Awesome comment in Frommers
Apr 27, 2011 | 9:34 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,119
Awesome comment in Frommers
Yesterday Arthur Frommer posted this regarding the patdowns:
"...Several months ago, there was an eruption of protest against the pat-and-search policies of the TSA designed to protect us from being blown up in the course of a flight. That controversy finally dwindled to only an occasional mention, in the wake of a realization by the public of the role that the TSA plays in protecting us from terrorism. The overwhelming majority of Americans is willing to suffer a slight intrusion on our privacy to thwart the effort to bring down planes..."
http://www.frommers.com/blog/?plckCo...entId=blogDest
Arthur Frommer has been aggressively in the corner of the "Anything for security". It surprises me because his demographic, families and retirees, is overrepresented in the types of people affected by the TSA. A comment was posted that I think nicely called him out on this.
"
Disappointed_in_Arthur wrote:
Arthur - I need some advice and maybe some of your help.
Next month my wife and I will be flying with both of our very young daughters. Naturally, we're very worried about a TSA screener touching them in ways that that would be a crime if that same person touched them in exactly the same ways but in the parking lot outside the airport.
In case it comes up, I'd like to learn on what telephone number we can best reach you for you to calmly explain to my 5 and 2 year old little girls that it's OK when a stranger puts their hands in their pants if that stranger is wearing a TSA uniform and working at the TSA checkpoint at the airport but it's not OK if a stranger who is not wearing a TSA uniform wants to put their hands in my little girls' pants anywhere outside of a TSA checkpoint."
-------
Some history on his pro-TSA stance - Back in November he wrote this:
Ask a Critic of the T.S.A. to Suggest His Own Method for Thwarting Terrorism in the Skies, and You'll Usually Be Met with Utter Silence
Posted by Arthur Frommer at 11/22/2010 10:41 AM EST
On several recent occasions, I have asked various bitter critics of the T.S.A.'s full-body scanners and pat-downs to suggest what they would substitute for those devices or tactics. We know what you're against, I have said, but what are you for? What specific, concrete proposals do you have for blocking terrorists from carrying explosives onto a plane?
Their response: silence, or incomprehensible, self-contradictory, gibberish. Though there's been a media frenzy about intrusive pat-downs and privacy-infringing scanners, there's been an almost total failure to propose alternative policies for dealing with the undeniable threat that terrorists pose.
I use the words "almost total failure" to characterize those responses because occasionally someone suggests one of the following:
That we adopt the Israeli methods for keeping terrorists off El Al airplanes: lengthy interrogations of passengers and psychological screening. How this could be done for the 1,500,000 Americans who each day board a flight in the United States, is not explained. How many tens of thousands of additional T.S.A. staff would be needed, how many months of training, how long in advance would you need to appear at the airport to undergo your interrogations? Six hours? Eight hours?
That we require all airline passengers to file (a day or two in advance) an electronic statement of their reason for boarding a particular flight. Who would read those 1,500,000 statements per day is never explained, nor is an estimate ever made of the number of investigators who would need to go behind such 1,500,000 daily statements to determine their bona fides, and of the time and efforts that would be needed.
Dogs to sniff your crotch, in place of "pat-downs", resulting in the need to maintain giant kennels and dog-handlers near every airline gate throughout the country. How this would be less intrusive or practical is not explained.
Acceptance of the risk that some terrorists would get through the former magnetometers. Some of the critics have actually told me that we should accept the small risk of being blown up in order to avoid a more important invasion of our privacy. We should play the odds. Maybe someone else will be blown up, but our privacy will be maintained.
What we are dealing with is an attempt by several celebrity commentators in the media to stir up frenzy among the American public who have become self-anointed guardians of our privacy.
Next time you encounter one of their followers, simply ask them the question: What do you propose? What are you for? What do you suggest to block the terrorists from blowing up planes?
You will be met with the same silence, the same incomprehension, that I've experienced. Try it.
Read more: http://www.frommers.com/blog/?plckCo...#ixzz1KjlQiYbr
And:
An Overwhelming Percentage of Americans Favor the T.S.A.'s New Full-Body Scanners
Posted by Arthur Frommer at 11/18/2010 3:20 PM EST
Judging from the anguished screams in the Internet, on talk radio, in newspaper columns and the like, you'd conclude that the American public is violently against the T.S.A.'s new policy of passing you through full-body scanning machines or human pat-downs. Right?
That is wrong by a long shot -- well at least it was before opposing the safety measures became the latest Internet flashpoint.
A USAToday/Gallup Poll conducted in January found that 78% of the American public were in favor of these new measures, expressing a strong sentiment that so-called "invasions of privacy" are a small price to pay for greater security aboard passenger airplanes. 84% of the persons polled felt that the machines would prevent terrorists from entering planes with explosives.
Often in America, shrill voices can create the misleading impression that a substantial part of the public are against a particular policy. And yet these shrill voices are, often, not at all representative of public opinion as a whole.
Read more: http://www.frommers.com/blog/?plckCo...#ixzz1Kjlr9ITC
And
Is It Possible to Employ Psychological Screening and Powder-Sniffing Dogs as an Alternative to Body Scanners and Pat Downs?
Posted by Arthur Frommer at 11/17/2010 11:43 AM EST
A number of the people who object to the use of full-body scanners and pat-downs as security measures at the nation's airports suggest -- as an alternative -- interrogations of passengers similar to the psychological screening used for many years by Israeli security officials. Persons about to board El Al flights are often questioned at great length by security personnel well-trained in spotting would-be terrorists, and every passenger is subjected to at least a few serious questions.
To determine the feasibility of such methods in the United States, I set out to learn the usual number of persons who board flights within the country on an average day. Most of the studies on that subject conclude that approximately 1.5 million persons a day board flights within the United States or from the United States on a non-holiday date. On holiday dates around Thanksgiving and Christmas, as many as two million persons a day board flights.
Obviously, the job of psychologically screening 1,500,000 persons a day would exceed the capabilities of the Transportation Security Agency staff; it would require not simply hiring tens of thousands of additional agents, but of training those newly hired multitudes to spot the responses to interrogations indicating a terrorist. Next time you hear the opponents of TSA methods make references to Israel's success in keeping terrorists off El Al aircraft, ask them whether those tactics could possibly handle the vast amount of daily aviation traffic in America. Or is the suggestion a bit of fantasy?
And how effective would those millions of interrogations be in heading off a Timothy McVeigh, a Ted Kaczynski, a Terry Nichols -- our own home-brand of American terrorist?
As for the dogs, who would need to enjoy limited hours to avoid exhaustion, and to be periodically replaced when over-exerted, wouldn't their use require that we turn airports into giant kennels, each housing many hundreds of dogs and their keepers?
In my opinion, we all need to come to the defense of TSA officials who are now being battered in the press and in congressional committees over their use of advanced technology or pat-downs to prevent terrorism in American aviation.
Read more: http://www.frommers.com/blog/?plckCo...#ixzz1Kjm4U11i
And
Call Me Insensitive, but I Welcome the New Full-Body-Scan Booths at Airports
Posted by Arthur Frommer at 11/12/2010 10:51 AM EST
The internet is bursting with gripes about security procedures at the airports -- especially the installation of an increasing number of booths doing full body scans. The chief complaint is that the new machines supposedly invade passengers' privacy, despite the fact that images are conveyed to a far-off room staffed by various faceless TSA staff, who cannot make out the faces of the persons being scanned and who do not know their names. They are also charged with looking at so many scans, scores of them each hour, that one doubts they are able to get worked up by the anatomical details exposed to them.
As you can see, I'm in favor of almost any technological device that can thwart the plans of Al Qaeda terrorists. I cannot for the life of me understand why so many travelers seem offended by the new full-body booths -- and also point out that if you are that sensitive, you can opt not to enter the booths but to undergo a full-body "pat down".
Because I have a metallic right hip joint, and thus set off the alarm every time I pass through a magnetometer, I have been patted down on scores and scores of occasions -- I am patted down on every one of the numerous trips I take by air, in both directions. And never once have I been groped or made to feel that the TSA staff member is enjoying his duties or is taking liberties with me. And if a passenger is troubled by the prospect of being patted down, then let them opt to go through the full body scan machines to avoid such pat downs.
How about the levels of radiation to which the new full body scan machines expose us? It has been noted that if passengers are already undergoing medical treatments involving radiation, they should opt not to go through the full body scans but to be patted down. But one commentator after another has alleged that the radiation levels of the new machines are less than one experiences from a cell phone.
The authorities at Amsterdam International Airport believe that if the "Christmas bomber" (who had packed explosives into the crotch of his undershorts) had been made to pass through a full-body-scan machine, he would have been discovered. I'm with them. In these days of terrorism, it's important to utilize every method of exposing such perpetrators, and if that involves a so-called invasion of privacy, a delay in boarding passengers, a slight extra level of radiation, then I'm all for it.
I'd be interested to learn how readers of this Blog feel about the same issue.
Read more: http://www.frommers.com/blog/?plckCo...#ixzz1KjmEIuLu
And in December
A Short Interlude in San Diego Ended in Another Encounter With a Much-Discussed Issue
Posted by Arthur Frommer at 12/6/2010 3:17 PM EST
My trip to San Diego ended yesterday the way it began, with another passage through a magnetometer, followed by an extensive "pat-down" by a TSA agent. I wish I had more dramatic news to report; just like the earlier flight from New York to San Diego, the event was totally lacking in drama. The San Diego agent solemnly announced each step of the pat-down, warning me he was about to pass his hands along the waistband of my trousers, suggesting that I hold up my pants (from which I had removed the belt) while he felt my legs to insure that I had no bombs or explosives attached to them. He was professional and solemn, about as far removed from a swinger as anyone could be; so I must apologize for being unable to join the attack by so many others about a lessening of our liberties. It's been many months since I've attracted so many claims by indignant readers posting comments and savaging me for my failure to defend the Constitution; where did I go wrong? Where did I absorb such un-American attitudes, such heedless regard for the Bill of Rights? ..."
Read more: http://www.frommers.com/blog/?plckCo...#ixzz1Kjmk2LzR
And:
Let Me Relate To You a Breathless Experience of Losing My Constitutional Rights at JFK Airport Yesterday
Posted by Arthur Frommer at 12/2/2010 10:30 AM EST
It was Wednesday, December 1, and I was on my way to New York-JFK for a flight that would take me to San Diego for the wedding of a friend's son.
My heart was pounding. It would be my first encounter with the dreaded TSA since Matt Drudge and a few other cheerleaders tried to convince us that our liberties will now be seriously lessened by enhanced security procedures at the airports. Drudge, that selfless patriot, had first alerted the nation in early November to the arrival of a police state. For the trifling purpose of escaping death, to avoid being blown up mid-flight, the American public was about to jettison its Fourth Amendment rights. Where was Thomas Jefferson now that we needed him?
Inside the airport, everything seemed unnaturally calm. No one flourished posters showing the Constitution in flames. At the security lines, people waited patiently to be stripped of their humanity.
But where were the "full-body scanners"? Drat! There weren't enough to service all the many lines at JFK. I would simply have to pass through a normal magnetometer, knowing that a hip replacement would set off an alarm. Hearing that noise brought a sense of relief. I would not be disappointed. I would be subjected to an unconstitutional "pat-down" that would reveal the iniquity of these uniformed U.S. equivalents of the former S.S.
Before I knew it, the "pat-down" was over. Wearing rubber gloves, a TSA agent had quickly surveyed my arms, legs and torso, passing his hands -- and sometimes the backs of his hands -- swiftly over my body to insure there was no metallic weapon or pouch of explosives on my person. The grope, such as it was, was about as sexual as a doctor's use of a stethoscope, as invasive as a child's game of tag. It was over in 90 seconds, and the TSA pat-down specialist moved on quickly to another passenger who had set off an alarm.
So I am sorry to disappoint. My TSA experience was totally without drama or tension. My passage through security was handled professionally by people dedicated to a never-ending battle with Al Qaeda, and these procedures seemed to be welcomed by citizens of a democracy who have determined never to let the terrorists interfere with our right to travel. We have all acquiesced in these trivial burdens out of a determination to keep our skies safe for air travel.
Matt Drudge will now need to find a new crusade.
Read more: http://www.frommers.com/blog/?plckCo...#ixzz1Kjmydto0
"...Several months ago, there was an eruption of protest against the pat-and-search policies of the TSA designed to protect us from being blown up in the course of a flight. That controversy finally dwindled to only an occasional mention, in the wake of a realization by the public of the role that the TSA plays in protecting us from terrorism. The overwhelming majority of Americans is willing to suffer a slight intrusion on our privacy to thwart the effort to bring down planes..."
http://www.frommers.com/blog/?plckCo...entId=blogDest
Arthur Frommer has been aggressively in the corner of the "Anything for security". It surprises me because his demographic, families and retirees, is overrepresented in the types of people affected by the TSA. A comment was posted that I think nicely called him out on this.
"
Disappointed_in_Arthur wrote:
Arthur - I need some advice and maybe some of your help.
Next month my wife and I will be flying with both of our very young daughters. Naturally, we're very worried about a TSA screener touching them in ways that that would be a crime if that same person touched them in exactly the same ways but in the parking lot outside the airport.
In case it comes up, I'd like to learn on what telephone number we can best reach you for you to calmly explain to my 5 and 2 year old little girls that it's OK when a stranger puts their hands in their pants if that stranger is wearing a TSA uniform and working at the TSA checkpoint at the airport but it's not OK if a stranger who is not wearing a TSA uniform wants to put their hands in my little girls' pants anywhere outside of a TSA checkpoint."
-------
Some history on his pro-TSA stance - Back in November he wrote this:
Ask a Critic of the T.S.A. to Suggest His Own Method for Thwarting Terrorism in the Skies, and You'll Usually Be Met with Utter Silence
Posted by Arthur Frommer at 11/22/2010 10:41 AM EST
On several recent occasions, I have asked various bitter critics of the T.S.A.'s full-body scanners and pat-downs to suggest what they would substitute for those devices or tactics. We know what you're against, I have said, but what are you for? What specific, concrete proposals do you have for blocking terrorists from carrying explosives onto a plane?
Their response: silence, or incomprehensible, self-contradictory, gibberish. Though there's been a media frenzy about intrusive pat-downs and privacy-infringing scanners, there's been an almost total failure to propose alternative policies for dealing with the undeniable threat that terrorists pose.
I use the words "almost total failure" to characterize those responses because occasionally someone suggests one of the following:
That we adopt the Israeli methods for keeping terrorists off El Al airplanes: lengthy interrogations of passengers and psychological screening. How this could be done for the 1,500,000 Americans who each day board a flight in the United States, is not explained. How many tens of thousands of additional T.S.A. staff would be needed, how many months of training, how long in advance would you need to appear at the airport to undergo your interrogations? Six hours? Eight hours?
That we require all airline passengers to file (a day or two in advance) an electronic statement of their reason for boarding a particular flight. Who would read those 1,500,000 statements per day is never explained, nor is an estimate ever made of the number of investigators who would need to go behind such 1,500,000 daily statements to determine their bona fides, and of the time and efforts that would be needed.
Dogs to sniff your crotch, in place of "pat-downs", resulting in the need to maintain giant kennels and dog-handlers near every airline gate throughout the country. How this would be less intrusive or practical is not explained.
Acceptance of the risk that some terrorists would get through the former magnetometers. Some of the critics have actually told me that we should accept the small risk of being blown up in order to avoid a more important invasion of our privacy. We should play the odds. Maybe someone else will be blown up, but our privacy will be maintained.
What we are dealing with is an attempt by several celebrity commentators in the media to stir up frenzy among the American public who have become self-anointed guardians of our privacy.
Next time you encounter one of their followers, simply ask them the question: What do you propose? What are you for? What do you suggest to block the terrorists from blowing up planes?
You will be met with the same silence, the same incomprehension, that I've experienced. Try it.
Read more: http://www.frommers.com/blog/?plckCo...#ixzz1KjlQiYbr
And:
An Overwhelming Percentage of Americans Favor the T.S.A.'s New Full-Body Scanners
Posted by Arthur Frommer at 11/18/2010 3:20 PM EST
Judging from the anguished screams in the Internet, on talk radio, in newspaper columns and the like, you'd conclude that the American public is violently against the T.S.A.'s new policy of passing you through full-body scanning machines or human pat-downs. Right?
That is wrong by a long shot -- well at least it was before opposing the safety measures became the latest Internet flashpoint.
A USAToday/Gallup Poll conducted in January found that 78% of the American public were in favor of these new measures, expressing a strong sentiment that so-called "invasions of privacy" are a small price to pay for greater security aboard passenger airplanes. 84% of the persons polled felt that the machines would prevent terrorists from entering planes with explosives.
Often in America, shrill voices can create the misleading impression that a substantial part of the public are against a particular policy. And yet these shrill voices are, often, not at all representative of public opinion as a whole.
Read more: http://www.frommers.com/blog/?plckCo...#ixzz1Kjlr9ITC
And
Is It Possible to Employ Psychological Screening and Powder-Sniffing Dogs as an Alternative to Body Scanners and Pat Downs?
Posted by Arthur Frommer at 11/17/2010 11:43 AM EST
A number of the people who object to the use of full-body scanners and pat-downs as security measures at the nation's airports suggest -- as an alternative -- interrogations of passengers similar to the psychological screening used for many years by Israeli security officials. Persons about to board El Al flights are often questioned at great length by security personnel well-trained in spotting would-be terrorists, and every passenger is subjected to at least a few serious questions.
To determine the feasibility of such methods in the United States, I set out to learn the usual number of persons who board flights within the country on an average day. Most of the studies on that subject conclude that approximately 1.5 million persons a day board flights within the United States or from the United States on a non-holiday date. On holiday dates around Thanksgiving and Christmas, as many as two million persons a day board flights.
Obviously, the job of psychologically screening 1,500,000 persons a day would exceed the capabilities of the Transportation Security Agency staff; it would require not simply hiring tens of thousands of additional agents, but of training those newly hired multitudes to spot the responses to interrogations indicating a terrorist. Next time you hear the opponents of TSA methods make references to Israel's success in keeping terrorists off El Al aircraft, ask them whether those tactics could possibly handle the vast amount of daily aviation traffic in America. Or is the suggestion a bit of fantasy?
And how effective would those millions of interrogations be in heading off a Timothy McVeigh, a Ted Kaczynski, a Terry Nichols -- our own home-brand of American terrorist?
As for the dogs, who would need to enjoy limited hours to avoid exhaustion, and to be periodically replaced when over-exerted, wouldn't their use require that we turn airports into giant kennels, each housing many hundreds of dogs and their keepers?
In my opinion, we all need to come to the defense of TSA officials who are now being battered in the press and in congressional committees over their use of advanced technology or pat-downs to prevent terrorism in American aviation.
Read more: http://www.frommers.com/blog/?plckCo...#ixzz1Kjm4U11i
And
Call Me Insensitive, but I Welcome the New Full-Body-Scan Booths at Airports
Posted by Arthur Frommer at 11/12/2010 10:51 AM EST
The internet is bursting with gripes about security procedures at the airports -- especially the installation of an increasing number of booths doing full body scans. The chief complaint is that the new machines supposedly invade passengers' privacy, despite the fact that images are conveyed to a far-off room staffed by various faceless TSA staff, who cannot make out the faces of the persons being scanned and who do not know their names. They are also charged with looking at so many scans, scores of them each hour, that one doubts they are able to get worked up by the anatomical details exposed to them.
As you can see, I'm in favor of almost any technological device that can thwart the plans of Al Qaeda terrorists. I cannot for the life of me understand why so many travelers seem offended by the new full-body booths -- and also point out that if you are that sensitive, you can opt not to enter the booths but to undergo a full-body "pat down".
Because I have a metallic right hip joint, and thus set off the alarm every time I pass through a magnetometer, I have been patted down on scores and scores of occasions -- I am patted down on every one of the numerous trips I take by air, in both directions. And never once have I been groped or made to feel that the TSA staff member is enjoying his duties or is taking liberties with me. And if a passenger is troubled by the prospect of being patted down, then let them opt to go through the full body scan machines to avoid such pat downs.
How about the levels of radiation to which the new full body scan machines expose us? It has been noted that if passengers are already undergoing medical treatments involving radiation, they should opt not to go through the full body scans but to be patted down. But one commentator after another has alleged that the radiation levels of the new machines are less than one experiences from a cell phone.
The authorities at Amsterdam International Airport believe that if the "Christmas bomber" (who had packed explosives into the crotch of his undershorts) had been made to pass through a full-body-scan machine, he would have been discovered. I'm with them. In these days of terrorism, it's important to utilize every method of exposing such perpetrators, and if that involves a so-called invasion of privacy, a delay in boarding passengers, a slight extra level of radiation, then I'm all for it.
I'd be interested to learn how readers of this Blog feel about the same issue.
Read more: http://www.frommers.com/blog/?plckCo...#ixzz1KjmEIuLu
And in December
A Short Interlude in San Diego Ended in Another Encounter With a Much-Discussed Issue
Posted by Arthur Frommer at 12/6/2010 3:17 PM EST
My trip to San Diego ended yesterday the way it began, with another passage through a magnetometer, followed by an extensive "pat-down" by a TSA agent. I wish I had more dramatic news to report; just like the earlier flight from New York to San Diego, the event was totally lacking in drama. The San Diego agent solemnly announced each step of the pat-down, warning me he was about to pass his hands along the waistband of my trousers, suggesting that I hold up my pants (from which I had removed the belt) while he felt my legs to insure that I had no bombs or explosives attached to them. He was professional and solemn, about as far removed from a swinger as anyone could be; so I must apologize for being unable to join the attack by so many others about a lessening of our liberties. It's been many months since I've attracted so many claims by indignant readers posting comments and savaging me for my failure to defend the Constitution; where did I go wrong? Where did I absorb such un-American attitudes, such heedless regard for the Bill of Rights? ..."
Read more: http://www.frommers.com/blog/?plckCo...#ixzz1Kjmk2LzR
And:
Let Me Relate To You a Breathless Experience of Losing My Constitutional Rights at JFK Airport Yesterday
Posted by Arthur Frommer at 12/2/2010 10:30 AM EST
It was Wednesday, December 1, and I was on my way to New York-JFK for a flight that would take me to San Diego for the wedding of a friend's son.
My heart was pounding. It would be my first encounter with the dreaded TSA since Matt Drudge and a few other cheerleaders tried to convince us that our liberties will now be seriously lessened by enhanced security procedures at the airports. Drudge, that selfless patriot, had first alerted the nation in early November to the arrival of a police state. For the trifling purpose of escaping death, to avoid being blown up mid-flight, the American public was about to jettison its Fourth Amendment rights. Where was Thomas Jefferson now that we needed him?
Inside the airport, everything seemed unnaturally calm. No one flourished posters showing the Constitution in flames. At the security lines, people waited patiently to be stripped of their humanity.
But where were the "full-body scanners"? Drat! There weren't enough to service all the many lines at JFK. I would simply have to pass through a normal magnetometer, knowing that a hip replacement would set off an alarm. Hearing that noise brought a sense of relief. I would not be disappointed. I would be subjected to an unconstitutional "pat-down" that would reveal the iniquity of these uniformed U.S. equivalents of the former S.S.
Before I knew it, the "pat-down" was over. Wearing rubber gloves, a TSA agent had quickly surveyed my arms, legs and torso, passing his hands -- and sometimes the backs of his hands -- swiftly over my body to insure there was no metallic weapon or pouch of explosives on my person. The grope, such as it was, was about as sexual as a doctor's use of a stethoscope, as invasive as a child's game of tag. It was over in 90 seconds, and the TSA pat-down specialist moved on quickly to another passenger who had set off an alarm.
So I am sorry to disappoint. My TSA experience was totally without drama or tension. My passage through security was handled professionally by people dedicated to a never-ending battle with Al Qaeda, and these procedures seemed to be welcomed by citizens of a democracy who have determined never to let the terrorists interfere with our right to travel. We have all acquiesced in these trivial burdens out of a determination to keep our skies safe for air travel.
Matt Drudge will now need to find a new crusade.
Read more: http://www.frommers.com/blog/?plckCo...#ixzz1Kjmydto0
Apr 27, 2011 | 10:42 am
#4
Join Date: Oct 2010
Programs: AA ex-EXP (buh-bye!), HH Gold, SPG Gold, UM Go Blue
Posts: 543
Mr. Frommer must have some pretty dim friends if he is met with silence every time he asks about potential improvements to airport security.
WMTDs would have caught the gun that a TSA red-teamer took through 5 checkpoints unnoticed. So, there's an idea, use WMTDs instead of body scanners.
Airport dogs would not require acres of nearby kennels. Hasn't he noticed how they successfully use dogs in other countries (and other contexts, i.e. CBP?)
Um, since he knows the latest dazzling new technology has a fairly high failure rate, he is obviously willing to accept some risk to fly. Why not accept this risk it in a more cost-effective and less intrusive manner?
I agree it is just matter of time. Maybe he doesn't mind having his package handled but he might change his tune if Pauline Frommer (his daughter) has a traumatic encounter like those we have read about here.
WMTDs would have caught the gun that a TSA red-teamer took through 5 checkpoints unnoticed. So, there's an idea, use WMTDs instead of body scanners.
Airport dogs would not require acres of nearby kennels. Hasn't he noticed how they successfully use dogs in other countries (and other contexts, i.e. CBP?)
Um, since he knows the latest dazzling new technology has a fairly high failure rate, he is obviously willing to accept some risk to fly. Why not accept this risk it in a more cost-effective and less intrusive manner?
I agree it is just matter of time. Maybe he doesn't mind having his package handled but he might change his tune if Pauline Frommer (his daughter) has a traumatic encounter like those we have read about here.
Apr 27, 2011 | 1:47 pm
#9
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern California, in the redwoods, on the ocean.
Posts: 437
Apr 27, 2011 | 2:43 pm
#10
Join Date: Oct 2010
Programs: AA ex-EXP (buh-bye!), HH Gold, SPG Gold, UM Go Blue
Posts: 543
Yes. Rick Steves all the way.
Apr 27, 2011 | 7:03 pm
#11
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: FLL
Programs: GE, B6 True Blue, Hilton Honors, IHG
Posts: 185
Yes. Rick Steves all the way.
As for Mr Frommer, I hate to stoop to the level of an ad hominem attack, but what an IDIOT! I will never buy his drivel nor will I recommend it to anyone else.
As far as his repeated question of what would the TSA critics suggest, I say simple, go back to pre-9/11 security. As far as his comments on needing massive kennels at the airport, he couldn't be more wrong. At LHR 2 weeks ago, we deplaned from our full 747 and everyone walked single file on the jetway past a professional nose. The handler even made announcements to keep walking normally. It took no longer than usual and required only one dog.
Shame on you Mr Frommer for your misguided views. You have the gaul to say anti-TSA folks are whipping the public into a frenzy? It's the other way around!
Apr 27, 2011 | 7:17 pm
#12
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
I was waiting for that response.
As for Mr Frommer, I hate to stoop to the level of an ad hominem attack, but what an IDIOT! I will never buy his drivel nor will I recommend it to anyone else.
As far as his repeated question of what would the TSA critics suggest, I say simple, go back to pre-9/11 security. As far as his comments on needing massive kennels at the airport, he couldn't be more wrong. At LHR 2 weeks ago, we deplaned from our full 747 and everyone walked single file on the jetway past a professional nose. The handler even made announcements to keep walking normally. It took no longer than usual and required only one dog.
Shame on you Mr Frommer for your misguided views. You have the gaul to say anti-TSA folks are whipping the public into a frenzy? It's the other way around!
As for Mr Frommer, I hate to stoop to the level of an ad hominem attack, but what an IDIOT! I will never buy his drivel nor will I recommend it to anyone else.
As far as his repeated question of what would the TSA critics suggest, I say simple, go back to pre-9/11 security. As far as his comments on needing massive kennels at the airport, he couldn't be more wrong. At LHR 2 weeks ago, we deplaned from our full 747 and everyone walked single file on the jetway past a professional nose. The handler even made announcements to keep walking normally. It took no longer than usual and required only one dog.
Shame on you Mr Frommer for your misguided views. You have the gaul to say anti-TSA folks are whipping the public into a frenzy? It's the other way around!
