|
Originally Posted by FlyingHoustonian
(Post 12296186)
There is a certain subset of people who were always picked last at sports, never were part of a club as a child or teenager, never got to be part of the "cool" group in school, and/or their parents didn't buy them enough toys.
Even though Ron isn't going to answer the question, I'll ask it anyway in hopes someone with a real take on security will respond: If you ever go on facebook, you'll doubtlessly see someone's photo album called "random photos." You might also notice there's nothing random about these. You intentionally brought your camera, you deliberately took a picture at that very moment, and pointed in the direction of something specific. Half the time you're shooting a person making a funny face at the camera (which was their decision--not random). No conscious being can do anything truly random. Spontaneous--sure, but not random. That said, how can "every fourth person" or "people with red shoes" be random? (During gate screenings, one can pretty easily time a "purse dump" so they can position themselves in line between screenings). It may be chance that someone decided to wear red shoes on the same day you chose that as your criterion, but definitely not random that you picked it. What about black or brown? Are you going to bottleneck security lines to screen every person with brown shoes because you picked red yesterday? Remind me not to fly that day. If secondary screenings are going to be truly random and sufficiently transparent to the people whom this government is supposed to serve, the decision to conduct a secondary screening cannot be left to a human.
Originally Posted by TSORon
"as a matter of fact I can’t see any rhyme or reason to most of the whining here, other than it is designed to be destructive to the TSA."
Every morning when the checkpoint opens, two placards, each with a number between 2 and 12 are displayed next to the screener (say, 4 and 11). Each passenger going through the checkpoint rolls two dice in one of the bins. If the passenger rolls a 4 or 11 (on one or both) they get to unpack. If not, they move on regardless of your attitude, their skin color, or what color shoes they happened to wear. It's simple enough even the TSOs and ticketed primates can understand it, transparent enough no passengers can can play the "profiling" card. ...and BTW, the TSA is self-destructive. It doesn't need our help. |
Originally Posted by con brio
(Post 12297107)
I'll admit, I was once picked last for dodge ball.
Even though Ron isn't going to answer the question, I'll ask it anyway in hopes someone with a real take on security will respond: If you ever go on facebook, you'll doubtlessly see someone's photo album called "random photos." You might also notice there's nothing random about these. You intentionally brought your camera, you deliberately took a picture at that very moment, and pointed in the direction of something specific. Half the time you're shooting a person making a funny face at the camera (which was their decision--not random). No conscious being can do anything truly random. Spontaneous--sure, but not random. That said, how can "every fourth person" or "people with red shoes" be random? (During gate screenings, one can pretty easily time a "purse dump" so they can position themselves in line between screenings). It may be chance that someone decided to wear red shoes on the same day you chose that as your criterion, but definitely not random that you picked it. What about black or brown? Are you going to bottleneck security lines to screen every person with brown shoes because you picked red yesterday? Remind me not to fly that day. If secondary screenings are going to be truly random and sufficiently transparent to the people whom this government is supposed to serve, the decision to conduct a secondary screening cannot be left to a human. Okay, Ron. I won't whine. I'll propose a solution: Every morning when the checkpoint opens, two placards, each with a number between 2 and 12 are displayed next to the screener (say, 4 and 11). Each passenger going through the checkpoint rolls two dice in one of the bins. If the passenger rolls a 4 or 11 (on one or both) they get to unpack. If not, they move on regardless of your attitude, their skin color, or what color shoes they happened to wear. It's simple enough even the TSOs and ticketed primates can understand it, transparent enough no passengers can can play the "profiling" card. ...and BTW, the TSA is self-destructive. It doesn't need our help. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to effect change at TSA is to create a massive storm with our elected's clearly stating that enough is enough. Such action will take coordinated effort but it is doable. The only other method and probably one that should be used in conjunction is to refuse to fly until changes are made. When the airlines feel a bigger impact than they are now experiencing they will be forced to understand why they are failing. It's a rough economic market right now but I don't think that fully explains why the airlines are having to continue cutting back on the seats they offer. I believe it reflects a reluctance on the part of many people to subject themselves to being treated like a common criminal by TSA! Public servants my A$$! |
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 12295586)
I disagree. Every time TSA acts inappropropriately - or illegally, as the case may be - a complaint of some form should be registered.
|
Originally Posted by n4zhg
(Post 12298173)
And a copy should be sent to the ACLU.
|
Yes, the partial pat-down by the WTMD operator of a passenger's upper body is policy. It's also done pretty much whenever the WTMD operator feels like doing it, so long as it doesn't go any longer than X amount of time between pat-downs (sorry, the specific number would most likely constitute as SSI). This is all filed away under unpredictable screening protocols.
The bulk-item pat downs for non-form-fitting clothes can also be performed by the WTMD operator, and can also be partial in their scope. Just the front of a passenger's torso, just the back, just the upper body and not the legs, or just the legs and not the upper body. And then, of course, there's also the whole shebang, upper and lower body both. These, however, are not filed under unpredictable screening - the screening is being performed for a specific reason. |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 12298284)
The ACLU is probably too busy trying to free grenade-throwing terrorists to read your letter.
|
Originally Posted by n4zhg
(Post 12298357)
ACLU is specifically asking for reports of TSA employees abusing travelers in the wake of the St Louis incident and subsequent lawsuit.
I guess I'd have to stand on the TSA side of the fence on this one, as they are the lesser of two evils. Maybe if a respectable group with sensibility was involved, we could expect positive results. |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 12298455)
Wow, one group of idiots squaring off against another.
I guess I'd have to stand on the TSA side of the fence on this one, as they are the lesser of two evils. Maybe if a respectable group with sensibility was involved, we could expect positive results. |
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 12298483)
You are really going to cast your lot with the agency that has already been found to have engaged in unlawful conduct by a federal court?
|
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 12298483)
You are really going to cast your lot with the agency that has already been found to have engaged in unlawful conduct by a federal court?
|
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 12298455)
Wow, one group of idiots squaring off against another.
I guess I'd have to stand on the TSA side of the fence on this one, as they are the lesser of two evils. Maybe if a respectable group with sensibility was involved, we could expect positive results. Just who would you consider a respectable group? The ACLU was founded in 1920, this isn't a bunch of amateurs. I may not agree with everything they have done, but they get more good than harm. |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 12298487)
They take away scissors, lotions and gels, not Christmas. :D
They also engage in retaliatory secondary searches, employees who violate the public trust are protected from having their disciplinary actions revealed, they claim to have policies that directly affect passengers but the SOP's are SSI. I could go on but the the question that comes to mind with the TSA is "Who watches the watchers"? Its lawsuits like this that will make the TSA more efficient and ensure that they are held accountable for their failures. |
Originally Posted by con brio
(Post 12297107)
If secondary screenings are going to be truly random and sufficiently transparent to the people whom this government is supposed to serve, the decision to conduct a secondary screening cannot be left to a human.
Originally Posted by con brio
(Post 12297107)
Every morning when the checkpoint opens, two placards, each with a number between 2 and 12 are displayed next to the screener (say, 4 and 11). Each passenger going through the checkpoint rolls two dice in one of the bins. If the passenger rolls a 4 or 11 (on one or both) they get to unpack. If not, they move on regardless of your attitude, their skin color, or what color shoes they happened to wear. It's simple enough even the TSOs and ticketed primates can understand it, transparent enough no passengers can can play the "profiling" card.
Suppose the dice come up 10 ... and then the TSO bumps the bin, and one of the dies flips over so that the sum is now 11. Did the TSO intentionally bump the bin to try and change the outcome of the roll? Suppose the dice come up 11 ... and then the passenger bumps the bin, and one of the dies flips over so that the sum is now 10. If the TSO insists on a secondary screening because the original roll was an 11, is the TSO discriminatory? Suppose the passenger throws the die into the bin ... and one die is resting against one of the sides of the bin in an indeterminate state, making the sum either a 10 or an 11, depending on how you look at it. Who makes the call? Which way? And if the call doesn't go your way, isn't the TSO who made the call biased against you? Throwing dice isn't nearly as easy as it looks. :) |
Originally Posted by magellan315
(Post 12298540)
So you're going to back an agency that has declared large sums of cash contraband. It's not illegal to carry large sums of cash, the TSA seems to make its own legal definitions without any oversight.
Just who would you consider a respectable group? The ACLU was founded in 1920, this isn't a bunch of amateurs. I may not agree with everything they have done, but they get more good than harm. I can't think of a group that would cover this genre of complaint, which is why I simply said more credibility. The ACLU is an extremely polarizing group, which is the last thing you need when dealing with a behemoth. Sometimes people don't care about the message when they despise the messenger. For the record, large sums have NEVER been considered contraband, just an item of interest for law enforcement. Again, I'm not defending the TSA, just stating facts. I would assume that there is a citizen's rights watch group that is more agreeable to everyone. Maybe somebody could chime in with an example. |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 12298883)
In my opinion, the ACLU has done more to harm the U.S. than the TSA. I'm not defending the TSA, I'm simply making a comparison. What we have with these groups are two extremes. One wants total control, the other total chaos.
I can't think of a group that would cover this genre of complaint, which is why I simply said more credibility. The ACLU is an extremely polarizing group, which is the last thing you need when dealing with a behemoth. Sometimes people don't care about the message when they despise the messenger. For the record, large sums have NEVER been considered contraband, just an item of interest for law enforcement. Again, I'm not defending the TSA, just stating facts. I would assume that there is a citizen's rights watch group that is more agreeable to everyone. Maybe somebody could chime in with an example. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:49 am. |
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.