Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Slashdot article on TSA

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 23, 2004 | 4:39 pm
  #31  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 456
Originally Posted by GradGirl
It is none of the government's business if I wear an implanted medical device, have trouble walking, have an intimate area piercing, etc. It is also none of the government's business if I am flying one way, or if there's metal in my shoes. Real threats can and must be identified far away from the airport gates, because aviation is not the only sector at risk. This indecent, inhumane, invasive, repulsive charade should end today.
Actually, it is very much our business as well as the business of the others on the plane. How do we know that a pax alarmed the mag because of their shoes or belt or the countless other tiny pieces of metal they insist is the culprit like bras and wedding rings? Because they say so? How do we know there's not a gun strapped to their thigh or a knife in their sock? What about the person waving their medical card in our face and saying they have a metal knee therefore they shouldn't be screened? We have to clarify that the metal is indeed their knee and not a weapon.
myrgirl is offline  
Old Aug 23, 2004 | 4:57 pm
  #32  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by GradGirl
Here are the suggestions I've been talking about, in a press release and 90-page report from Jim Turner, ranking member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Double the size of U.S. Special Operations Forces;
Agreed
Increase the number of FBI agents by 50%;
Agreed
Create a Director of National Intelligence;
Agreed
Monitor every mile of the U.S. border 24 hours a day, 7 days a week;
Agreed
Secure all unprotected nuclear material world-wide and destroy all chemical weapons by 2010;
Agreed
Screen 100% of all cargo containers entering America for nuclear materials;
Agreed
A Marshall Plan for the Middle East to create a middle class and a regional common market;
Disagree, we need to take care of our own people first.
$10 billion global alliance for improving education for Arab children;
Disagree, we need to take care of our own people first.
Hire and train an additional 500 Arabic speakers at the State Department over the next 3 years;
Agreed
Double the number of exchange program visitors from the Arab-Muslim world;
Disagree, we have enough problems keeping track of the people here.
Increase the Peace Corps to 25,000 volunteers;
Agreed but not for just the Middle East
Create a U.S. Reconstruction Corps ready to deploy to post-conflict zones;
Disagree, we need to take care of our own people first.
Triple funding for U.S. democratization efforts world-wide; and
Got us in trouble already
Promote one year of national service for all young Americans.
Agreed
TSAMGR is offline  
Old Aug 23, 2004 | 4:59 pm
  #33  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Programs: AA EXP/Marriott Plat/Hertz PC
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by myrgirl
Actually, it is very much our business as well as the business of the others on the plane. How do we know that a pax alarmed the mag because of their shoes or belt or the countless other tiny pieces of metal they insist is the culprit like bras and wedding rings? Because they say so? How do we know there's not a gun strapped to their thigh or a knife in their sock? What about the person waving their medical card in our face and saying they have a metal knee therefore they shouldn't be screened? We have to clarify that the metal is indeed their knee and not a weapon.

Some people's knees are weapons.
whirledtraveler is offline  
Old Aug 23, 2004 | 11:40 pm
  #34  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: MKE, formerly the closest FT-er to LAX
Posts: 715
Originally Posted by GradGirl
I think medical privacy is in shambles when people are explaining their devices, drugs, and medical conditions to uniformed government officers.
No one is ever forced to disclose any medical condition.

Originally Posted by GradGirl
I think searching people's belongings is a crude and ineffectual response to the threat of international terrorism.
You are entitled to that opinion. But, you should realize that 30+ years' worth of court precedent, federal law, and political reality are stacked against you.

Originally Posted by GradGirl
I think I shouldn't have to discuss or reveal my travel habits within the U.S. to government agents, absent any suspicion of me personally.
You, yourself, are under no obligation to disclose your travel plans or habits to the government unless you are stopped, detained, or arrested. However, there is no legal privacy right as to information kept by airlines. Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but as of now your individual rights are not being infringed.

Originally Posted by GradGirl
Now that we have that out of the way, let's talk about tradeoffs between liberty and security.
I'm always willing to discuss this topic. My opinion is that the current screening process, combined with more stringent rules as to prohibited on-board items, is an improvement over the same pre 9-11. It is not *perfect*, but an improvement. And, I view screening not as an infringement on my liberty, but as a protection of my right to move about the country without criminal interference.
mizzou65201 is offline  
Old Aug 24, 2004 | 3:23 am
  #35  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ATL
Programs: Delta DM, Marriott Plat, SPG Gold
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by GradGirl
Could you buy audio and video monitoring for the same price tag? I wouldn't think so, but let's talk. Depends upon the details.
I would think not as well... I guess my point was that surefire, flaweless intelligence is probably not within the pricetag or invasiveness that we're willing to tolerate.

Originally Posted by GradGirl
Here are the suggestions I've been talking about, in a press release and 90-page report from Jim Turner, ranking member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security.
Interesting reading, thanks. I browsed the press release, and many of the points sound good to me (others not so much). Don't have time to read the full report now, but definitely interested in reading it later, though.

However do you not think that proper passenger screening is a requirement?
ChrisAtlanta is offline  
Old Aug 24, 2004 | 7:25 am
  #36  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by mizzou65201
I view screening not as an infringement on my liberty, but as a protection of my right to move about the country without criminal interference.
^ Thank you
TSAMGR is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

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.