Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Today was the day...(The Michael Roberts/ExpressJet Story)

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Today was the day...(The Michael Roberts/ExpressJet Story)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 22, 2010, 11:33 am
  #406  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag™ DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,509
Originally Posted by raehl311
It's also not porn, and to argue such is ridiculous. If it IS porn, then if you go into your dermatologist to have your skin photographed, that's porn too.
There are x-ray fetishists out there, and the TSA has made it easy for those people to satisfy their kink without the need to go to invest the time and money to become a medical technician. All they need to do is answer the call for TSA employment on a pizza box that promises "X-ray vision are standard benefits".


Police suspect tech used X-rays, mammograms for sexual gratification

BRIMFIELD, Ohio — A technician at a Tiffin imaging center caught driving with a stash of X-rays, mammograms, videos and pictures of women and children used the images for sexual gratification, police believe.





Originally Posted by raehl311
Train, bus, car, ship, not traveling. It's really the same thing - if you don't want to be subject to observation, then your alternative is to bear the inconvenience.

Sorry, traveling by those forms of transportation is no guarantee of a TSA-free experience. The TSA has been setting up shop at bus and train stations, Interstate highway checkpoints, and even sporting events.
N965VJ is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2010, 12:06 pm
  #407  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: India
Programs: Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium, IHG Plat, HH Gold, Trident Plat, DL Diamond, AI Maharajah
Posts: 29,682
Originally Posted by mozgytog
I'm not saying that I'm afraid of or intimidated by them, just pointing out that their actions are clearly harassment, and clearly designed to punish me for opting out.

It doesn't work, I will always opt out and I will always file a complaint. I have stood in the middle of a ring of five TSA employees who barked in my face and told them to follow through on their threat to call law enforcement, or I would be happy to do it.

The fact that dozens and dozens of people can see what's happening certainly isn't going to hurt me. I know that the TSA is trying to make me bow down and submit, and to make sure everyone else in line sees what happens when you opt out. I will not back down.
good stuff....never back down....
Keyser is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2010, 12:20 pm
  #408  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
I just saw this story on HLN at the airport in the gate area. They gave they standard "will do whatever to keep us safe" TSA public statement.

But, it is beginning to get wider coverage and the TSA is beginning to sound defensive. Could be my bias there.
InkUnderNails is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2010, 12:32 pm
  #409  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: LAX
Posts: 209
Made the front page of Yahoo! today.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics...-scan-22579959
OffToOz is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2010, 5:43 pm
  #410  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by bdschobel
Why do they always seem to recall very few complaints about their idiotic procedures? They recall fewer complaints than we can count right here on Flyertalk.

Bruce
For the same reason Bill Clinton couldn't "recall" what happened with Monica Lewinsky.

Like anyone or any bureaucracy in gov't, he/she/it won't admit anything until shamed into it.
Superguy is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2010, 6:30 pm
  #411  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: ATL
Programs: Delta PM
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by Superguy
Are you willing to tell someone who's been raped, sexually abused, or otherwise sexually assaulted that such a scan that can see them naked isn't going to cause them any harm?
Thank you for pointing this out, Superguy. I have a pacemaker and get a patdown every time I fly (30+ times/year). ATL installed the new machines near the patdown area recently, and I get directed into them. I refuse and continue to get patted down. I much prefer to be patted down in public by someone I can see, and where it can be witnessed by others, than to have images made of me - for the reasons you cite above. Since the new machines have been installed, now I just have to have a quick argument with the TSA when I decline to go into their machine ("you know it's OK for your pacemaker?") Yes, I know that - and I don't really want to explain the real and very private reason why I'd prefer not to have images of my body on a screen for someone to see. And no way in hell will I ever let my minor nieces and nephews go through them.
TiggBro is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2010, 6:52 pm
  #412  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by TiggBro
Thank you for pointing this out, Superguy. I have a pacemaker and get a patdown every time I fly (30+ times/year). ATL installed the new machines near the patdown area recently, and I get directed into them. I refuse and continue to get patted down. I much prefer to be patted down in public by someone I can see, and where it can be witnessed by others, than to have images made of me - for the reasons you cite above. Since the new machines have been installed, now I just have to have a quick argument with the TSA when I decline to go into their machine ("you know it's OK for your pacemaker?") Yes, I know that - and I don't really want to explain the real and very private reason why I'd prefer not to have images of my body on a screen for someone to see. And no way in hell will I ever let my minor nieces and nephews go through them.
The flip side to this is anyone in the categories I mentioned is also likely to have a traumatic experience being groped in an "enhanced" patdown too. It's a lose/lose for those people and my heart goes out to them.
Superguy is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2010, 8:13 am
  #413  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer
Based on my observations his description is patently untrue. I overheard a screener telling someone (who opted out and complained about "squeezing" of his genitals) "maybe this will teach you to go through the scanner next time".
At which point the TSO should have been beaten like a red-headed step-child. I would just love to sit on that jury, should be almost as fun as sitting an IRS case.
n4zhg is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2010, 10:26 am
  #414  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Interesting comments by "Airline Pilots" - scroll down, it's after you get through the noise:

http://christinenegroni.blogspot.com...yada-yada.html
doober is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2010, 10:39 am
  #415  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
Originally Posted by raehl311
There is not any court in the US that would rule that the images taken at the security checkpoint are pornographic.
You're right. No court will rule on the proposition that WBI images are pornographic. However, they will most likely rule on the proposition that WBI imaging violates other protections against unlawful intrusion. Clear enough?

Originally Posted by Bouncer
The easiest way to get TSA to reverse their policy is for EVERY pilot on EVERY airline to simply go on strike until the policy is rescinded. It'll take about 24-48hrs, MAX.
You may be right but I think 48 hours is optimistic with the current bunch in charge. They strike me as consummate ditherers. I could foresee a standoff between privately employed airline crews and DHS lasting for a week or more. Gender wisecracks to the contrary, Napalitano has no balls.

Originally Posted by N965VJ
Originally Posted by raehl311
It's also not porn, and to argue such is ridiculous. If it IS porn, then if you go into your dermatologist to have your skin photographed, that's porn too.
There are x-ray fetishists out there, and the TSA has made it easy for those people to satisfy their kink without the need to go to invest the time and money to become a medical technician. All they need to do is answer the call for TSA employment on a pizza box that promises "X-ray vision are standard benefits".


Police suspect tech used X-rays, mammograms for sexual gratification

BRIMFIELD, Ohio — A technician at a Tiffin imaging center caught driving with a stash of X-rays, mammograms, videos and pictures of women and children used the images for sexual gratification, police believe.
QFT. Bottom line is, nearly anything can be fetishized and niche porn will naturally follow (c.f. FetLife).

Last edited by essxjay; Oct 23, 2010 at 12:53 pm
essxjay is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2010, 11:55 am
  #416  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EAU
Programs: UA 1K, CO Plat, NW Plat, Marriott Premiere Plat, SPG Plat, Priority Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 4,712
Originally Posted by VonS
Repeating it endlessly does not make it true.
No, it's true because it's true. A strip search, by definition, requires the removal of all clothing. A search that does not involve the removal of clothing is not a strip search.

Originally Posted by essxjay
You're right. No court will rule on the proposition that WBI images are pornographic. However, they will most likely rule on the proposition that WBI imaging violates other protections against unlawful intrusion. Clear enough?
Sure. But it's extremely unlikely that the court would regard the search as unreasonable on the basis of the images generated.

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Oct 24, 2010 at 10:17 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
raehl311 is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2010, 12:50 pm
  #417  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
Originally Posted by raehl311
Sure. But it's extremely unlikely that the court would regard the search as unreasonable on the basis of the images generated.
This is absurd -- who here implied such an outcome? Few here are unaware of the complexity of the test for reasonableness.

Honestly ...
essxjay is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2010, 1:02 pm
  #418  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Originally Posted by Scubatooth
Ron - Im sorry your argument is udder bull cookies. Aircraft were never a medium target they were always a soft target.
Your opinion, and one that not only I don’t agree with but one that the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050501754.html) and the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (http://www.start.umd.edu/start/publi...Connection.pdf) would not agree with.

Originally Posted by Scubatooth
There are so many other ways of taking a flying object down other then using a take over schema.
Yes, there are. MANPADS being one, and there are several others out there that are viable. So?

Originally Posted by Scubatooth
Your united 93 reference is a shameful patronization of those people who showed true patriotism and did what needed to be done even it it meant giving up there lives. The difference between those on that flight and others is that they took a stand against the hijackers and were determined to take them out. That is sort of what is happening with people taking a stand against TSA as its true colors have been seen and they are not "For out safety" nor good intentions. As sad as it is i dare say there many historical comparisons/parallels of TSA to organizations in the past as well as the 9/11 hijackers.
The United 93 reference was appropriate to the context of the statement. That you do not believe this is only one more indicator that no matter the accuracy of the argument, if I make it then it must be wrong. That’s no way to conduct a discussion.

Originally Posted by Scubatooth
furthermore there is nothing that TSA has done to stop a terrorist act or even prevent one.
Again in your unsupported opinion. You are more than welcome to it, I suspect that facts to the contrary would be ignored.

Originally Posted by Scubatooth
The most effective changes that were made by the airlines and the pilots and FA(and there unions) of hardening the cockpit doors and crews not submitting to the demands of idiots attempting anything. TSA is like the FAMS a big expensive embarrassing waste as they havent caught anything and are more show and theater then anything else, that just needs to be buried. Since 9/11 its been passengers that have stopped off events or outbursts on flights at all or before the FAMS sitting in a stolen first class seat could get there, blow there cover and put the idiot in cuffs.
Once again we are back to unsupported opinion. Funny how much of your argument tends in that direction.
TSORon is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2010, 1:07 pm
  #419  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 733
Originally Posted by TSORon
I suspect that facts to the contrary would be ignored.
I'm all ears.

Please provide some salient, credible facts on how TSA has directly thwarted a terrorist from bringing down a US airliner. I'm not all that bright, so citations and links will be most appreciated.

Give me some facts, so we can debate them.
barbell is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2010, 1:10 pm
  #420  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Originally Posted by raehl311
Sure. But it's extremely unlikely that the court would regard the search as unreasonable on the basis of the images generated.
Your basis for this belief? Citations of court decisions, please.
doober is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.