Originally Posted by
eyecue
To answer your questions:
The NOS has a level of detection that cannot be matched by any other means EXCEPT a patdown.
That's great - except that the patdown shouldn't be a standard *unless* there is probable cause. This is a 4th Amendment issue, and has been since the government took over passenger screening. A LEO cannot stop or otherwise detain someone without probable cause, and a warrant must be issued for a search.
If the *airline* wants to search passengers as a condition of flight passage, hey, have at it. If my GOVERNMENT wants to do so, then they need to do so within the confines of what's allowable by the Constitution. And I am by law to be secure in my person and property unless a warrant is issued for probable cause.
You wanna run me through the WTMD and X-ray my baggage? I'll grumble, but it's not terribly invasive. I alarm there? Fine. NOW you have probable cause.
You want to force ME into an X-ray being run by an unlicensed tech with little or no safety guarantees, and/or feel me up just because I want to fly? Get a warrant demonstrating the threat.
If you refuse the NOS then you have to be screened to the same level of detection and your method would not be to that standard.
Why? That's the question. The NoS has been in use for a few months - how many weapons has it stopped in comparison to the number of passengers screened? Seriously - that information must be available somewhere.
Why is the picture being viewed hidden from the passenger being scanned? I should be able to see *exactly* what the monitor is seeing.
Yes you can bring a witness with you to the private screening area. I am fairly certain that you and your witness cannot tape the screening.
That should be changed. If I give consent to my screening being taped, as long as there is no identification of the LTSO or other party performing the screening, then I should be legally allowed to do so. Is the DHS/TSA taping secondary screenings? If not, how do they monitor to make sure that no violations of protocol are taking place? What independent group is watching out for the passengers in these situations?
We already see TSOs denying that what people subjected to these searches have said is happening - who's watching them? We know that it doesn't matter what Blogger Bob says, TSOs make up their own rules at the airport, and the flying public has NO recourse if they want to fly. You can complain after the fact, but then the TSOs just deny anything untoward has happened.
And you wonder why we don't trust the TSA and the TSOs? There is no consistency, we're told one thing on the official blog on the official website, but then told that those rules are at the discretion of the TSO. Put someone with a superiority complex in a $12/hr job that requires nothing more than a GED to get, and anyone is surprised? Have you seen the security personnel in airports overseas? Those are folks I wouldn't want to mess with. Some of the TSOs in my home airport couldn't run 100 yards if they HAD to.
Instead of using invasive techniques, why not dogs?
If you refuse the patdown for any reason then you cannot proceed to your gate.
If the patdown is warranted, that's fine. Simply refusing to be x-rayed should not warrant a patdown absent probable cause.
With deceased and other examples that you have listed, that is considered cargo and there is something called a "trusted shippers" program that allows them through various means to certify that the cargo is safe and has been inspected and is free of prohibited items. However the rules for what is prohibited in cargo are different from what you are allowed to carry on.
I hope that answers your questions.
So...these terrorists that want to bring down our planes don't even have to learn to fly. Just get a job at a funeral home, pack a coffin full of explosives, slap a sticker on it, and you can run every passenger on the plane through NoS and subject them to invasive patdowns, and it won't prevent a thing.
That's safety for ya. Oh - and while I may not be able to file charges, I can certainly institute a civil suit. My time & money, but the government will have to answer for the actions of their employees in forcing victims to relive sexual assault for no valid reason. Hubby has decided he will probably fly in his kilt, the traditional way, in the future. Someone on another board I frequent suggested spreading mayonnaise on the privates before going through security. That could be fun.