![]() |
Originally Posted by Teacher49
As many have pointed out, hardened cockpits plus the fact that there are plenty of weapons on board every flight for those trained to improvise mean that this rule was irrelevant from its inception.
|
Uh-oh.
The new strategy, which has been tested in Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and Orange County, Calif., will mean that a certain number of passengers, even if they are not identified by these computerized checks, will be pulled aside and subject to an added search lasting about two minutes. Officials said passengers would be selected randomly, without regard to ethnicity or nationality. What happens next will vary. One day at a certain airport, carry-on bags might be physically searched. On the same day at a different airport, those subject to the random search might have their shoes screened for explosives or be checked with a hand-held metal detector. "By design, a traveler will not experience the same search every time he or she flies," the summary said. "The searches will add an element of unpredictability to the screening process that will be easy for passengers to navigate but difficult for terrorists to manipulate." |
Originally Posted by alex0683de
Like hell they would! In a post 9/11-world, whoever tried something funny would see his arse summarily kicked by whoever could get their hands on him.
And besides, if everyone's allowed to carry ice picks and box cutters and whatever, it's not like the passengers will be defenceless - hey, I might just start carrying a box cutter to be able to intimidate the bad guy... :rolleyes: |
Wow! Imagine what that would be like given the number of "suspicious" flyers reported by fellow pax. Imagine wading into a mélee of 200 (or even 20) untrained armed travellers.
Fact is that the hideous 9/11 attacks were a long, long time in the planning, were low-tech attacks designed to catch a sleepy system off-guard, and have already had the desired effect: the killing of many people, the toppling of a symbol of Ameican culture and business, and the burdening of the American population with fear and fear based hastily constructed "security" which cost us dearly in money, dignity and freedom. Yes, we need security at airports. We also need intelligence and professionalism in the desigh and delivery. What we have is an overblown panic induced, inefficient and non-agile system. If there were really lots of terrorists out there, we surely would have seen more terror focused on other forms of transportation or other kinds of gathering places. |
Dec 20th -- Why?
I won't comment on the security aspects of all of this, but I thought long & hard about the date the TSA chose to implement this "improvement."
1. We all know that this will be right in the middle of all the Christmas flying period. When the inevitable chaos occurs, all of it will be masked by the normal chaos of flying during this time of year. TSA wins. 2. This circus will impress the infrequent flyers immensely. The media will follow right along, because there will be an ample supply of the "anything for security crowd" to shove a microphone and camera in front of. TSA wins. 3. The infrequent flyer mass influx will produce ample opportunities to find prohibited items, justify this change, and make examples of several of our fellow citizens. There will also be ample opportunity to detain and arrest those terrorists who get caught with dangerous items such as a joint or two or a large amount of cash. TSA wins. 4. The TSA spokesholes have reinforced the cause/effect spin to "compliance versus checkpoint waiting times." Civil liberties and security bang for the buck aren't even in the equation anymore. TSA wins. You have to hand it to them -- they know how to work a crowd. |
I'll try to be "extra visible" to the news crews so I can tell them just how much this new round of harassment equates to 1 step forward, 3 steps backwards. ;)
|
What I find interesting
is that according to the NY Times article:
"These kinds of sharp instruments are now found in about one in four carry-on bags." Perhaps the TSA has just given up trying to keep small sharp objects off of planes seeing as how it would appear the message has not sunk in. |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
3. The infrequent flyer mass influx will produce ample opportunities to find prohibited items, justify this change, and make examples of several of our fellow citizens. There will also be ample opportunity to detain and arrest those terrorists who get caught with dangerous items such as a joint or two or a large amount of cash. TSA wins. 4. The TSA spokesholes have reinforced the cause/effect spin to "compliance versus checkpoint waiting times." Civil liberties and security bang for the buck aren't even in the equation anymore. TSA wins. You have to hand it to them -- they know how to work a crowd. 4) Was it a violation of civil liberties when screening was privatized? I work with people who used to be privatized before 9/11 and according to them the TSA is more customer-service oriented then the preivious model... |
Originally Posted by doober
is that according to the NY Times article:
"These kinds of sharp instruments are now found in about one in four carry-on bags." Perhaps the TSA has just given up trying to keep small sharp objects off of planes seeing as how it would appear the message has not sunk in. IMO, if these objects are found in about 25% of carry-on bags, that shows just how many people don't see the banning of these items as legitimate. Scaremongers at the TSA and the flight attendant unions can try their hardest to convince us that these items are credible threats, but it looks like people don't universally believe them. |
Originally Posted by n5667
4) Was it a violation of civil liberties when screening was privatized? I work with people who used to be privatized before 9/11 and according to them the TSA is more customer-service oriented then the preivious model...
Federalizing airport screening was one of the biggest blunders this nation has ever made. :td: |
Originally Posted by Spiff
I'll try to be "extra visible" to the news crews so I can tell them just how much this new round of harassment equates to 1 step forward, 3 steps backwards. ;)
|
Originally Posted by Spiff
The private screeners never, ever harassed me the way the The Second Al-Qaida does.
Federalizing airport screening was one of the biggest blunders this nation has ever made. :td: |
Originally Posted by n5667
What sort of harrassment are you subject to, if I may ask?
Being groped Having my ID scrutinized Having my belongings opened with no probable cause to do so |
Originally Posted by Spiff
Shoe harassment
Being groped Having my ID scrutinized Having my belongings opened with no probable cause to do so ...And there's probable cause, you're flying on a plane! :D |
Originally Posted by n5667
Being groped? I'd file charges over that one, the rest I'm not sure you have much of a case...
...And there's probable cause, you're flying on a plane! :D |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:55 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.