Ink said, not flying is more like giving up than "voting with your feet" so to say.

Ok, perhaps I should be nicer and not quick to judge others.

I just wish more people would act like me and stop flying altogether. Speak through your wallet. Then the airlines and TSA would get the message real fast. Either shape up, or we won't fly.

The TSA has made it more difficult for you to travel. Yet you still travel, and you have changed your habits due to the TSA. Haven't you succumbed, as well?

I refuse to let the TSA discourage me from exercising my right to travel. I also object to their unreasonable searches, and their attempts to force me to incriminate myself. See, I can do both!

Hmmm, since the second to last time I was hassled, I was not even flying, but dropping my husband off, your argument holds no water.

And like a prior poster said, driving to Tokyo doesn't work so well. I got 2-4 times a year.

But hey, refuse to fly and hide your head in the sand. Pretty soon they'll come take away your right to drive - what are you going to do then?

Anyone who stopped flying in the year 2000 didn't make the decision due to the TSA.

^

I'm on the "front lines" doing my part by continuing to exercising my right to travel freely in most of the world. I also let those around me know when/how my rights are being infringed upon.

IMO nobody makes a significant impact on the TSA "sitting it out".

By not flying you lose. The Government has now restricted your ability to freely move within your own country. "If you don't like it don't fly" is their motto and you fell right into it.

I opt out and make sure I make it just as uncomfortable for me as the TSO by making jokes, moans and gestures. Makes my Gropings expeditious.

Welcome Yoshi to FT! :)

I write my Congresspeople a letter every time a new TSA abuse video, story about a TSO committing crimes or report showing how ineffective the scanners are comes out. I've already written my Representative to tell him that I'm not voting for him in November because he voted against cutting the TSA's budget.

If selected for BKSX or MMW w/o ATD, I opt out, and I give the screeners hell as I do so. Nothing turns a three-striper bright red faster than asking their one-stripers why the TSA won't let them wear any form of radiation monitoring device around BKSX units. When opting out, I've started demanding a law enforcement witness, as it cuts down on the karate chops and open-palm scrotum grabs. I also refuse to go into a private screening area, as I want to make sure that fellow passengers who may not otherwise see a problem with screening are able to view a fully-compliant individual being patted down, head to toe, in the presence of a police officer.

I've also developed some games, like telling TDCs who play the name game that, "I'm Spartacus," and putting my "Freedom Baggie" (labeled as such) face up, by itself, to maximize the chances of TSOs seeing it. I go through MMW w/ATD at this point, primarily because it just saves time at this point. Once again, though, as TSOs are taking 15 seconds to explain how the machine works to me, I tell them three words in that I know the drill and I have a flight to catch, so let's get on with the strip search.

I also make a point of saying something to a fellow traveler if I see them putting their wallet, jewelry or smartphone into an open bin by itself. I simply remind them that some screeners are there more for monetary gain than security purposes, and tell them to Google "TSA theft" before leaving their valuables exposed again. It always gets me dirty looks from the TSOs, half the time it gets me a mystery "false positive" and a full patdown, and occasionally it gets me the wonderful experience of a TSO pointing at me and shouting, "USB! USB! RIGHT HERE, USB!".

They love it when you tell them that they should have learned in kindergarten that it's not nice to point at other people. :D

When selected for a gate check, the first words out of my mouth to the screener are, "What, did you miss something?" or "So when's the last time you caught a terrorist at one of these?". One of my fondest TSA memories was when a screener answered the second question with, "Hopefully right now, smartass." Luckily for me, the one-striper's three-striper boss was standing right alongside, and the only thing that turned him brighter red than my question was his TSO's answer--especially after I said that I'd like the FSD's direct line and a comment card. I was asking a legitimate question, and the TSO responded in a manner that would get 99% of Americans fired on the spot. :D

Do I continue to fly? Yes. My job pays well and has the flexibility of working from home more often than not, at hours I choose. That gives me more time to spend with my wife and dog, which is worth more to me than avoiding the indignities of airport security. If my boss would allow me several days for travel time, I'd drive everywhere. Thing is, I often have a large project due Monday night, and then I have to be somewhere by mid-morning Tuesday. Spending two to three days each way on the road just isn't an option--and believe me, I've asked.

Point being, there are ways of expressing your discontent with the TSA's procedures and personnel without refusing to fly. If I didn't have to get on airplanes, I wouldn't. I find the whole experience of air travel abhorrent from start to finish. Thing is, I have to if I want to continue in the job I have, so I make the best of a bad situation by using the TSA for some cheap laughs en route--while openly mocking them in front of other passengers to open their eyes a little.

Thing is, I have to if I want to continue in the job I have, so I make the best of a bad situation by using the TSA for some cheap laughs en route--while openly mocking them in front of other passengers to open their eyes a little.

Kind of OT, but do you find you actually open other passengers eyes? I suspect most are simply annoyed you're holding up the line and putting their security in jeopardy. Don't get me wrong - I completely understand the concept of hassling them and they royally deserve it - I just am wondering if most passengers change their minds.

Kind of OT, but do you find you actually open other passengers eyes? I suspect most are simply annoyed you're holding up the line and putting their security in jeopardy. Don't get me wrong - I completely understand the concept of hassling them and they royally deserve it - I just am wondering if most passengers change their minds.

I've had positive interactions with passengers several times after openly questioning a TSO or challenging their authori-tah. I've never had anyone approach me in a negative way. That's not to say no one's been annoyed with me, just that no one's vocalized it.

One of my all-time favorite stories was when a one-striper standing in a WTMD was taking boarding passes and asking people to confirm their name. She'd already been snippy with me over baggage going into the X-ray (I didn't want to do it before she was ready for me to enter the WTMD), so I decided to make her day a little brighter by responding that I'm Spartacus. She asked again, and I responded again. The usual, "I'll remember you" threat was made, this time involving being "thoroughly searched in a private room." As I was collecting my carry-ons, I could clearly hear the guy behind me respond to her that he, too, was Spartacus. :)

What's truly unfortunate is those that choose not to fly. By choosing not to fly you let the terrorists (and terrorists within our own government) win.

This is exactly what they want you to do.

Have fun on your drive.

One of my all-time favorite stories was when a one-striper standing in a WTMD was taking boarding passes and asking people to confirm their name. She'd already been snippy with me over baggage going into the X-ray (I didn't want to do it before she was ready for me to enter the WTMD), so I decided to make her day a little brighter by responding that I'm Spartacus. She asked again, and I responded again. The usual, "I'll remember you" threat was made, this time involving being "thoroughly searched in a private room." As I was collecting my carry-ons, I could clearly hear the guy behind me respond to her that he, too, was Spartacus. :)
This is absolutely awesome.

What's truly unfortunate is those that choose not to fly. By choosing not to fly you let the terrorists (and terrorists within our own government) win.

Some days I wonder if this whole TSA thing is a prelude to an eventual attempt at isolating Americans into small sections of the country to make us easier to control. And no, I'm not wearing my tinfoil hat today.

I have instead driven across country when I needed to. I find it is cheaper that way, and I get to do some sightseeing along the way and be a tourist.

How is it cheaper? You need to get 35 mpg at the current price of gas for it to match the cost of flying. Without spending anything along the route on food, lodging, maintenance, wear and tear, etc.

But, yeah, you're sure showing them :rolleyes:

How is it cheaper? You need to get 35 mpg at the current price of gas for it to match the cost of flying. Without spending anything along the route on food, lodging, maintenance, wear and tear, etc.

But, yeah, you're sure showing them :rolleyes:

I tread lightly here, because I haven't run the numbers ... but if you want to bring in outside expenses, consider:


The marginal cost of throwing another suitcase in the trunk on a road trip is trivial (sure, it makes the car a little heavier, so you might use a little more gasoline en route). The cost of taking another suitcase on a plane trip could be as much as $100 --- more if the bag is "overweight".
Yes, you'll spend money on food en route. But that's money spent either way. Does my $1 bottle of water bought at a convenience store offset the $3 charged for that same bottle of water on an airport concourse? Even if I buy three times as much water because of the length of the road trip, I'm still coming out even.

Make sure you count lost wages as well.

I tread lightly here, because I haven't run the numbers ... but if you want to bring in outside expenses, consider:


The marginal cost of throwing another suitcase in the trunk on a road trip is trivial (sure, it makes the car a little heavier, so you might use a little more gasoline en route). The cost of taking another suitcase on a plane trip could be as much as $100 --- more if the bag is "overweight".
Yes, you'll spend money on food en route. But that's money spent either way. Does my $1 bottle of water bought at a convenience store offset the $3 charged for that same bottle of water on an airport concourse? Even if I buy three times as much water because of the length of the road trip, I'm still coming out even.


I'll bite... While there is fair argument for baggage, or food and beverage expenses while driving across the country to get somewhere, a lot of this debate comes down to "what is my time worth?". Driving to New York for a meeting and then turning around two days later and driving home isn't really feasible. Sure, I can avoid the airport, but how much of my time am I wasting trying to get there... Time is money.

Some days I wonder if this whole TSA thing is a prelude to an eventual attempt at isolating Americans into small sections of the country to make us easier to control. And no, I'm not wearing my tinfoil hat today.

Unlike many, I don't think the TSA is part of any broad plot to turn all Americans into mind-controlled drones for a 1984-esque society. Rather, I think it's just over-bloated bureaucracy at its finest. The TSA needs to continually justify its existence; the farther we get from 9/11, the more legislators will begin to wonder if we really need to continuing sinking such huge sums of money into government employees when private screeners can do the job just as well. Hence, we have AIT, which exists more to provide continuing job security to TSA screeners than anything else. We have pointless gate checks designed to justify keeping the staffing levels 50% higher than they need to be, and we have enhanced pat-downs to justify keeping additional screeners on the payroll to begrudgingly handle those. The more that airports shift over to private screeners--screeners held accountable for their behavior and attitude--the more people will see that the TSA should, as John Mica puts it, get out of the human resources business.

The TSA exists to further the existence of the TSA. I really think it's that simple.

I tread lightly here, because I haven't run the numbers ... but if you want to bring in outside expenses, consider:


The marginal cost of throwing another suitcase in the trunk on a road trip is trivial (sure, it makes the car a little heavier, so you might use a little more gasoline en route). The cost of taking another suitcase on a plane trip could be as much as $100 --- more if the bag is "overweight".
Yes, you'll spend money on food en route. But that's money spent either way. Does my $1 bottle of water bought at a convenience store offset the $3 charged for that same bottle of water on an airport concourse? Even if I buy three times as much water because of the length of the road trip, I'm still coming out even.


Water is free on the plane. Why buy it from the store at the airport? If you can't go a half hour at the airport without buying water, there's no chance you can drive coast to coast and back on three bottles of it.

The TSA exists to further the existence of the TSA. I really think it's that simple.

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html).

If I didnt leave the country for 6 months, I'd go insane, never mind 12 years.

:eek::eek:

I'll bite... While there is fair argument for baggage, or food and beverage expenses while driving across the country to get somewhere, a lot of this debate comes down to "what is my time worth?". Driving to New York for a meeting and then turning around two days later and driving home isn't really feasible. Sure, I can avoid the airport, but how much of my time am I wasting trying to get there... Time is money.

Agreed that this argument doesn't account for the question of the value of time.

On the other hand, I'll note that, as screening becomes much more onerous, that equation is changing. Time spent standing in line at a TSA checkpoint, or sitting around in uncomfortable departure lounge chairs with hundreds of other folks, is time I can't spend doing "paid work". I'm equally unproductive while driving, of course. (Sure, it's possible to work with my laptop sitting in a cramped lounge chair, or talk on the phone while driving. Neither is ideal, or even recommended.)

But I'm increasingly discovering that an increasing number of my business destinations are now a toss-up when it comes to flying versus driving, if you consider the door-to-door time required. As TSA screening becomes more onerous, and total time to clear the checkpoint (including standing in line) increases, that calculation starts to favor driving even more.

Yes, there's a practical limit. If I'm heading to one of the coasts from here in the Great Middle, driving ain't gonna cut it. So I deal with flying when I need to. But the definition of "need to" is changing --- at least for me.

Unlike many, I don't think the TSA is part of any broad plot to turn all Americans into mind-controlled drones for a 1984-esque society. Rather, I think it's just over-bloated bureaucracy at its finest.

Hanlon's razor (or close to it) is a fallacy. :D

You may be right, but if the side effect is turning Americans into mind-controlled drones, does the intent really matter?

I agree with this. The only sense that not flying might fix things could be that the airlines lose out on the revenue, but TSA certainly doesn't care about that, and, being a government monopoly, the airlines/airports/customers ultimately have very little say in TSA's operations.

This is one of the very big problems with a federalized system compared to a private system. TSA (and any other federal agency) will get funded because of the federal government's "unlimited" capacity to borrow and extort "voluntary" taxes from citizens. There's no meaningful response mechanism for customer feedback whatsoever, so there's no true way for market forces to bring about change. So, like Ink said, not flying is more like giving up than "voting with your feet" so to say.

Not much way, but some. I want to see air passenger traffic from Tijuana, Vancouver, Montreal, et al. increase steadily and unnaturally.

By not flying you lose. The Government has now restricted your ability to freely move within your own country. "If you don't like it don't fly" is their motto and you fell right into it.

I opt out and make sure I make it just as uncomfortable for me as the TSO by making jokes, moans and gestures. Makes my Gropings expeditious.

First of all, welcome to FT.

The government has not restricted your freedom of movement one bit. You are making the decision to travel and what mode to travel in, not the government. Additionally, every mode of travel has its government imposed restrictions, we call them laws. Air travel is no different, and never has been. Some people don’t like to fly, most of those reasons have nothing to do with screening. Some people don’t like to drive, and it rarely has anything to do with speed limits. The government is an easy target, especially when one is making a decision they don’t like.

Accept responsibility for your own decisions and stop blaming someone else. You don’t like screening, ok, good for you. I would prefer to drive at 100mph+ and have the car to do it, but I don’t because I have made the decision to respect the laws of my state. My choice, not the state’s, and I accept the responsibility for it.

just a thought... maybe encourage those just graduating college with no prospects, or those laid off and collecting unemployment, etc to join... I always hear people complain about security, and how much better it is everywhere abroad (that they're more professional, courteous, and competent), but treat anyone who would consider it to be pariahs.
Seems to be a self fulfilling prophesy to me.
Since everyone here seems to be a security expert, why not become a FSD... I can tell you most of the "abuses" in the news can be linked at some point to the willful ignorance of FSDs to the arbitrary (and occasionally illegal) decrees made in their name by their AFSDS, DAFSDS, and TSMs.

The government has not restricted your freedom of movement one bit. You are making the decision to travel and what mode to travel in....

If they put me on the no-fly list, hypothetically, they HAVE restricted my freedom of movement. If they make it so I can't see family overseas unless I go through security measures that re both over the top, or un-necessary in lieu of alternatives, they're restricting my movement - since they're making it so I can't utilize the fastest mode of transportation unless I go through their hoops, not the people ACTUALLY transporting me.

Point out where the federal government derives its right to be everything negative in the TSA's current reputation - just because I choose one mode of transportation over the other.

First of all, welcome to FT.

The government has not restricted your freedom of movement one bit. You are making the decision to travel and what mode to travel in, not the government. Additionally, every mode of travel has its government imposed restrictions, we call them laws. Air travel is no different, and never has been. Some people don’t like to fly, most of those reasons have nothing to do with screening. Some people don’t like to drive, and it rarely has anything to do with speed limits. The government is an easy target, especially when one is making a decision they don’t like.

Accept responsibility for your own decisions and stop blaming someone else. You don’t like screening, ok, good for you. I would prefer to drive at 100mph+ and have the car to do it, but I don’t because I have made the decision to respect the laws of my state. My choice, not the state’s, and I accept the responsibility for it.

Ok, so maybe the government hasn't come out and said that people are not allowed to travel. But it can impose restrictions that make travel difficult. To use your example of driving a car, driving 100 mph will get you to your destination more quickly. However, we recognize the government's ability to regulate driving a car for safety reasons (among other things, I'm not a traffic engineer) in that it may specify speed limits, which drivers roughly adhere to on a regular basis. Thus, I see it as a reasonable restriction in the interest of the public good.

But with air travel, I (and many others) do not perceive any benefit from the regulations pertaining to the TSA's operations at airports. Those regulations simply present a barrier to travel that does not offer a corresponding advantage or improvement in experience. So yes, the general populace is not forbidden to travel. But the TSA continues to present more and more of a burden to travelers, potentially forcing them away from air travel. I am sure there are at least some passengers, having been scanned, searched, groped, frisked, and otherwise harassed by TSA employees, who will no longer travel by air unless it is absolutely necessary. And thus the government restricts travel.

I do not have to show an ID to cross from NY to NJ and so on.

I do not have to submit info on who I am before traveling to drive a car from one point in the US to another

I do not have to have my baggage scanned to travel from one point to another.

At airports I had a continuous additional screening for months each time I traveled. I had to get a DHS regress number to avoid these "automatic" searches with the XXXXXX appearing on my boarding pass. I now have that number and it does help. To get this number to travel within the USA I had to submit to additional background checks and provide statements about my travels, my work and even hand over banking info.

I do have to obey the LAWS regarding limits on speed and my actions impacting the security of the public. BUT I have to commit a crime first to become involved with a LEO.

I personally have no issue with the screening of bags going onto planes as they could contain something that could harm the 100+ people aboard the average plane but I do not condone the searches that are warrant less. I didn't vote for Pistole but I did get to vote for the people that make my Local, State and Federal LAWS.

Law are written by people. TSA regs are in a mysterious book we're not allowed to see/read/touch but are required to follow and are often changed without notice or at the whim of some random person's mood.

First of all, welcome to FT.

The government has not restricted your freedom of movement one bit. You are making the decision to travel and what mode to travel in, not the government. Additionally, every mode of travel has its government imposed restrictions, we call them laws. Air travel is no different, and never has been. Some people don’t like to fly, most of those reasons have nothing to do with screening. Some people don’t like to drive, and it rarely has anything to do with speed limits. The government is an easy target, especially when one is making a decision they don’t like.

Accept responsibility for your own decisions and stop blaming someone else. You don’t like screening, ok, good for you. I would prefer to drive at 100mph+ and have the car to do it, but I don’t because I have made the decision to respect the laws of my state. My choice, not the state’s, and I accept the responsibility for it.

I do not have to show an ID to cross from NY to NJ and so on.

I do not have to submit info on who I am before traveling to drive a car from one point in the US to another

I do not have to have my baggage scanned to travel from one point to another.

At airports I had a continuous additional screening for months each time I traveled. I had to get a DHS regress number to avoid these "automatic" searches with the XXXXXX appearing on my boarding pass. I now have that number and it does help. To get this number to travel within the USA I had to submit to additional background checks and provide statements about my travels, my work and even hand over banking info.

I do have to obey the LAWS regarding limits on speed and my actions impacting the security of the public. BUT I have to commit a crime first to become involved with a LEO.

I personally have no issue with the screening of bags going onto planes as they could contain something that could harm the 100+ people aboard the average plane but I do not condone the searches that are warrant less. I didn't vote for Pistole but I did get to vote for the people that make my Local, State and Federal LAWS.

Law are written by people. TSA regs are in a mysterious book we're not allowed to see/read/touch but are required to follow and are often changed without notice or at the whim of some random person's mood.

I'm pretty sure I like this guy. :)

Welcome to FT!

Mike

The government has not restricted your freedom of movement one bit. You are making the decision to travel and what mode to travel in, not the government.

The first definition of "restrict" is "put a limit on; control". The government does not have to say, "You are not allowed to fly," in order to restrict your ability to do so. Throwing ridiculous hurdles in your place accomplishes the same effect, and is actually a time-honored government tradition. Yes, anyone who's not on a no-fly list (which is, by the way, restricting their air travel fully) is allowed to go through security and get on a plane.

Here's the catch, though. If you throw enough hoops in front of someone, such as SSSS, X-ray body scanners that, frankly, no one credible understands the true exposure of, automated targeting scanners that false constantly, "enhanced pat-downs" that border on rape, the Freedom Baggie(TM) for all your liquids, the shoe carnival, belt removal, dismantling your briefcase/laptop bag, inane gate checks and the expanding group of amateur psychologists (BDOs) in airports, some people may eventually decide that jumping through them just so they can spend two hours of their life sardine-canned into a glorified flying Greyhound isn't worth it. In that case, no, the government hasn't said that they can't fly, but it certainly has restricted their ability to do so.

I'm pretty sure I like this guy. :)Yup, me too. :)

Welcome to FT!

Mike^ Seconded.

I'm pretty sure I like this guy. :)

Welcome to FT!

Mike

I'm going to echo my fishy friend on this, I like this Yoshi fellow a lot. Welcome! :D

I personally have no issue with the screening of bags going onto planes as they could contain something that could harm the 100+ people aboard the average plane but I do not condone the searches that are warrant less.

And air cargo isn't even 100% screened yet. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Got to love warped priorities.

Since everyone here seems to be a security expert, why not become a FSD...

Personally, I can't fix every problem everywhere. I've chosen to work on other problems in my little corner of the world. Right now, those problems don't include airline security. I'll ask others to work on the other problems.

Since everyone here seems to be a security expert, why not become a FSD...

Because I refuse to make a living trampling on the Constitutional rights of others. More people should make that decision.

I've also developed some games, like telling TDCs who play the name game that, "I'm Spartacus,"

As I was collecting my carry-ons, I could clearly hear the guy behind me respond to her that he, too, was Spartacus. :)

I love this, and I too shall be known as Spartacus from now on. Ladies, maybe Cleopatra might be your new nickname.

I pray for the day when travelers line up at the podium and recite "Spartacus", "Spartacus", "Cleopatra", "Spartacus", etc to engage a spirited round of NameGame.

Since everyone here seems to be a security expert, why not become a FSD...
Because I would have ethical problems with the duties of the position. And because it would require the TSA to start hiring people who aspire to do more in life than be a scanner jockey.

I love this, and I too shall be known as Spartacus from now on.
You and I should find a way to be in line together at a name game airport.

"State your name."
"I'm Spartacus."
"I'M SPARTACUS!"
"No, I'm Spartacus!"

Hilarity ensues.

I love this, and I too shall be known as Spartacus from now on. Ladies, maybe Cleopatra might be your new nickname.

I pray for the day when travelers line up at the podium and recite "Spartacus", "Spartacus", "Cleopatra", "Spartacus", etc to engage a spirited round of NameGame.

I'm a lady, and I shall be Spartacus, too! :D

The government has not restricted your freedom of movement one bit. government imposed restrictions

So... uh.... which is it?

I'm a lady, and I shall be Spartacus, too! :D

Ditto.

And air cargo isn't even 100% screened yet. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D



That is changing very soon.

That is changing very soon.

Been hearing it since Kippie days, which was well over 3.5 years ago. I'll believe it when I see it.

Remember being able to bring larger quantities of liquid back on plane in 2009? Yeah, that happened. :rolleyes:

People often get the actual terms "punishment" and "negative reinforcement" confused. Punishment is more due to a negative behavior, whereas negative reinforcement is more a negative response to a behavior.

The reason I say this is because this behavior seems to be more avoidance than solving the problem. Personally, I think we practice more passive resistance, wherein we recognize the problem, and in some ways, try to fix it.

All of you cry how unfair TSA is, yet you don't do anything about it. You are all talk, but no action.

Well, I have done something about it. I back up my talk. Ever since 9/11, I have sworn never to fly again, or even go to an airport, and I haven't. I have instead driven across country when I needed to. I find it is cheaper that way, and I get to do some sightseeing along the way and be a tourist. Why go through the hassle flying and airports involve?

Now let's get ready for all the responses like "I need to fly for my job" or "driving just takes too long". Well ok then, but don't complain about TSA when you choose to fly. Afterall, you chose that option when others existed. You can't complain, but I am allowed to complain, because I have boycotted flying. I mean what I say. I am not a hypocrite.

I hope this thread is not what got you suspended as I don't think your honesty is bad.

You claim we do nothing about the atrocities of the TSA. Maybe calling and writing to our senators and rep isn't enough action? Most of us believe airport/airline security is important. We just don't like the anti-Fourth Amendment way the TSA has gone about it.

Quite frankly though, flying is more convenient and safer than driving. If I want to say go visit my uncle in Oklahoma during a week of my vacation if have two choices.
1) Drive 21 hours and visit him for four days and drive 21 hours back home. Take a day to hopefully recover from the trip before heading back to work.
2) Fly 3-1/2 hours visit him for seven days and fly 3-1/2 hours back. I'm fully rested and back to work the next day.

Oh you're hiring for jobs that don't require travel with good pay and benefits I'll send you my resume.

Sincerely,

World's Biggest Hypocrite

Oh you're hiring for jobs that don't require travel with good pay and benefits I'll send you my resume.

Sincerely,

World's Biggest Hypocrite

I know it is sarcasm, but if offered the job, I will pass. I do not want to work for the person that thinks that the person that is trying to get the greatest work efficiency by using the most efficient mode of transportation despite the aggravation and irritation is a hypocrite. If they are this irrational making business-related travel decisions, I certainly do not want to be stuck at the office with them.

The government has not restricted your freedom of movement one bit. You are making the decision to travel and what mode to travel in, not the government. Additionally, every mode of travel has its government imposed restrictions, we call them laws. Air travel is no different, and never has been. Some people don’t like to fly, most of those reasons have nothing to do with screening. Some people don’t like to drive, and it rarely has anything to do with speed limits. The government is an easy target, especially when one is making a decision they don’t like.

:confused::confused::confused: You say yourself that the government restricts us two sentences after you claim that the government doesn't. Of course the government restricts us. This is not the issue. The issue is about the reasonableness of these restrictions.

As you say, the government imposes speed limits. These are generally not questioned for reasonableness. They are clearly restrictions. If a government agency makes a 1 MPH speed limit and levies a $11,000 fine for violators, I'm sure people (including the Supreme Court) would find that to be an UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION (note the use of both words). If the government targets black people along I-95, you get the same situation. At some point, restrictions become unreasonable. They are always restrictions. It works the same way in the airport.

TSA does things at airports. Are these restrictions? Of course they are; everything they do is a restriction of some sort. The key question is whether these are reasonable or unreasonable. Suppose the TSA decides to strip search everyone that enters the airport. Would that be unreasonable? I say yes and I bet we could even get a large majority of the most cowardly citizens/judges/politicians to agree. At some point, even the most die hard "anything for security" folks will understand. How about strip searches before getting on city buses or entering the parking lot of a local mall? Using your logic, the government can strip search you because you chose to ride the bus or enter the mall.

If you want to debate what TSA does is reasonable, that's one thing. These "you chose to fly so you consented to everything/waived your rights" logic is silly. So are all the "don't like it, don't fly arguments". Tell the black people on I-95 they can choose not to drive. :rolleyes:

You are making the decision to travel and what mode to travel in, not the government.

Yes. I make decisions on what mode I'm going to use to travel. Even after I do, I STILL have the right to travel freely, without unreasonable restrictions, without unreasonable searches, without unreasonable threats/penalties, and without retaliation.

Maybe I missed your point. It seems you are implying that once I pick a particular mode of travel, that I've somehow waived my Constitutional rights.

The government is an easy target, especially when one is making a decision they don’t like.

:confused: The government doesn't like my choice to fly by air, so they can do whatever they want to me?!?!? That's an interesting interpretation of the Constitution.

Been hearing it since Kippie days, which was well over 3.5 years ago. I'll believe it when I see it.

Remember being able to bring larger quantities of liquid back on plane in 2009? Yeah, that happened. :rolleyes:

I work for a company that does massive amounts of imports and exports. We are told by our service providers December 31 for 100% screening of imports, export switch was flipped quite a while back.

I work for a company that does massive amounts of imports and exports. We are told by our service providers December 31 for 100% screening of imports, export switch was flipped quite a while back.

It was supposed to be implemented in 2010. Now we're 12 years past "OMG, someone used an AIRPLANE as a WEAPON, whatever shall we do?!" and they still can't get it right.

Instead, they want to hassle passengers, and have yet to find one (in the US) that's an actual threat to the airplane.

First of all, welcome to FT.

The government has not restricted your freedom of movement one bit. You are making the decision to travel and what mode to travel in, not the government. Additionally, every mode of travel has its government imposed restrictions, we call them laws. Air travel is no different, and never has been. Some people don’t like to fly, most of those reasons have nothing to do with screening. Some people don’t like to drive, and it rarely has anything to do with speed limits. The government is an easy target, especially when one is making a decision they don’t like.

Accept responsibility for your own decisions and stop blaming someone else. You don’t like screening, ok, good for you. I would prefer to drive at 100mph+ and have the car to do it, but I don’t because I have made the decision to respect the laws of my state. My choice, not the state’s, and I accept the responsibility for it.

The old "it's your choice" argument hold no more water today than it ever has.

The choice we have today is:

1) Fly, but "volunteer" to have our 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and sometimes our 5th Amendment freedom from self-incrimination, severely violated, under penalty of excessive fines and possible imprisonment.

2) "Volunteer" to give up our Constitutionally-protected right to unrestricted interstate travel by not flying.

Our rights are being violated. Allowing us to choose which right, or the method by which it is violated, is somewhat akin to giving a person a choice between being murdered by a gun or by a knife, then telling their family that they committed suicide because, "Well, they CHOSE the gun, didn't they?"

It's a false and misleading choice that disguises the fact that, no matter what, the government is infringing upon one of your Constitutional rights.

Unfortunately, flying is the only way to get to Asia for me.

There are no more ships that sail from Seattle or San Francisco to Kobe which is how my great-grandfather first came to America back in the late 1800s. :D

I'd assume Ellis Island on the East Coast is also a tourist attraction than an immigration facility for those coming and going to Europe as well. :D


My take on this: refusing to fly as a means of protest against government intrusion upon privacy by the TSA does the opposite effect. The more effective means of protest is "I'm still going to fly because you can't take that freedom away from me, and when I fly, I'm going to be a hard-...."

That includes showing my NEXUS card, opting out, calling for supervisors, asking for the FSD, filling out TSA forms, and writing to Congress.

That includes showing my NEXUS card, opting out, calling for supervisors, asking for the FSD, filling out TSA forms, and writing to Congress.

Does showing the NEXUS card annoy them as much as I think it might? I'm toying with the idea of using it next week.

Does showing the NEXUS card annoy them as much as I think it might?

Anything they don't understand, can't remember from their "training," or think might undermine their authoritah annoys them.

Does showing the NEXUS card annoy them as much as I think it might? I'm toying with the idea of using it next week.

Yes. Pad yourself some extra time, bring some popcorn and enjoy the Three Stooges performance right in front of you. :D

If it's security theater and it's being paid for with your tax dollars, might as well enjoy it I say. The only thing that irritates them more is people don't care about their authoritah trips.

Case in point: Cartman says "respect my authoritah!" and in the end, the other three South Park kids figure out how to make fun back at him and he hates it, and we get entertained by it. :D

Does showing the NEXUS card annoy them as much as I think it might? I'm toying with the idea of using it next week.

Quick Nexus use training.

If they ask if you have another ID, do not say yes nor no. Say, "According to your SOP, the Nexus is an acceptable form of ID." Say nothing else except you may want to ask for a supervisor. If the supervisor backs the TDC, repeat, "According to your SOP, the Nexus is an acceptable form of ID."

It also helps to say "I will stand here to the side out of the way so other people can go through. I have plenty of time." This keeps you from interfering with the screening process.

You might want to put a small label on the back of your Nexus that says "This ID is #7 on your SOP list of ID's." The SOP list of ID's is SSI, but we have confirmed that the Nexus is #7 on the list.

You can print out this page from the web site (http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/acceptable_documents.shtm)with the part about Nexus circled with sharpie marker. They probably will not care, but it does not hurt to have it. There used to be a pdf of acceptable documents that has been removed from the web site.

Have fun.

I work for a company that does massive amounts of imports and exports. We are told by our service providers December 31 for 100% screening of imports, export switch was flipped quite a while back.

Even if Imports/Exports are 100% (I don't believe it), domestic freight is nowhere close to 100% and much that is counted as screened is actually certified by the SHIPPER as screened... including most non-military caskets shipped by air. How hard would it be for a worker at a mortuary to put something other than a body in a casket going from Miami to NY City?

Anything they don't understand, can't remember from their "training," or think might undermine their authoritah annoys them.

Yes. Pad yourself some extra time, bring some popcorn and enjoy the Three Stooges performance right in front of you. :D



Quick Nexus use training.

If they ask if you have another ID, do not say yes nor no. Say, "According to your SOP, the Nexus is an acceptable form of ID." Say nothing else except you may want to ask for a supervisor. If the supervisor backs the TDC, repeat, "According to your SOP, the Nexus is an acceptable form of ID."

It also helps to say "I will stand here to the side out of the way so other people can go through. I have plenty of time." This keeps you from interfering with the screening process.

You might want to put a small label on the back of your Nexus that says "This ID is #7 on your SOP list of ID's." The SOP list of ID's is SSI, but we have confirmed that the Nexus is #7 on the list.

You can print out this page from the web site (http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/acceptable_documents.shtm)with the part about Nexus circled with sharpie marker. They probably will not care, but it does not hurt to have it. There used to be a pdf of acceptable documents that has been removed from the web site.

Have fun.

Excellent. Thanks, everyone.

One last question though - I actually looked at the card and it doesn't say Nexus anywhere (it's one of the new Global Entry cards). It does say SENTRI on the back, so I'm guessing it still counts, right? I read a couple of the threads here about it and want to make sure I'm in the right before hassling them with it.

I'd love to leave all ID at home except for the card so I could honestly answer it's the only ID I have - too bad I have to drive where I'm going.

I'd love to leave all ID at home except for the card so I could honestly answer it's the only ID I have - too bad I have to drive where I'm going.

I use my passport. I pack my DL and other cards in a locked section of my carry on. That way I can correctly say that the passport is the only ID I have "on me". ;)

I use my passport. I pack my DL and other cards in a locked section of my carry on. That way I can correctly say that the passport is the only ID I have "on me". ;)

I'm honestly thinking of FedEx'ing my DL and military dependent ID to myself on the other end depending on what happens this weekend, just so I can say the GE card is the only ID I have. :D

Even if Imports/Exports are 100% (I don't believe it), domestic freight is nowhere close to 100% and much that is counted as screened is actually certified by the SHIPPER as screened... including most non-military caskets shipped by air. How hard would it be for a worker at a mortuary to put something other than a body in a casket going from Miami to NY City?

Well we aren't importing or exporting dead bodies so I can't really speak about that. I have seen the screening cargo screening process at a couple of airports including DFW.

Excellent. Thanks, everyone.

One last question though - I actually looked at the card and it doesn't say Nexus anywhere (it's one of the new Global Entry cards). It does say SENTRI on the back, so I'm guessing it still counts, right? I read a couple of the threads here about it and want to make sure I'm in the right before hassling them with it.

I'd love to leave all ID at home except for the card so I could honestly answer it's the only ID I have - too bad I have to drive where I'm going.

The web page that refers to NEXUS includes SENTRI. However, we have not been able to determine the number on the list that SENTRI is. I was specifically told that the list of ID's is SSI and, thus, its position on the list is also SSI.

I never liked flying before 9/11, but fear of flying or motion sickness never had anything to do with it. I never liked spending 20 minutes in seat 24A waiting to get off the plane. I never liked my checked bag taking an hour to get from the plane to the claim. Before 9/11, terminal security was a nonissue, and I didn't even have it on my dislike list, since it was like going to City Hall or the courthouse--heck, I voluntarily went through it every time I picked up someone at the airport.

I'm also a pretty infrequent flier. I've done only 10 round trips in the last 10 years, and I didn't fly at all from October 2000 to December 2004.

The TSA has not only made it to #1 on my list of flying dislikes; it's now the _only_ item on the whole list. I currently limit my flying to family visits/reunions. I will not fly for personal/optional vacations, and if Hawaii wants my vacation dollars, perhaps their Congressional delegation should make some more noise about the TSA.

So with my flying limited to family visits and my flying frequency pegged around once per year, I have set the following conditions:

- If the USA goes to mandatory (or mandatory-if-selected) NoS, I will no longer depart from US airports.

- If airport security is reformed, mark my words here, I will take a "celebratory flight" and take Mrs. Mahohmei to Hawaii. My definition of "reformed" is: no Shoe Carnival, no War on Liquids, no NoS, bring back HHMDs, and touching only when the HHMD can't resolve. If only "trusted" travelers can do this, it should be available at 100% of US airports, regardless of airline.

Well we aren't importing or exporting dead bodies so I can't really speak about that. I have seen the screening cargo screening process at a couple of airports including DFW.

I was just pointing out a huge gap in the screening that I know exists.

I expect that the same method of having the shipping companies doing much of the "screening" is how they plan on doing 100% of the import/export at the end of the year.

Quick Nexus use training.

If they ask if you have another ID, do not say yes nor no. Say, "According to your SOP, the Nexus is an acceptable form of ID." Say nothing else except you may want to ask for a supervisor. If the supervisor backs the TDC, repeat, "According to your SOP, the Nexus is an acceptable form of ID."

It also helps to say "I will stand here to the side out of the way so other people can go through. I have plenty of time." This keeps you from interfering with the screening process.

You might want to put a small label on the back of your Nexus that says "This ID is #7 on your SOP list of ID's." The SOP list of ID's is SSI, but we have confirmed that the Nexus is #7 on the list.

You can print out this page from the web site (http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/acceptable_documents.shtm)with the part about Nexus circled with sharpie marker. They probably will not care, but it does not hurt to have it. There used to be a pdf of acceptable documents that has been removed from the web site.

Have fun.

Unfortunately, my experience last week went a lot better than this led me to believe it would. TDC got all giddy because he'd never seen one before. Didn't ask for another form of ID. I was let through with no issues. :(

Unfortunately, my experience last week went a lot better than this led me to believe it would. TDC got all giddy because he'd never seen one before. Didn't ask for another form of ID. I was let through with no issues. :(

I am not surprised. The last 10-12 encounters for me have resulted in no problems either. Maybe the training is sticking.

Ok, so maybe the government hasn't come out and said that people are not allowed to travel. But it can impose restrictions that make travel difficult. To use your example of driving a car, driving 100 mph will get you to your destination more quickly. However, we recognize the government's ability to regulate driving a car for safety reasons (among other things, I'm not a traffic engineer) in that it may specify speed limits, which drivers roughly adhere to on a regular basis. Thus, I see it as a reasonable restriction in the interest of the public good.

But with air travel, I (and many others) do not perceive any benefit from the regulations pertaining to the TSA's operations at airports. Those regulations simply present a barrier to travel that does not offer a corresponding advantage or improvement in experience. So yes, the general populace is not forbidden to travel. But the TSA continues to present more and more of a burden to travelers, potentially forcing them away from air travel. I am sure there are at least some passengers, having been scanned, searched, groped, frisked, and otherwise harassed by TSA employees, who will no longer travel by air unless it is absolutely necessary. And thus the government restricts travel.

I understand your quandary, but here are some facts that you might like to take a bit of time to review.

The US court systems determine what is and is not legal and/or constitutional. Start with United States v. Hartwell, 296 F. Supp. 2d 596, 603–04(E.D. Pa. 2003). (http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043841p.pdf). This is the case that determined that warrantless searches at airport checkpoints are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment (given specific conditions). From there you can read UNITED STATES v Charles DAVIS (http://openjurist.org/482/f2d/893/united-states-v-davis) which is the case that set the precedent concerning screening at airport checkpoints and the Fourth Amendment.


There are of course many other cases out there that illustrate that the courts support warrantless searches as long as specific conditions are met, and some that demonstrate that if an agent or officer strays beyond the limits imposed by previous case decisions that the searches are not legal. There is no current case law that specifically concerns the TSA’s Advanced Imaging Technology systems, and until there is TSA will continue to operate under the case law that is in place.


In United States v. Hartwell the court makes very specific comments about the reasonableness of the regulatory requirements TSA imposes and under which law they are required to do so, and why (which should be obvious, but many here either fail to understand or just refuse to).

I hope you find the information provided helpful.

I understand your quandary, but here are some facts that you might like to take a bit of time to review.

The US court systems determine what is and is not legal and/or constitutional. Start with United States v. Hartwell, 296 F. Supp. 2d 596, 603–04(E.D. Pa. 2003). (http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043841p.pdf). This is the case that determined that warrantless searches at airport checkpoints are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment (given specific conditions). From there you can read UNITED STATES v Charles DAVIS (http://openjurist.org/482/f2d/893/united-states-v-davis) which is the case that set the precedent concerning screening at airport checkpoints and the Fourth Amendment.


There are of course many other cases out there that illustrate that the courts support warrantless searches as long as specific conditions are met, and some that demonstrate that if an agent or officer strays beyond the limits imposed by previous case decisions that the searches are not legal. There is no current case law that specifically concerns the TSA’s Advanced Imaging Technology systems, and until there is TSA will continue to operate under the case law that is in place.


In United States v. Hartwell the court makes very specific comments about the reasonableness of the regulatory requirements TSA imposes and under which law they are required to do so, and why (which should be obvious, but many here either fail to understand or just refuse to).

I hope you find the information provided helpful.

You seem to have run right past the point of my post. I never said that what the TSA does is currently ruled illegal (I, like others here, disagree that the TSA's actions are legal, but that's not the issue at hand).

What I am saying is that by allowing the TSA to operate in the manner that it does, the government is restricting travel by creating time barriers (the time required to get through security at the beginning of the trip) and emotional barriers (how many people look forward to getting inappropriately touched by a TSA clerk a second time?). Is that legal? Since it appears that we haven't had widely-applicable court ruling on the TSA's policies and techniques, it is. Do these activities of the TSA still affect travel? Absolutely.

I understand your quandary, but here are some facts that you might like to take a bit of time to review.

The US court systems determine what is and is not legal and/or constitutional. Start with United States v. Hartwell, 296 F. Supp. 2d 596, 603–04(E.D. Pa. 2003). (http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043841p.pdf). This is the case that determined that warrantless searches at airport checkpoints are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment (given specific conditions). From there you can read UNITED STATES v Charles DAVIS (http://openjurist.org/482/f2d/893/united-states-v-davis) which is the case that set the precedent concerning screening at airport checkpoints and the Fourth Amendment.


There are of course many other cases out there that illustrate that the courts support warrantless searches as long as specific conditions are met, and some that demonstrate that if an agent or officer strays beyond the limits imposed by previous case decisions that the searches are not legal. There is no current case law that specifically concerns the TSA’s Advanced Imaging Technology systems, and until there is TSA will continue to operate under the case law that is in place.


In United States v. Hartwell the court makes very specific comments about the reasonableness of the regulatory requirements TSA imposes and under which law they are required to do so, and why (which should be obvious, but many here either fail to understand or just refuse to).

I hope you find the information provided helpful.



Ron, as usual, you miss the forest for the trees. Note that is Hartwell and Davis, the administrative search doctrine is based on a [B]minamally invasive[B] search. What the TSA does on a day-to-basis as primary forms of search are incompatible with this important provision of the administrative search doctrine.

AIT or pat-downs in lieu of AIT would not meet the established legal standards. One day, a competent court will see through the SSI, national security obfuscation for what it is...