Community
Wiki Posts
Search

videotape a patdown

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 22, 2004 | 8:05 am
  #31  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,343
Originally Posted by myrgirl
We're not talking about the technical medical definition of breast here and you know it. We're talking about the commonly known perception of the breast, or as GG accurately phrases it "the part the bathing suit covers." This screener is not touching any part of this woman's body that would be covered by an average, normal, everyday modern bathing suit or in other words - the part that sticks out.
Where you people (...sounding like Ross Perot for a second ) really screwed up is that you failed to understand that your TSA "textbook" definition of what constitutes a breast or genital doesn't mean a rat's eyelash to a person undergoing a pat-down, especially one for no good reason, such as "continuous screening" or a "random secondary."

You can split hairs all you want. But, if a person believes you touched them in an inappropriate manner, you touched them in an inappropriate manner -- period. You can't make this issue go away.
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Dec 22, 2004 | 2:55 pm
  #32  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by myrgirl
We're not talking about the technical medical definition of breast here and you know it. We're talking about the commonly known perception of the breast, or as GG accurately phrases it "the part the bathing suit covers." This screener is not touching any part of this woman's body that would be covered by an average, normal, everyday modern bathing suit or in other words - the part that sticks out.
Problem is, most bathing suits nowadays show a good portion of a female's breasts..
d_jedi is offline  
Old Dec 22, 2004 | 3:20 pm
  #33  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,441
Originally Posted by myrgirl
We're not talking about the technical medical definition of breast here and you know it. We're talking about the commonly known perception of the breast, or as GG accurately phrases it "the part the bathing suit covers." This screener is not touching any part of this woman's body that would be covered by an average, normal, everyday modern bathing suit or in other words - the part that sticks out.
Let's put it this way: if you touched me in this manner I would file a complaint against you.

Now, if you ran the palm of your hand across my upper chest parallel to the floor, that's a different matter.
red456 is offline  
Old Dec 22, 2004 | 3:28 pm
  #34  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 898
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
You can split hairs all you want. But, if a person believes you touched them in an inappropriate manner, you touched them in an inappropriate manner -- period. You can't make this issue go away.
Well put!

Person's body is private. All of it.

Consider this. Some people choose to cover their faces because of their religious beliefs or to conceal a disfigurement. It is their choice. It must be respected. So face is, in fact, a private area. Clearly, same argument can be applied to touching.

Personally, because of my background and experience, I am very intense about the issues of liberty and privacy. I take exception with any secondary screening unless there is some level of individualized reasonable suspicion. By reasonable suspicion I mean an WTMD alarm, a hard to resolve image on the X-ray, or some other objective, clearly articulated reason. "Hunch" does not count, wearing baggy clothes does not count, flying one way does not count, etc.

Here is another question to ponder. TSA says that pat-downs are necessary to keep bombs off the airplanes. However, they only subject a percentage of people to it. Credibility gap already. Take it one step further. Suppose that a person, selected for seconadary, actually is a terrorist with a bomb. Does anybody seriously think that this person will quietly walk over and submit to secondary screening? More than likely, this person will detonate the bomb right then and there. So, in ortder for this "security measure" to be effective the person suspected of carrying a bomb must by physically restrained. I don't think anybody will agree to that. Airports would be empty.

So, what do the pat-downs really accomplish? IMO, the answer is: "Nothing."
PoliceStateSurvivor is offline  
Old Dec 22, 2004 | 3:41 pm
  #35  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 20
Bravo, PoliceStateSurvivor!
Wondering is offline  
Old Dec 25, 2004 | 3:44 pm
  #36  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SEA
Programs: NW Silver Elite, Starwood Gold Elite
Posts: 160
Originally Posted by red456
Also, a good hint for getting through: wear your pajamas and slippers to the airport, put your clothes through the machine, get them on the other end and go change in the bathroom!!!! Apparently, it's a procedure lots of college kids are using.
These days I usually fly wearing pajama-like surgical scrubs and thin-soled sandals. This has always gotten me through security quickly (except the one time I got SSSS'ed due to a one-way ticket). The only thing is I'm often asked if I'm a doctor, or if I just got off work.
deephouse 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.