Touching face and hair -- what is point?

Old Feb 12, 11, 8:38 am
  #46  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 855
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF View Post
I would much rather have people's hair touched than risk explosives being carried on board under a wig/turban/other head covering.

Can someone please explain how else you check these places without touching them?

No 'intimacy issue' is worth an explosive decompression at 35,000 feet, or death.

It's irrelevant whether they have caught someone or not yet. We don't know when the first incident will happen.

Perhaps the solution is to have a two tiered system. Planes with security, and planes without. I know which one I'd rather be on. And i know which one would make the more likely target for someone wishing to bring the plane down.

I don't get the need to stroke someone's face though. I would still like to see the written links that the OP mentioned to see the circumstances under which this happened.
"Can someone please explain how else you check these places without touching them? "

You don't. It isn't appropriate to paw at people in this manner, so you simply don't do it.

"No 'intimacy issue' is worth an explosive decompression at 35,000 feet, or death. "

No paranoia or phobia on someone else's part is worth dismantling the U.S. Constitution. The stakes are too high. Liberty is the highest form of security. Anything else is merely an illusion of security.


"It's irrelevant whether they have caught someone or not yet. We don't know when the first incident will happen.

Perhaps the solution is to have a two tiered system. Planes with security, and planes without. I know which one I'd rather be on. And i know which one would make the more likely target for someone wishing to bring the plane down. "

I really like that idea. You see, I really do know which will make the more likely target for someone wishing to bring the plane down. It will be the plane with more security or the security checkpoint itself - without a doubt. If you analyze real terrorist acts, you'll find that the terrorists prefer security checkpoints and buildings or events where the security is high. The terrorists do not want you to trust the government. Each time they provoke the government into treating citizens badly, or prove that the government cannot protect its citizens, terrorists succeed and governments fail.

So I agree with you. It would be absolutely lovely if realists could segregate ourselves from the sheeple and their precious "security". Please lobby for this two tiered system. It may be the only thing we can agree on, and it would make me and mine safer than ever before.

"I don't get the need to stroke someone's face though. I would still like to see the written links that the OP mentioned to see the circumstances under which this happened."

If you have the initiative and drive to escape a wet paper sack you'll research readily available videos of actual T&A pawings for yourself. Our species didn't escape the stone age by standing around slack jawed waiting to be spoon fed.
ElizabethConley is offline  
Old Feb 12, 11, 8:59 am
  #47  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern California, in the redwoods, on the ocean.
Posts: 437
Originally Posted by ElizabethConley View Post
"Can someone please explain how else you check these places without touching them? "

You don't. It isn't appropriate to paw at people in this manner, so you simply don't do it.

"No 'intimacy issue' is worth an explosive decompression at 35,000 feet, or death. "

No paranoia or phobia on someone else's part is worth dismantling the U.S. Constitution. The stakes are too high. Liberty is the highest form of security. Anything else is merely an illusion of security.


"It's irrelevant whether they have caught someone or not yet. We don't know when the first incident will happen.

Perhaps the solution is to have a two tiered system. Planes with security, and planes without. I know which one I'd rather be on. And i know which one would make the more likely target for someone wishing to bring the plane down. "

I really like that idea. You see, I really do know which will make the more likely target for someone wishing to bring the plane down. It will be the plane with more security or the security checkpoint itself - without a doubt. If you analyze real terrorist acts, you'll find that the terrorists prefer security checkpoints and buildings or events where the security is high. The terrorists do not want you to trust the government. Each time they provoke the government into treating citizens badly, or prove that the government cannot protect its citizens, terrorists succeed and governments fail.

So I agree with you. It would be absolutely lovely if realists could segregate ourselves from the sheeple and their precious "security". Please lobby for this two tiered system. It may be the only thing we can agree on, and it would make me and mine safer than ever before.

"I don't get the need to stroke someone's face though. I would still like to see the written links that the OP mentioned to see the circumstances under which this happened."

If you have the initiative and drive to escape a wet paper sack you'll research readily available videos of actual T&A pawings for yourself. Our species didn't escape the stone age by standing around slack jawed waiting to be spoon fed.
YAY, Elizabeth! Especially the last part! (Saving a seat for you next to me on the plane with no security at all.)
WindOfFreedom is offline  
Old Feb 12, 11, 10:26 am
  #48  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF View Post
If you think about it, 'hair' could actually be a wig, this could be a place of concealment. Customs frisk searches in Australia will ask to touch your hair/wig to check for contraband.

Items could be concealed in a collar. Security at many many airports checks people's collars. They have been doing this at Amsterdam for many years (like the last 20 or more).

Face? I don't know.

Can you please give some links to where you have read that a person's face has been 'stroked'?
Touching the hair won't tell you whether it is a wig or not.
flyless is offline  
Old Feb 12, 11, 10:57 am
  #49  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 646
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF View Post

I am aware however that when i board a plane certain security measures have been taken, I can understand why they have been taken, and i feel a bit safer...

I am not in any way condoning illegal activity by the TSA. If that occurs then it should be punished appropriately. But standard checks, which for example are conducted in prisons to check for contraband, or are conducted by customs officials for contraband, or have been conducted by security at Amsterdam for decades (etc etc) do not stike me as extraordinary.
I thought, silly me, that the purpose of the TSA was to check for bombs, not drugs.

If someone wants to take DRUGS, OMG, on a plane, be my guest.

If someone wants to take a BOMB on a plane the most logical places to hide it are not being checked. How do you feel about that? Why NOT do full body cavity searches? On everyone, including yourself?

I understand that you do not personally feel that touching your bare skin or rubbing your genitals is offensive. I understand less why you cannot fathom that for OTHER people, perhaps more so women than men, it is extremely offensive.

That aside, I will wager that you will not consent to a cavity search. You would find it just as outrageous and disgusting and invasive as we find the rest. If only people who share your views 'oh what's the big deal' and 'anything for security' could take a leap of the imagination and consider that some of us feel about all this the same way you would feel about a cavity search, then they'd get it.

But I'm afraid that till it transgresses people's own personal boundaries, they are perfectly willing to subject others to molestation and dismiss their concerns.
littlesheep is offline  
Old Feb 12, 11, 11:00 am
  #50  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 173
Wigs

Originally Posted by flyless View Post
Touching the hair won't tell you whether it is a wig or not.
There are huge numbers of women who wear wigs in this country. Many of them due to medical reasons. Some men wear "rugs" to hide baldness. It really isn't anyone's business that they wear these items. I have a friend who just underwent chemotherapy and radiation. She lost all of her hair. A mutual friend has offered her a vacation getaway in a month or so so she can get a much needed rest from a terrible year. She has survived breast cancer after all. However, in order for her to take advantage of this vacation she would have to fly and is upset about the prospect of having to choose between radiation (since she has just completed a ton of it) or being groped which will dislodge her wig and she would find this embarrassing. She definitely would not want to go into a "private room" and be groped. This just isn't fair after all she has been through. We are trying to find another place for her to vacation that would involve taking a train and I think we've found the solution, but still, it is unbelievable that all these personal issues are laid out for all to see. I feel bad for women who are going through this.
Slide101 is offline  
Old Feb 12, 11, 11:10 am
  #51  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by Cartoon Peril View Post
I have read numerous accounts that TSOs feel they have to stroke or touch:
1. The passenger's face;
2. The passenger's hair;
3. Around the passenger's collar.

What is the point of this? It seems unnecessary to me, and in some ways, rather offensive.
Face - I have no idea, that can be cleared visually. I have never patted down a passengers face.

Hair - Because dangerous items can be concealed in hair, and there is (as listed earlier) a chance it is a wig, and wigs can be used to conceal dangerous items as well.

Collar - collars provide an easy location to hide dangerous items in "plain sight", hence the clearance of them.
gsoltso is offline  
Old Feb 12, 11, 11:19 am
  #52  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 173
Wig Removal?

Originally Posted by gsoltso View Post
Hair - Because dangerous items can be concealed in hair, and there is (as listed earlier) a chance it is a wig, and wigs can be used to conceal dangerous items as well.
So how is this processed? Do you remove this in front of all passengers waiting in line? Do you force a woman to remove her wig to prove she has nothing underneath but a bald head?
Slide101 is offline  
Old Feb 12, 11, 11:22 am
  #53  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by Slide101 View Post
So how is this processed? Do you remove this in front of all passengers waiting in line? Do you force a woman to remove her wig to prove she has nothing underneath but a bald head?
I would not do any patting down of a woman with a wig, because I am male. If a passenger I was searching had a wig, it makes no difference, we are simply clearing the area for dangerous items (no removal required).
gsoltso is offline  
Old Feb 12, 11, 11:25 am
  #54  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,817
Originally Posted by Slide101 View Post
So how is this processed? Do you remove this in front of all passengers waiting in line? Do you force a woman to remove her wig to prove she has nothing underneath but a bald head?
Google 'Sheitel' plus 'TSA'. There are stories of women having to remove their sheitel. It is a difficult decision for many women regardless of belief (or non-beliefs) whether to travel, and I believe that there are many conflicts between the desire or need to travel and cultural or religious beliefs and practices.

Muslims aren't alone in their antipathy toward the new security measures. Followers of other religions, including Sikhs and some Orthodox Jews and evangelical Christians, also say the scanners and pat-downs make them uncomfortable or breach the tenets of their faiths.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule
exbayern is offline  
Old Feb 12, 11, 11:38 am
  #55  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by gsoltso View Post
I would not do any patting down of a woman with a wig, because I am male. If a passenger I was searching had a wig, it makes no difference, we are simply clearing the area for dangerous items (no removal required).
However, if a woman has undergone chemo and radiation treatment her wig will easily slide and could slide off if the TSO is not careful. I would love it if our friend could fly but she would be totally embarrassed if her wig were to come off in public. From what I can tell here, she would risk having one of those TSOs who would relish the thought that she could be harassed in that way. After what she has been through I would not want that to happen to her. At this point she is not willing to take the chance and I don't blame her -- she would be traveling alone.
Slide101 is offline  
Old Feb 12, 11, 11:41 am
  #56  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by exbayern View Post
Google 'Sheitel' plus 'TSA'. There are stories of women having to remove their sheitel. It is a difficult decision for many women regardless of belief (or non-beliefs) whether to travel, and I believe that there are many conflicts between the desire or need to travel and cultural or religious beliefs and practices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule
I hadn't even thought about these issues. This has to be very hard on people with these religious views. I guess the ONLY good thing you can say about the current security theater is we are learning how many different issues there are and how many different individual problems there are that are being brought to light. It's just the WAY they are being made public I find offensive.
Slide101 is offline  
Old Feb 12, 11, 11:48 am
  #57  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,817
Originally Posted by Slide101 View Post
I hadn't even thought about these issues. This has to be very hard on people with these religious views. I guess the ONLY good thing you can say about the current security theater is we are learning how many different issues there are and how many different individual problems there are that are being brought to light. It's just the WAY they are being made public I find offensive.
It is very difficult for anyone practicing modest dress as well (and that includes young women who are fairly 'mainstream' - there are a number of 'modest' fashion blogs featuring very fashionable young women who happen to want to follow their faith)

It isn't limited to one religion either. Many followers of various religions believe in keeping covered. The removal of jackets/cardigans at the checkpoint can be distressing to those who believe in keeping arms fully covered, and unless they know that they can be forced to remove even a lightweight buttoned cardigan, they may not be dressed for what they consider appropriate. (Meaning that they may not realise that they should wear a long sleeved undershirt under even the lightest of cardigans - I have been forced to remove a buttoned, tissue weight cardigan by TSA before)

Then there is the issue of skirts; again, many followers of various religions wear longer and/or fuller skirts, which as we know results in a physical search.

Unfortunately I think that there is still bias against 'FWB' and these concerns are not often enough being put forward by the media because they don't realise (or don't care) that the concerns cover many beliefs.
exbayern is offline  
Old Feb 12, 11, 1:38 pm
  #58  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 389
Originally Posted by gsoltso View Post
Face - I have no idea, that can be cleared visually. I have never patted down a passengers face.
Without justification, that is a battery, no?

Originally Posted by gsoltso View Post
Hair - Because dangerous items can be concealed in hair, and there is (as listed earlier) a chance it is a wig, and wigs can be used to conceal dangerous items as well.
I think TSA underestimates how offensive it is for a stranger to touch one's hair. This seems a weak justification for such an intrusion upon the person.

Originally Posted by gsoltso View Post
Collar - collars provide an easy location to hide dangerous items in "plain sight", hence the clearance of them.
I have worn a collared shirt into highly secured areas run by state and federal governments. These points are secured by WTMD and baggage x-rays. The follow-up is typically a hand wand and an actual opening of bags and visual inspection. In some cases shoe and belt removal is required because these set off the WTMD. In many instances a valid ID is required for entry.

In other words, these areas are fully consistent with what was once the TSA standard up to the advent of the Junkatron and the intrusive physical searches. Actually in some ways it was greater, because the person running the WTMD would simultaneously check the ID (although ID seems not to be very closely related to actual security.)

In no case have I have had my shirt collar examined. In no case have I ever observed any other person having their collar examined.
Cartoon Peril is offline  
Old Feb 12, 11, 1:43 pm
  #59  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: FLL/LAX/YYZ/TPE
Programs: CO Platinum 1K, United 1K, SPG LT Platinum, National Executive Elite, Platinum TSA Hater
Posts: 33,976
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF View Post
I would much rather have people's hair touched than risk explosives being carried on board under a wig/turban/other head covering.

Can someone please explain how else you check these places without touching them?

No 'intimacy issue' is worth an explosive decompression at 35,000 feet, or death.

It's irrelevant whether they have caught someone or not yet. We don't know when the first incident will happen.

....
Paranoid nonsense.
bocastephen is offline  
Old Feb 12, 11, 2:12 pm
  #60  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by ElizabethConley View Post
Perhaps the solution is to have a two tiered system. Planes with security, and planes without. I know which one I'd rather be on. And i know which one would make the more likely target for someone wishing to bring the plane down. "

I really like that idea. You see, I really do know which will make the more likely target for someone wishing to bring the plane down. It will be the plane with more security or the security checkpoint itself - without a doubt. If you analyze real terrorist acts, you'll find that the terrorists prefer security checkpoints and buildings or events where the security is high. The terrorists do not want you to trust the government. Each time they provoke the government into treating citizens badly, or prove that the government cannot protect its citizens, terrorists succeed and governments fail.

So I agree with you. It would be absolutely lovely if realists could segregate ourselves from the sheeple and their precious "security". Please lobby for this two tiered system. It may be the only thing we can agree on, and it would make me and mine safer than ever before.

.
Yes, many of the TSA defenders have used the idea of choice as an incredulous rhetorical question to try and make us believe that no one could imagine security being any different. But as it turns out, many of us do feel that choice is inherent to a culture of free citizens. As far as I'm concerned, a two-tiered system isn't enough--that is no more choice than systems like scope or grope, or Democrat/Republican. A realistic solution that has actually been proposed is abolishing the TSA, and giving responsibility to the individual airlines. But TSA defenders won't help us do that, because they don't want to find out the true answer to the question.
RATM is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: