Those of you who don't mind nude scans -- where DO you draw the line?
Jan 1, 2010, 5:02 pm
#16
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,605
I'm fine with whatever they dream up. I figure the first time they see me "nude" one TSA agent will suffer a cardiac arrest, 3 will check in to mental health facilities, and the remaining TSA personnel at that station will all summarily quit and join a commune (probably somewhere in Northern California.)
Jan 1, 2010, 5:09 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
http://www.click2houston.com/news/20301265/detail.html#
I sure would not want to search that heinous anus!
Jan 1, 2010, 8:29 pm
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
Most of your examples are out because they are invasive procedures. I don't want anything invasive done by anyone without suitable medical training (I don't even like cops being allowed to do blood draws of DUI suspects) and the stuff you describe is unpleasant besides--there's a reason my wife's colonoscopy was done under anesthesia!
Stripping for the anonymous camera would be no big deal to me except for being slow.
Stripping for the anonymous camera would be no big deal to me except for being slow.
Jan 2, 2010, 1:59 am
#20
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 250
You know, I REALLY did not think that anyone would ACTUALLY be suggesting vaginal/rectal exams, BUT TODAY ON FOX NEWS, they had some "Washington" talking head, who apparently was not in government, but was in some position(NGO?) sufficient to be one of the "expert talking heads" discussion of TSA security. HE ACTUALLY SAID "IF THE TERRORISTS START STOWING WEAPONS AND EXPLOSIVES IN THEIR RECTUMS AND VAGINA THEN "WE WILL HAVE TO START CHECKING PEOPLE THERE TOO"....referring to airline passengers!!
He was absolutely serious. What shocked me is that nobody took exception to or challenged his statement!!!
He was absolutely serious. What shocked me is that nobody took exception to or challenged his statement!!!
Jan 2, 2010, 3:23 am
#21
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 464
Who would EVER fly under those conditions.
Actually the decision would be reversed within hours.
Jan 2, 2010, 3:34 am
#22
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 464
6. Rectal exams of kids. You got me on this one. Maybe we'd have to take the train instead. But remember inconvenience is the big thing for me. In this fantasy situation you've created, if the rectal exam was 3 seconds long, I would explain the procedures the same way I'd explain other things children have to endure like, say, a vaccination.
Good grief, maybe my other post above was totally wrong!
Jan 2, 2010, 6:51 am
#23
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central IL
Programs: None, no how, no way
Posts: 21
It is ABSOLUTELY NOT unreasonable to discuss the future possibility and potential that we WILL be required to submit to a vaginal and/or rectal exam in order to travel.
WHAT WE NOW MEEKLY SUBMIT TO, WE WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED OUTRAGEOUS, INTOLERABLE AND AN ABUSE OF POWER FIFTEEN YEARS AGO.
All it takes is ONE EPISODE of a terrorist hiding bomb materials in his/her rectum or her vagina and you will find the authorities think themselves justified to "check everyone" there, rather than start profiling for the KNOWN threats to our safety.
This is NOT an outrageous question. It should be discussed. Where DO we draw the line and say, this far, NO FURTHER, start profiling instead.
I must say they ALREADY do vaginal and rectal exams on persons they suspect of carrying drugs, so it would not be something new, or which they are loathe to do.
It is this INCREMENTALISM we must beware of, the bleeding away of rights slowly. It is like a guy mowing YOUR lawn one strip over per month or even year, as he mows his yard. Every year he starts using a little more of your yard as his own. Pretty soon you notice a fence going up and your lot is a LOT smaller than you remember it to be.
WHAT WE NOW MEEKLY SUBMIT TO, WE WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED OUTRAGEOUS, INTOLERABLE AND AN ABUSE OF POWER FIFTEEN YEARS AGO.
All it takes is ONE EPISODE of a terrorist hiding bomb materials in his/her rectum or her vagina and you will find the authorities think themselves justified to "check everyone" there, rather than start profiling for the KNOWN threats to our safety.
This is NOT an outrageous question. It should be discussed. Where DO we draw the line and say, this far, NO FURTHER, start profiling instead.
I must say they ALREADY do vaginal and rectal exams on persons they suspect of carrying drugs, so it would not be something new, or which they are loathe to do.
It is this INCREMENTALISM we must beware of, the bleeding away of rights slowly. It is like a guy mowing YOUR lawn one strip over per month or even year, as he mows his yard. Every year he starts using a little more of your yard as his own. Pretty soon you notice a fence going up and your lot is a LOT smaller than you remember it to be.
Jan 2, 2010, 7:37 am
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
Do you have knowledge of the WBI's false positive rate and are you prepared to suffer through a strip search as a result of a false positive? Are you aware that the courts have ruled that once to present yourself for screening, you do not have the choice to resist secondary searches once the primary screening has a positive?
See above.
Jan 2, 2010, 7:59 am
#25
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Jan 2, 2010, 8:18 am
#26
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: BLI or CLT
Programs: The usual suspects
Posts: 1,903
Jan 2, 2010, 8:29 am
#27
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
For all the thinking that goes on at the TSA it seems no one can figure out that you can shove the explosive package up your butt, pull it out of your butt after the screening and continue on with your plot.
The WBI does NOTHING except catch common criminals trying to sneak their stash of Head and Shoulders shampoo.
Jan 2, 2010, 8:30 am
#28
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
Mitigated risk? We can't protect/guard against every conceivable threat. Doing so would bog down security to the point that no one would be able to fly - ever. We've got to use our brains, be vigilant, and have the capacity to react (and most security is reactive) quickly.
As to the nude-o-scopes? On me if it is something that they get a kick out of looking at then let them. As to others with a sense of modesty/innocence please let them retain their dignity when traveling. We've sacrificed much in the name of security and have gotten little in return, except for 'it wasn't enough, surrender more and you'll be safe' from those running the screening process. When will it be enough? Never is a good answer because someone will always find another one in a googleplex threat risk that needs immediate funding. Time to rein them in.
As to the nude-o-scopes? On me if it is something that they get a kick out of looking at then let them. As to others with a sense of modesty/innocence please let them retain their dignity when traveling. We've sacrificed much in the name of security and have gotten little in return, except for 'it wasn't enough, surrender more and you'll be safe' from those running the screening process. When will it be enough? Never is a good answer because someone will always find another one in a googleplex threat risk that needs immediate funding. Time to rein them in.
Last edited by AngryMiller; Jan 2, 2010 at 8:31 am Reason: spelling
Jan 2, 2010, 8:37 am
#29
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Here is my thing about the Nude-O-Scope, they are being used without being upfront about what they do, they cost way too much for to little protection.
These machines are $130,000 to $170,000 EACH and they can be beaten by a big breasted woman stuffing her bra.
How many dogs can be purchased for the same amount? At least dogs are not fooled by big boobs and they can be retrained for every new explosive threat.
These machines are $130,000 to $170,000 EACH and they can be beaten by a big breasted woman stuffing her bra.
How many dogs can be purchased for the same amount? At least dogs are not fooled by big boobs and they can be retrained for every new explosive threat.
Jan 2, 2010, 8:38 am
#30
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
They are not worried about that, the one time recently that explosives were secreted in the body the terrorist only succeeded in blowing himself up.
For all the thinking that goes on at the TSA it seems no one can figure out that you can shove the explosive package up your butt, pull it out of your butt after the screening and continue on with your plot.
The WBI does NOTHING except catch common criminals trying to sneak their stash of Head and Shoulders shampoo.
For all the thinking that goes on at the TSA it seems no one can figure out that you can shove the explosive package up your butt, pull it out of your butt after the screening and continue on with your plot.
The WBI does NOTHING except catch common criminals trying to sneak their stash of Head and Shoulders shampoo.
But what amazes me is that it shocks many of you that others (not employees of TSA or the government) do no agree with your values and opinions. Why should everyone have the same values and opinions? Is it not possible for honest people to come to different conclusions about what is acceptable?