Originally Posted By markymouse I do not understand the logic behind the obsession with airport security. Yes, what happened on 9/11 was catastrophically awful. But two things help guarantee that a recurrence is very, very unlikely. Doors to cockpits were reinforced. And crew and passengers have been retrained to not cooperate with hijackers. I know a lot of people disagree, but I think everything else that has been done is just illogical drama. Without the cooperation of the crew, a terrorist on a plane can kill about as many people as a terrorist on a train, or in a theater on a big opening weekend, or in a mall. And a whole lot less than at a sporting event or concert. But no one makes me take off my shoes to go to The Gap. Or x-rays me before I go to a Giants game. If I balk at the people checking bags at Disneyland, no one will threaten to have me arrested and fined $12,000 if I just turn around and go home. But if there is an airport, then its no holds barred. No sense of perspective. Or proportion. The government is in the process of trimming 2 hours off the rest time commercial pilots must take between long flights. That is a very real increased risk to the lives of airplane travelers.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And my skin no likey.> Do you have science behind that (and if so, link please), or your skin just vaguely no likey the idea?
Originally Posted By markymouse I know this is a little off subject. But what's up with this no fly list? If so and so is on a government list as a terrorist risk, why is the response telling them they can't buy a ticket or get on the plane? Why the heck isn't the response being tackled by two or three FBI agents? If a person is a risk, arrest them at your first opportunity. Any list ought to say "Federal arrest warrant issued - contact security immediately." Why are there all these people walking around our country whom the government says are too great a risk to allow on our planes, but no one can be bothered to build a case and arrest these folks? Seriously, I don't get this.
Originally Posted By MisterTophat >>Do you have science behind that (and if so, link please), or your skin just vaguely no likey the idea?<< <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2dtvxms" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/2dtvxms</a> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/25ofw3c" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/25ofw3c</a> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/25gwuam" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/25gwuam</a> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/24oyobr" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/24oyobr</a> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/29eb2vo" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/29eb2vo</a> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/23c533c" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/23c533c</a> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/25l4ghc" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/25l4ghc</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip markymouse says it all and says it well! There are so many easier ways to kill lots of people and cause huge economic loss than with airplanes. Think a bomb on the Golden Gate Bridge at rush hour. Lots of people killed. A cherished national landmark destroyed. Huge travel delays until the bridge is rebuilt with the related economic losses. And our government wants to strip-search kids and old men before they board a plane and we let them get away with it. Hell, it seems most SUPPORT it. What is wrong with people anyway?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "There may not have been mania over it then, but the same concerns about my rights now are the same concerns I had then." Again, concern over rights you THINK you have. "It means that the entire TSA process is all about show. Think Disney on this one. If I'm riding space mountain, I'm being subjected to space theater. I'm not actually in space, but that's the show." Now would be a really good time to acknowledge the concept of deterrence. Be the first on your block to do so.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Sorry... don't buy deterrence. There have also been no terrorist attacks we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. A claim that those actions served as a deterrent is at least as valid as claiming TSA procedures have a deterrent value. Frankly, I don't think either has done much of anything. We have avoided another attack because of much better intelligence and intelligence sharing with other nations. The near success of the shoe and underwear bombers shows that any deterrence value is minimal and uncertain. Actions of alert passengers and airline crew have been much more successful than anything the TSA has done. The failure rate shown during testing of TSA security indicates that it wouldn't be much of deterrence for anyone. If you send 2 or 3 terrorists through TSA security chances are that at least one will get on an aircraft. <<"We test the system. So I know how the system works and it doesn't work," said Congressman Mica. As for the details on the results of that security testing: "That's classified information," said Mica. "But I can tell you publicly that the results that I've gotten, even of late, with this huge bureaucracy, this huge number of employees, even with this advanced technology, the (security test) results are not good." I-Team investigator Stephen Stock asked "I've been told that it ranges anywhere from 75 to 90 percent failure rate?" "Again, I can't quote on that," said Congressman Mica. "But the failure rates are way off the charts. I've alerted the administrator, what we have now as our fifth TSA administrator. And that's another problem, the TSA administrator (position) has been like a revolving door.">> It is truly nothing other than security theater, done at a massive cost in dollars, time and inconvenience to Americans. It is truly no more effective than the cursory bag checks at the entrance to Disney Parks. Of course since there has never been a terrorist incident at Disney Parks either, I'm sure SPP must think they have a darned high deterrence value too. [rolleyes]
Originally Posted By MisterTophat >>Again, concern over rights you THINK you have.<< Or concern over rights you THINK I don't have. Again, I'll stick to the American Citizen Users Manual on this one, but I appreciate the two cents. >>Now would be a really good time to acknowledge the concept of deterrence.<< I acknowledge that the concept of deterrence is a fantistical theory that commonly serves as a fallback to defend the TSA in lieu of them actually providing security. Also, when your goal is to sacrifice yourself in order to kill others, I don't imagine much of anything is an effective deterrent. What's to stop the terrorist from setting off his/her explosives in the screening area? By living on his planet, we need to come to terms with the fact that we might die, and it could be by the hand of some fanatical idiot. Or don't come to terms with it, live in fear.
Originally Posted By Mr X To those who feel they need this security theater in order to feel safe, just keep in mind that while your crotch might have been thoroughly examined, the suitcase under your feet potentially containing a bomb probably wasn't. *sigh* "Millions of boxes are shipped to the U.S. each year, many of those are delivered on passenger flights in which cargo is checked with an electronic system that does not screen for bombs" <a href="http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-chicago/less-than-1-percent-of-cargo-scanned-for-bombs" target="_blank">http://www.examiner.com/homela...or-bombs</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X Should've said "parcel" rather than suitcase...the suitcase containing your personal belongs WAS probably thoroughly sifted through. Glad everyone's okay with it, but please don't pretend this is assuring yours or anyone elses safety...there are far too many gaping holes for that. TSA Theater...everyone clap now.
Originally Posted By MisterTophat Check out some interesting information from TSA's own blog. <a href="http://i.imgur.com/zFrpi.jpg" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/zFrpi.jpg</a> clap clap clap clap
Originally Posted By debtee <"Millions of boxes are shipped to the U.S. each year, many of those are delivered on passenger flights in which cargo is checked with an electronic system that does not screen for bombs" > This is not actually correct. Every piece of cargo in air freight, is now screened for Bombs at point of origin worldwide.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Again, I can't quote on that," said Congressman Mica. "But the failure rates are way off the charts. I've alerted the administrator, what we have now as our fifth TSA administrator. And that's another problem, the TSA administrator (position) has been like a revolving door.">>" John Mica? The same John Mica who has accepted campaign contributions from the private firms who might replace TSA? <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/19/airports-consider-congressmans-ditch-tsa/" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010...tch-tsa/</a> "Or concern over rights you THINK I don't have. Again, I'll stick to the American Citizen Users Manual on this one, but I appreciate the two cents." Golly, but I'm pretty darn sure I'm right. If you can cite me to statutes or case law that talk about the right to fly I'll be glad to look them over. I'm also absolutely certain you won't find any. As for the snarks on deterrence, once we all acknowledge it isn't quantifiable, and I have, then there really isn't any right or wrong answer on it. That's the beauty of it. Deterrence has long been built into the fabric of law enforcement and security. We know it works, we just don't know how well. While my position on this is that it's a necessary evil, the thought has also occurred to me that if these procedures and machines had been implemented something like six months to a year after 9/11, would we have this amount of rancor over this, or would more people decide it is a necessary evil. That we've gone over nine years without another 9/11 speaks to possibly a little bit of complacency that was highlighted as a culprit pre 9/11 as well as gasp, deterrence.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***This is not actually correct. Every piece of cargo in air freight, is now screened for Bombs at point of origin worldwide*** Seriously, you believe that? You really think it is even remotely feasible that every point of origin, WORLDWIDE, is screening every piece of cargo throughly enough to detect each and every potential bomb out there? Well, if so that's pretty freaking amazing. And says a lot about the pathetic nature of the TSA and other airport security teams, when they could allow underwear bombers and shoe bombers and liquid bombers to slide through even though EVERY PIECE OF CARGO is checked all over the world. That sounds pretty specious if you ask me. Just sayin. ***John Mica? The same John Mica who has accepted campaign contributions from the private firms who might replace TSA?*** You are correct in the fact that following the money will get you everywhere. Now, why don't you take a look at what the money trail reveals as far as the makers of the naked radiation machines is concerned, and their connections to Homeland Security. I'll wait.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***That we've gone over nine years without another 9/11 speaks to possibly a little bit of complacency that was highlighted as a culprit pre 9/11 as well as gasp, deterrence*** Another 9/11 is virtually impossible these days due to citizen vigilance (in other words, people will no longer sit still and wait for help in a hijacking, which has been proven several times). You speak in unquantifiable terms, but if YOU were a terrorist, what would scare YOU more...airport security that does silly and reactionary and easy to fool stuff...or a plane full of passengers who would all grab their desert spoons and take your eye out with them if you try anything? Seriously, do you think the security measures really "deter" an otherwise devout and suicidal fanatic? On the other hand, do you think they think they can get away with it anymore inflight? I personally think the answer is obvious, which is why I believe the garbage on the ground is theater and nothing more. You may believe otherwise, but in any case I can't for the life of me suss how humiliating and harassing all citizens in the name of "safety" (which is really nothing of the sort) is in any way necessary.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2dtvxms" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/2dtvxms</a> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/25ofw3c" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/25ofw3c</a> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/25gwuam" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/25gwuam</a> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/24oyobr" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/24oyobr</a> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/29eb2vo" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/29eb2vo</a> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/23c533c" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/23c533c</a> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/25l4ghc>" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/25l4ghc></a> Those articles have an awful lot of "appears to be"'s, "could be"'s and "raise concerns that"'s - not "is definitely the case that"'s. Now, I'm not saying this shouldn't be looked at in more detail. I'm the first to say that the government is not always on the level when they assure us certain things are safe. But this is far from determined, based on those articles you linked to.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <or a plane full of passengers who would all grab their desert spoons and take your eye out with them if you try anything?> Just playing devil's advocate here, but certainly someone will develop a bomb that can be smuggled on to a plane that won't need to be "lit" (a la the shoe bomber) and could be detonated using a cell phone or other remote device. In which case, vigilant passengers wouldn't be able to do anything.
Originally Posted By Mr X Yes, Dabob. They will. That's everything that Maw was talking about. Sometimes bad guys score a win. And, that same guy will have found a way past the TSA Theater Show in order to do it. Maybe by a bomb handoff via an accomplice who works at the airport. Or by figuring out how to get it through the security measures currently in place. Or perhaps by a sophisticated method of figuring out when his package, via postal air mail, will likely be onboard. Or some other way. It has happened before. It will happen again. How many innocent travelers will have to be humiliated, accosted, harassed, and treated like criminals in the meantime is the real question.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, that's the crux of it. I don't feel that walking through a scanner constitutes being humiliated, accosted, etc. I just don't. And there's no way to quantify the deterrence effect. How many irate but unsophisticated anti-government militia-type yahoos and/or vaguely angry but not hooked-up-with the sophisticated terror networks religious fanatics have thought about taking down a plane, but decided not to risk it? We can never know.
Originally Posted By Mr X being felt up is not humiliating to you? having to produce your prosthetic breast? a colostomy bag emptied all over you? Yes, dude, that IS the crux of it...how much humiliation and degradation and TERROR tactics are we willing to endure? I have a kid. I will have to go ahead and demand a stop to the procedure (11K fine be damned) if I see even for ONE SECOND any inappropriate touching going on. Sad to say, this is discouraging me for EVER going back home for a visit (perhaps I can meet up with family in Canada or something).
