|
Originally Posted by tanja
(Post 16595342)
And then you get arrested for indicent exposure. Dubbel moral and safety here.
|
Originally Posted by exbayern
(Post 16591475)
I was referring to Mimi and I being ESL posters. Perhaps my English skills are not quite as strong as yours. I am not misquoting you; I have copied your words each time and certainly have not changed your posts, and as that is a violation of terms of FT I don't appreciate you accusing me of such.
However again, you are absolutely mistaken that ALL passengers during spring break were scanned or searched at YYC during the spring break period. That simply cannot happen without very significant waits; currently a very small percentage of travellers are scanned or patted down and to search all would result in waits of several hours at the checkpoint, and would have been reported in the media as well as on FT. There is also at least one CATSA agent who posts here. I even doubt that for a fixed period of time such as Spring Break the process was changed from random to mandatory as that is I suspect a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and would have received media attention. You say immigration/customs above - the CATSA checkpoint is seperate from the CBP checkpoint. Again, I believe that you may be confused about several points in regards to airport security, and I have done my best to explain it to you. Several other posters have also affirmed what I have written. What I do suspect may have happened is that you or the first member of your party were selected from the randomizer mat, and that you were all directed to the lane for additional screening. It would then appear that 'everyone' was being scanned or patted down because the travellers in that particular lane were being scanned or patted down, even if that really was not the case. I'm not going to go into our correspondences, as I felt that my posts have been used out of context.. but we shall move forward to gain a better understanding of facts.. I for one, don't want to focus on he-said she said.. or get into topical disagreement marathons.. Rather I would like to focus on what we can all agree with.. That the nude-o-scope TSA or CATSA or US Government, or Cdn Government.. or whomsoever subjects us to such scanning.. or whatever vocabulary used.. virtual strip searches.. or physical strip searches.. does not increase safety for passengers.. rather increases inconvenience, and fees for the travelling public.. That is the message I think is clearly conveyed by both of our correspondences.. |
Originally Posted by Ancien Maestro
(Post 16597885)
We'll have to agree to disagree.. I remember things a bit different than what your experiences are..
I will continue to update the information about flying in countries other than the US based on factual information and reports from those posters in whom I have confidence. |
Originally Posted by mikeef
(Post 16595431)
Funny,... I'd think better of the person who chose to opt out.
Mike I try to feel like a poster child for what most of the traveling public needs to learn. |
I gotta say this case leaves me speechless. To conduct this type of search on someone who is clearly not a threat on so flimsy a predicate is beyond abuse of authority. I think it would make a good test case if someone decides to litigate (though ultimately I don't think we would get the right result from the current lineup at SCOTUS).
It is all the more remarkable in a place like Fresno, where people must come through every day with traces of fertilizer on their clothes, bags etc - heck it blows in the wind. As opposed to say, NYC. Unreal. |
Originally Posted by N965VJ
(Post 16596750)
This seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle, but it appears another woman was strip searched in LAX:
A great proportion of the general population hold erroneous beliefs about privacy and identification rights. :( Numerous retail, as well as TSA, clerks have "informed" me that everyone is legally required to have a driver's license, or show ID to anyone who asks: I believe the great majority of them honestly thought they were correct. Much more education needs to be done; insulting or shouting at the ignorant may not be most effective way to accomplish it. |
Originally Posted by Boraxo
(Post 16601706)
I gotta say this case leaves me speechless. To conduct this type of search on someone who is clearly not a threat on so flimsy a predicate is beyond abuse of authority. I think it would make a good test case if someone decides to litigate (though ultimately I don't think we would get the right result from the current lineup at SCOTUS).
It is all the more remarkable in a place like Fresno, where people must come through every day with traces of fertilizer on their clothes, bags etc - heck it blows in the wind. As opposed to say, NYC. Unreal. FB |
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
(Post 16597102)
The point is that if you can't remove a piercing a strip search would be needed to verify it was not a weapon.
Even if your privates are pierced, TSA can not ask or force you to remove the clothing. But if the area can not be resolved, you may be denied entry. In these situation, the best thing to do is explain EXACTLY what his happen to the passenger, and why it is happening. At that point, without asking, the passenger can do several things. They can leave the checkpoint, remove the item, and be rescreened, or they themselves can offer to remove clothing. But again, only if the area cant be cleared. |
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 16603321)
But if the area can not be resolved, you may be denied entry.
|
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
(Post 16603533)
I would like to understand the Constitutional basis for such a denial. It would seem to me that the 14th Amendment (among other things), means that at some point, the checkpoint staff need to "put up or shut up": either prove that the person or their accessible property is a threat to aviation or allow them to proceed. I don't see a mechanism for the government to arbitrarily (and it's "arbitrary" because the procedures for "clearing" are SSI) deny one person access to what others have access to without "due process of law", which would require some level of proof, at least a "preponderance of evidence" that such a person was a hazard.
|
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
(Post 16603533)
I would like to understand the Constitutional basis for such a denial. It would seem to me that the 14th Amendment (among other things), means that at some point, the checkpoint staff need to "put up or shut up": either prove that the person or their accessible property is a threat to aviation or allow them to proceed. I don't see a mechanism for the government to arbitrarily (and it's "arbitrary" because the procedures for "clearing" are SSI) deny one person access to what others have access to without "due process of law", which would require some level of proof, at least a "preponderance of evidence" that such a person was a hazard.
|
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 16603296)
This post really kinda got me thinking. If the part of the statement I bolded is true, how does one know someone is clearly not a threat? If that is true shouldn't the opposite be true as well, that one could tell when someone WAS clearly a threat. Can you tell me how you tell the two apart?
FB Of course, all of this is well off the current topic, which is the propriety of strip searches in a farm town airport for people who set off the fertilizer alarm. I think Bart is the only one who might support that. |
Originally Posted by Boraxo
(Post 16603999)
Underwear and shoe bombers, clear threats to anyone with half a brain. They would have been spotted if they walked thru the portal at TLV, which has trained screeners.
Originally Posted by Boraxo
(Post 16603999)
Senior citizen flying from FAT - not a threat, except apparently to the dumbass TSA drones.
I believe that neither is a significant threat -- not all seniors from FAT, not all nut-cases who'll try to bring down a plane with exploding shoes or underpants bombs. We're wasting billions of dollars every year on something that hardly ever happened and hardly ever would happen if we stopped pouring all that money into TSA tomorrow. The threat of mad bombers bringing down airplanes is minuscule compared to many of the risks that people take every day without giving them a second thought. We're being manipulated by fear. 30,000 people die in auto wrecks on American highways every year. Where's the urgency to fix that problem? We spend less than $900 million per year on NHTSA. We spend over $8 BILLION per year on TSA. TSA would save more lives if they walked away from the X-ray machines and performed heart disease screenings at airports. |
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 16603321)
Even if your privates are pierced, TSA can not ask or force you to remove the clothing.
|
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 16604159)
What do you mean by "can not ask"? I can't think of any restrictions on what you can ask of people.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:06 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.