MSP TSA Goons

 
Old Aug 14, 06, 9:35 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Iowa...Delta Charter Diamond, now Gold
Posts: 2,043
Originally Posted by airboss
I am not glad that these new "security" procedures are in place at MSP and elsewhere in the US.

The current knee-jerk responses accomplish little or are even outright counterproductive -- especially as they gobble up resources that are better used for something else.




I couldnt agree more....what is YOUR plan???
Why don't we just implant chips in each person and then the government can track us at all times...
Live4Miles is offline  
Old Aug 14, 06, 9:39 am
  #17  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Programs: WorldPerks, HHonors
Posts: 34
People Magazine

Originally Posted by wentona777
Maybe I'm wrong, but unless this passenger was really identified as a potential threat, doesn't this seem like overkill -- following a passenger all the way to the gate and waiting around for him to board just so they could grab his soda?
About a year ago, I was going through security at DTW McNamara Terminal with my mother, who is 80 and an infrequent flier. My sister had given Mom a copy of People magazine to read on the short flight to BWI. Don't ask me why, but Mom had the magazine tucked under her arm as she went through the metal detector in front of me. I think she must have forgotten she had it. As she stopped to wait for the conveyor belt coming out of the x-ray, she whipped the magazine out from under her arm. Holy guacamole! You should have seen the TSA people leap out of their skins and rush toward Mom. They started to close off the entrance, but stopped when someone came to their senses. A grey haired lady holding a trashy magazine isn't much of a threat. Mom got an extensive lecture, as you might have guessed.

I have been in the security area of ANC several times now when people have tried to bring those ulu knives (Native Alaskan cutting implements often purchased as souveniers). I'm getting to where I know what's coming by the semi-quiet comments the TSA guys will make while looking at the monitor. At that point, I just pray that I can walk calmly beyond the state troopers before they decide to shut the security area down. If not, you're stuck for a while, all because someone didn't have the sense to pack the darn ulu in their checked luggage.
ocean2731 is offline  
Old Aug 14, 06, 9:46 am
  #18  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: MSP, NYC, or WAS
Programs: AA CO DL
Posts: 715
Originally Posted by yogimax
Sorry, but I don't agree. Are you aware that it is the Labor Party in Great Britain which is pushing for the issuance of identity cards?

In a perfect world, there is no need for what you characterize as "big brother." Actually, you are well aware that the use of such terminology is unfair and merely clouds the issue. No one is arguing that what the government did to Japanese-Americans at the outbreak of World War II should be repeated.

The argument is simply common sense. I have also watched senior citizens being hand searched. THAT is a waste of resources.

Sure, it was totally unlikely that the man who stashed his soda under his coat was a terrorist. But what about the one time when it may have been a threat. Do you remember Richard Reid?

Anything that causes a potential terrorist to reconsider their plans or make the planning more difficult is worth the effort. I am sorry you feel it is a waste of resources.

Exactly my point...thankyou for that insightful input!
airboss is offline  
Old Aug 14, 06, 9:53 am
  #19  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: FNT, Michigan
Programs: DL DM (PMNW), occasional AMTK, National Exec Elite and IHG Spire
Posts: 751
Originally Posted by newK2
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

attributed to Benjamin Franklin and others during the American Revolution (when he and those others were considered 'terrorists' by many)
Nice quote, for those of us in need of a history lesson.

However, we are talking about the here-and-now, not the pass. I guess I could quote "Those that fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it" as my contribution. Has it been that long since 9-11?

Are you advocating that we eliminate security checks completely in the name of personal liberty? How many aircraft are you willing to lose to a bomb or hijacking in the name of "freedom?" How many a day, week, month, or per year? Certainly, we can't search people without a warrant issued by a judge based upon probable cause.

I firmly believe those that object the most to the violation of their "rights" during security checks and searches would holler the loudest when an attack (eventually) occurred - how dare the Government for not preventing the preventable!

Profiling need not be racial, as security in Israel performs this based upon behavior. It also makes sense as Islamic radicals can be Asian, European (Bosnian), etc. or does the fact it was perfected by the Israelis make it suspect in some PC circles? Not many people can keep their cool when they're about to blow themselves (and everyone around them) to bits.

I can only hope common sense is not outlawed once it can be scientifically proven to occasionally hurt people's feelings.
dmitzel is offline  
Old Aug 14, 06, 9:56 am
  #20  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 90,382
Originally Posted by airboss
I am not glad that these new "security" procedures are in place at MSP and elsewhere in the US.

The current knee-jerk responses accomplish little or are even outright counterproductive -- especially as they gobble up resources that are better used for something else.




I couldnt agree more....what is YOUR plan???
Plenty of ideas have been posted about this matter in the Travel Safety & Security forum here on FT. Also check out some posts in OMNI on this matter. I've posted some suggestions and then some in both areas.

Originally Posted by yogimax
Sorry, but I don't agree. Are you aware that it is the Labor Party in Great Britain which is pushing for the issuance of identity cards?

In a perfect world, there is no need for what you characterize as "big brother." Actually, you are well aware that the use of such terminology is unfair and merely clouds the issue. No one is arguing that what the government did to Japanese-Americans at the outbreak of World War II should be repeated.

The argument is simply common sense. I have also watched senior citizens being hand searched. THAT is a waste of resources.

Sure, it was totally unlikely that the man who stashed his soda under his coat was a terrorist. But what about the one time when it may have been a threat. Do you remember Richard Reid?

Anything that causes a potential terrorist to reconsider their plans or make the planning more difficult is worth the effort. I am sorry you feel it is a waste of resources.
I'm somewhat aware of the security nonsene going on in the UK, including the national ID card issue there. I think that's an expensive waste and will do little to nothing to stop blood from being spilled.

Much of what you raise above sounds like an interest in risk avoidance (i.e., "stop it all") or dangerous loophole creation. I suggest studying up about risk management and manipulation. If the objective is risk avoidance (i.e., in this situation no attacks at all), that's an expensive fantasy. And I don't accept "anything that causes a potential terrorist to reconsider their plans or make the planning more difficult is worth the effort"; some prices are not worth paying for so little in return. Willing to subject yourself and your family to vaginal and anal cavity checks? I'm not. Money better spent elsewhere. More people die in road accidents every month than Americans have ever been killed by terrorism in a single month in the last 100 years. Yet we spend so much money that could be used to make the roads safer and prevent a 9/11 every month. Yet we don't. Why? Because reason does not always triumph.

Last edited by GUWonder; Aug 14, 06 at 10:46 am
GUWonder is online now  
Old Aug 14, 06, 10:03 am
  #21  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 90,382
Originally Posted by dmitzel
Profiling need not be racial, as security in Israel performs this based upon behavior. It also makes sense as Islamic radicals can be Asian, European (Bosnian), etc. or does the fact it was perfected by the Israelis make it suspect in some PC circles? Not many people can keep their cool when they're about to blow themselves (and everyone around them) to bits.

I can only hope common sense is not outlawed once it can be scientifically proven to occasionally hurt people's feelings.
Profiling practiced by human beings en masse will be racist profiling (including tribalist profiling).

Common sense says that those who support racist/tribalist profiling are betraying not only American principles but also betraying the nation they claim to defend by ignoring the long-term, dangerous consequences of such attitudes (i.e., belief in racism/tribalism) in practice.

And cold-blooded murders operating out their political fanatacism in response to grievances, personal or otherwise, real or merely perceived/imagined, can often keep their cool. Any racist/tribalist "behavioral" profiling effort we get will have more false-positives than actual "catches". And such efforts create much bigger haystacks in the near-term; and those much bigger haystacks will mean that more terrorists will get through as a false-negative.

Last edited by GUWonder; Aug 14, 06 at 10:09 am
GUWonder is online now  
Old Aug 14, 06, 10:04 am
  #22  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: LAX
Programs: CO Platinum HHonors Diamond Avis President's Club
Posts: 2,312
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Profiling practiced by human beings en masse will be racist profiling (including tribalist profiling).

Common sense says that those who support racist profiling are betraying not only American principles but also betraying the nation they claim to defend by ignoring the long-term, dangerous consequences of such attitudes (i.e., belief in racism/tribalism) in practice.
I couldn't put it better, so I'll just agree.

^ ^ ^

peace,
~Ben~
seoulmanjr is offline  
Old Aug 14, 06, 10:24 am
  #23  
MeNoSay
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by yogimax
Sure, we will be inconvenienced by the new regulations, but we all should be glad they are in place.
Let us all thank our government overlords for the protection they provide us.

And also let us all pray that the next scuttled attack does not involve someone hiding something in their buttcrack.

Isn't a relief that we live in America, where the government tells us where we can and can't take water, and not in one of those unfree and opposite countries like Iran?
 
Old Aug 14, 06, 10:28 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL Silver Medallion
Posts: 613
Thumbs down

Originally Posted by yogimax
Sure, we will be inconvenienced by the new regulations, but we all should be glad they are in place.
Why should I be glad? I will be absolutely no safer on today's flight than I was 2 weeks ago, and yet I will be significantly less happy. When all of us tolerate this whoopla, the terrorists win. If someone wants to blow stuff up, they will find a way. Ever notice how your computer gets virus definitions updated at least once per week? That's because people devise new ways to bypass what is in place. At least Symantec runs in the backround and doesn't change the way I use my computer every time it updates itself.
DTW-HomeyFour is offline  
Old Aug 14, 06, 10:29 am
  #25  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL Silver Medallion
Posts: 613
Thumbs down

Originally Posted by kcnwa
We live in a different era. Get used to it.
No.

That's what England told the colonists when they came to the New World. Just cause "THEY" say so doesn't mean it is right.
DTW-HomeyFour is offline  
Old Aug 14, 06, 10:35 am
  #26  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: PIT
Programs: DM life is over 2MM PM now & NW MillionAir Wyndham Rewards Plat -Hotels.com Silver -Accor Silver
Posts: 15,408
Originally Posted by GUWonder
So MSP is using those cameras and having "big brother" keep their eyes open to "seek and destroy" people pocketing their beverages;
Originally Posted by yogimax
Anything that causes a potential terrorist to reconsider their plans or make the planning more difficult is worth the effort. I am sorry you feel it is a waste of resources.
I just hope that he didn't put the Diet Coke under his jacket in a stall in the bathroom!!!
davetravels is offline  
Old Aug 14, 06, 10:48 am
  #27  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,081
It certainly does not make sense to single out someone because of their ethnicity. While it may be true that all terrorists of the type that blow up planes (as opposed to the type that bomb Lebanese civilians from the air) are Muslims, all Muslims are not terrorists.

But how about the converse? If the point of the stepped up security is to find these terrorists, and virtually all terrorists are Muslims (and not blond converts), why subject the blonds to strict scrutiny? Does it make logical sense to exclude certain people from extra scrutiny, because of their ethnicity, rather than to subject certain people to extra scrutiny because of theirs?

By the way, I'm far from blond myself, and look more like a Muslim than a blond.

Yes, I know one can't tell Muslims by appearance, etc. But, there are many people whom one can tell with a high degree of certainty by looking at them were not born Muslim. Is there any logic in giving those persons an extra search or extra questioning?

I suppose the analogy would be if the police are searching for members of a white supremacist group that just robbed a liquor store (or bombed a black church), do you stop Blacks and Asians on suspicion? While you don't stop all white people, you can reasonably exclude Blacks and Asians from scrutiny.

I think the problem with the discussion about profiling is that it fails to recognize there are (at least) two distinct questions:

The First - is profiling effective or efficient.

The Second - if it is effective or efficient, are there good social/public policy reasons out there to not do it anyway?

It seems to me that in the discussion on the profiling subject, there is a tendency for those who answer the second question with "no" to then behave as if the answer to the first question is also "no", without doing the analysis. This despite the fact that it is perfectly legitimate to reach the conclusion that while ethnic profiling might be effective, for public policy reasons we should not engage in it.








Originally Posted by Gender
Profiling practiced by human beings en masse will be racist profiling (including tribalist profiling).

Common sense says that those who support racist/tribalist profiling are betraying not only American principles but also betraying the nation they claim to defend by ignoring the long-term, dangerous consequences of such attitudes (i.e., belief in racism/tribalism) in practice.

And cold-blooded murders operating out their political fanaticism in response to grievances, personal or otherwise, real or merely perceived/imagined, can often keep their cool. Any racist/tribalist "behavioral" profiling effort we get will have more false-positives than actual "catches". And such efforts create much bigger haystacks in the near-term; and those much bigger haystacks will mean that more terrorists will get through as a false-negative.
BigFlyer is offline  
Old Aug 14, 06, 10:51 am
  #28  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium (but still missing SPG)
Posts: 14,321
Originally Posted by yogimax
Sorry, but I don't agree. Are you aware that it is the Labor Party in Great Britain which is pushing for the issuance of identity cards?

In a perfect world, there is no need for what you characterize as "big brother." Actually, you are well aware that the use of such terminology is unfair and merely clouds the issue. No one is arguing that what the government did to Japanese-Americans at the outbreak of World War II should be repeated.

The argument is simply common sense. I have also watched senior citizens being hand searched. THAT is a waste of resources.

Sure, it was totally unlikely that the man who stashed his soda under his coat was a terrorist. But what about the one time when it may have been a threat. Do you remember Richard Reid?
And like I've said many times, it's a good thing Reid didn't stuff the bomb up his backside or we'd all be flying naked today. Give it time.

And since the Ben Franklin quote is from the past and therefore irrelevant, I guess the dusty old Constitution must be as well.

Too bad this country is losing the war on terror (and this isn't political, cause the Dems would have the same knee-jerk, what'll-get-me-votes attitude). It is possible to lose without a single life being lost, you know. We're proving just that this week.
RichMSN is offline  
Old Aug 14, 06, 11:02 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kansas City, Mo USA
Programs: Delta Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by kcnwa
We live in a different era. Get used to it.
NEVER!

This a perfect example when the terrorists do nothing yet all Americans are forced by their fearless leaders to take away liberties in the name of safety.

I can't wait for the next rumor or intelligence report about "possible" terrorist plans in the future. What will the next directive be? We have to be accompanied and watched while using the toilet to make sure we aren't assembling something or meeting someone there?

I will never, ever get used to it!
kcnwgold is offline  
Old Aug 14, 06, 11:19 am
  #30  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 90,382
Originally Posted by BigFlyer
It certainly does not make sense to single out someone because of their ethnicity. While it may be true that all terrorists of the type that blow up planes (as opposed to the type that bomb Lebanese civilians from the air) are Muslims, all Muslims are not terrorists.
That's false: all terrorists of the type that blow up planes are not muslims. Apparently, a history and contemporary affairs lesson may be useful -- or in the absence such myths as "all terrorists of the type that blow up planes (as opposed to the type that bomb Lebanese civilians from the air) are Muslims" continue.

Originally Posted by BigFlyer
But how about the converse? If the point of the stepped up security is to find these terrorists, and virtually all terrorists are Muslims (and not blond converts), why subject the blonds to strict scrutiny? Does it make logical sense to exclude certain people from extra scrutiny, because of their ethnicity, rather than to subject certain people to extra scrutiny because of theirs?

By the way, I'm far from blond myself, and look more like a Muslim than a blond.

Yes, I know one can't tell Muslims by appearance, etc. But, there are many people whom one can tell with a high degree of certainty by looking at them were not born Muslim. Is there any logic in giving those persons an extra search or extra questioning?
Actually, I doubt most people could tell apart by physical appearance a Pakistani muslim from a Pakistani zoroastrian, an Indian hindu from an Indian muslim, an Indonesian muslim from an Indonesia christian, a Chinese buddhist from a Chinese muslim, a Turkish muslim from a Serbian christian, a Senegalese muslim from a Nigerian christian, a Bosnian muslim from a Swedish christian, a Lebanese muslim from a Romanian christian, an Albanian muslim from an Italian christian, a Moroccan muslim from an Israeli jew, an Iranian muslim from an Israeli jew, or a Bulgarian christian from a Bulgarian muslim. So much for that theory that it's so easy to tell who's muslim and not.

Originally Posted by BigFlyer
I suppose the analogy would be if the police are searching for members of a white supremacist group that just robbed a liquor store (or bombed a black church), do you stop Blacks and Asians on suspicion? While you don't stop all white people, you can reasonably exclude Blacks and Asians from scrutiny.
Arguing by analogy is considered a logical fallacy. In the above analogy, there's confusion between reactive behavior and pre-emptive behavior. That is, responding to an actual crime committed cannot be logically classified in the same category as responding preventitively, and that's just a symptom of the logical fallacy of arguing by analogy.

Originally Posted by BigFlyer
I think the problem with the discussion about profiling is that it fails to recognize there are (at least) two distinct questions:

The First - is profiling effective or efficient.

The Second - if it is effective or efficient, are there good social/public policy reasons out there to not do it anyway?

It seems to me that in the discussion on the profiling subject, there is a tendency for those who answer the second question with "no" to then behave as if the answer to the first question is also "no", without doing the analysis. This despite the fact that it is perfectly legitimate to reach the conclusion that while ethnic profiling might be effective, for public policy reasons we should not engage in it.
The questions are distinct, but they can neither be separated cleanly nor is the answer to the first question "effective"/"efficient" even when isolated from the second question.

Last edited by GUWonder; Aug 14, 06 at 11:31 am
GUWonder is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: