I like the term refusenik myself to describe those of us who refuse to submit to the scope or the grope.

What kind of subject of discussion would you define as noise? Surely a thread like this one that requests specific information about procedures at CATSA checkpoints is *very* well within the intent of this forum: Travel Safety/Security. I haven't noticed a great many off topic threads myself. So I am genuinely curious what some of you are referring to. Perhaps the more philosophical musings? Like the discussion of natural rights that we were having in another thread? Perhaps that is drifting a bit off topic, but I still think it is relevant since it gets into why some of us object to the illegal searches. If you don't find a thread interesting no one is forcing anyone to read it. I certainly don't read every thread. Remember that one man's noise is another man's music.

Excessive noise? Filter. Can't? Enforce meaningful subjects and on-topic discussions.
 

When there's a problem with signal-to-noise ratio, the first thing that should be done is to facilitate filtration by enforcing "use a meaningful subject (thread title)" and "keep on topic" rules. I don't see that happening, so I assume that those with the ability and authority to do something about such a problem do not find such a problem to exist.

I tend to overlook posts which advocate violence or even murder. I also tend to overlook posts (on any side of the issue) which contain a significant amount of name-calling.

I am an advocate of peaceful resistance, and I would like to think that one can drive change without resorting to violence or significant name-calling. I also know that there are readers who are trying to gather information and who have been turned off by such posts. Two friends of mine who I consider intelligent and open to changing their viewpoints have confirmed to me that they tend to do the same when they see such posts. Neither feels as strongly as I do about airport screening (and both admittedly are infrequent flyers who have not yet experienced some of the things we have experienced)

One of the strongest voice on this forum uses facts and humour to get her point across and educate readers who don't understand the 'big deal' about the scanners. I know that she has managed to sway opinions, and has done so without advocating violence or using excessive name-calling.

In my opinion, the strong emotions we tend to see here may actually work against the argument and may drive away readers. Not everyone has the time to wade through a large number of threads looking for basic information. That is also why I believe that the single most valuable post (not thread, but updated post) on this forum is the sticky about the scanner locations at various airports. The single most valuable signature (to me) is the one which lists the various channels to file a report.

I cannot speak for yyzvoyageur, but the question they posed did resonate with me.

I am not saying that people are wrong, just that I don't always agree with everything that is voiced here, and I do choose to filter out what and how much I read here now.

I think those are violations of FT rules. You probably can help prevent such posts from being seen by notifying moderators of them. To do so, click the little warning triangle icon to the left of a post, under author information.

I despair
 

[QUOTE]What an absolute load of s**t!! you have a major problem and are obviously a bigoted individual. Can't you comprehend that these people are simply doing a job. They have to do it in the way stipulated by their employers or they face being dismissed - i.e. no job, no money!

It has absolutely nothing to do with their sexuality but simply about them doing their job properly.

I travel internationally 3-4 times a month for work and generally have nothing bad to say about the security people I've encountered - even in the US and Canada, my biggest frustration is idiot passengers at security who are either too lazy or stupid to understand what they can and can't take through security hence delaying everyone.

It's your choice, either live with it or don't fly, but don't criticise people who in in the vast majority are only trying to do a job to the best of their ability to earn a living.

demand publication of the rules; avoid using the Neuremberg Defense
 

That's not necessarily stupidity or laziness. TSA refuse to publish the rules passengers are required to follow. Some people do a better job of guessing what some particular airport security guard will and will not allow than others do. If you're going to complain about this, please complain to the TSA.

Not flying is not guaranteed to avoid TSA's lawless behavior. They're expanding to train stations and have plans to x-ray cars and pedestrians.

Why shouldn't we criticize them? It's their choice: Either live with criticism or don't take a job with a government agency that has its employees engage in unconstitutional behavior. If the majority of people said, "No, I'm not going to lift people's breasts and feel their scrotums when they refuse to let me look under their clothing with a strip-search machine," and "No, I will not help you lock people down after you blacklist them; go talk to a judge if you have good reason for this," then this would not be happening. It's that simple. Those who participate allow it to happen. Damned straight, we'll criticize.

No. You are being unreasonable because CATSA is a different agency, with different (far higher) standards for professionalism and protecting passenger privacy. As I stated to you before, the CATSA pat down is much different in execution from the wanna-be cops that work at the TSA do. I did not have my genitals touched at all and if I did, I would have both emailed and called CATSA's complaint department immediately, not to mention the Peel Regional Police (at YYZ). And the result would have been the investigation and potential arrest of the Garda clerk.

Incidentally, pat downs did exist before the TSA as well.

Again, have you even paid attention? The Canadians don't do things the same as the TSA does. Their new LAG rules are much better (if a partially filled over 100 ml container contains obviously less than 100 ml, you can go through), they are pro-active about telling you your options on secondary, they use the MMW/Frisk option as a secondary to secondary and they don't stand for unprofessional/illegal behavior during the frisk.

CATSA didn't have to buy the MMW scanners in the first place. The vast majority of countries in the world get by just fine without them and are no less safe. While I *do* appreciate the greater travel freedom and more civilized CATSA screeners north of the border, there is a lot of room for improvement. Just look at pretty much any country in the world other than the US or UK for an excellent model of how to conduct airport security. Canada is not one of the better examples of airlines security in the world. It is one of the worst. It is only something to be proud of when compared to the most repressive system in the world just south of the border. Considering how badly Canadians are treated both at TSA checkpoints and at CBP checkpoints one might think that they would want to distance themselves as much as possible from our police state, no-right-to-our-own-bodies kind of system. When CATSA removes every naked body imager from their airports then I might start to be impressed, but not before.

As far as not getting your genitals touched during a patdown, fair enough. That has been your experience, but there are some traveler reports on this forum which seem to show otherwise. These contradictory reports make it seem like CATSA patdowns are inconsistent in that regard. After I have had some experiences with CATSA myself I can have my own view on the subject. Until then I don't think it is fair to consider me or my expectations unreasonable just because I haven't had any personal experiences with CATSA and have read contradictory reports about the patdowns on flyertalk.

Don't get me wrong. Most of what I have read seems to indicate that CATSOs are generally much farther up the evolutionary ladder than TSOs and that the whole security system is far superior to the one in the US, but that isn't saying much. The US obviously has the worst airport security system in the whole world.

1) If flying to the U.S. (which is what I originally assumed before the OP said that he was not flying back there...) , the MMW IS primary when picked for a secondary screening. Yes, a person can opt out and get a pat down but it IS the primary for that type of screening. Also, as I understand it, the MMW is used at other screening points to resolve WTMD issues, too.

2) YYC used to have the "randomizer" mat and recently changed to the scanner. Why, I do not know. But, either way, I was/am picked for a secondary about 95% of the time. Believe me, I DO have a 4" binder full of complaint letters written to CATSA, members of Parliament, and other government officials. I continue to complain and absolutely refuse to be intimidated by this organization.

You are incorrect. If it was primary, everyone would be sent through. Only about every 1 out of every 3-4 are given the MMW/Pat down option. And its not an opt-out, its an actual choice that is thoroughly explained.

As far as resolving WTMD issues, you are incorrect. A male and a female clerk with wands wait at the other side of the WTMD to resolve WTMD issues.

Check your PM

Well, my personal experience (at least at YYC) differs from what you are saying. Do you understand how that particular screening point to the U.S. gates works? If you are picked for secondary, you are automatically sent to the MMW line. As I said, the MMW is being used as the primary method for secondary screening. I was not given the option of a patdown OR the MMW. I had to opt out of the MMW to get the patdown.

As far as using the MMW to resolve WTMD/wanding issues in regular screening, you might want to read this recent article quoting a CATSA official.

http://bit.ly/gTwK5L

"Laroque said the new scanner is being used only for secondary screening or for passengers who are randomly chosen to undergo the procedure as required under federal regulations.

Passengers flying out of Hamilton will continue to empty their pockets and walk through a traditional metal detector.

Laroque said if the detector does not beep, the passenger will continue on to board their flight.

If it does beep, security officials will wave a wand-like detection device around the traveller’s body to see if any other items are on their person.

Laroque said if the wand cannot determine the cause of the beep, the passenger will be referred to secondary screening where they have the option of stepping into the full body scanner or undergoing a pat-down.

Only people who can stand up and are able to raise their hands can undergo a full-body scan and the scanner is deemed safe for pregnant women and people with pacemakers."

The reason you were not given the option is because the person was being a lazy sack of crap. The person who should have given you the option is the one who would have had to do the pat down. Instead, they did not give you the option and directed you to the scanner, where it is easier for them.

deleted

On the contrary, your need to bring up irrelevancies like sexuality indicates that you do have a problem with anything that deviates from the heteronormative. That said, take your ignorant bigotry somewhere else.

If it's so irrelevant then why can't I get a patdown by an opposite sex screener? Why is same sex screening so damned sacred to the TSA? If it's nonsexual then why should it matter? The fact is it *is* sexual. Which is why it seems logical to assume that there are a much higher percentage of homosexuals and bisexuals within the ranks of the TSO. If it's normally 10% of the population then within the TSA it is probably 70%. As a TSO pointed out to me earlier, if I am not willing to fondle another man's genitals I wouldn't even make it through the training period let alone to the airport. It seems like they are self-selecting for nonheterosexuals.

I am an atheist and a libertarian. I hate the religious right (sorry, guys but it's true). In case you were thinking that is where I am coming from. I don't hate homosexuals. Unfortunately I am put into a position at a checkpoint where the guy feeling me up is getting sexual gratification from doing so. That might help explain why they go so far in their gropings and why there is so much inconsistency in the secret SOP. Each person has their urges under control to different degrees. I'm not blaming them for it. If I worked as a TSO and were allowed to feel up women I might take a bit longer than I had to with attractive women. I would definitely enjoy it. Another reason why TSOs are more likely to not be hetero. Job satisfaction. Between watching the nude scanner LCD screen and letting your fingers slide all over so many people it seems like it could be a very gratifying job indeed if your sexual orientation is such that you enjoy it.

I don't think many true heteros could handle the molestation aspect of the job for long. It just doesn't seem realistic. AFAIK, heterosexual men are almost universally repulsed by touching other men's genitals. Not saying that's how it "should" be. Just how it is. Oh wait...but they are just being patriotic and defending us against terrorists. Yeah right. Their just disappointed that all they can use is their hand. Like they do in the back room with the LCD monitor showing all the naked men, women, and...wait for it...children. Where else can you get paid for looking at kiddie porn? For the right person that is even more job satisfaction. After an initial shakeout of the non-pervs and heteros, I think the statistics will show that there will start to be a much lower turnover rate due to all the new perks of the job.