Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Chris Blount, Nov 15, 2010.
Oh please people. Seriously, get a grip. It's a voluntary procedure which you have to opt into.
Per my update post #211...not to worry....
All the drama will go away soon.
TSA pulls pants off 71 y/o man with knee implant, girl with leg prosthesis
Absolutely disgusting! :down:
No it isn't.
Unless you consider attempting to fly a crime.
One can be "randomly selected" at any airport for the TNA treatment. IIRC 3% of the flying public is now subject to this legalized groping. And once you're selected, you're selected. No "opt out". One cannot just say stuff it and walk away without facing arrest and a hefty fine. It is simply a game of Russian roulette. Eventually everyone will be felt up or face the consequences of refusing.
The only way to win is not to fly.
It is voluntary because you arrived at the airport. To un-volunteer at that point will cost you an $11,000 fine.
These people did not opt out of the porno scan, they were singled out due to beeps and bumps the scans produced.
It is voluntary. It is not molestation. It is a simple pat down. Get over it.
Cops do it every day...Where's the outrage?
By every nuance of the word, it is not "voluntary". Giving blood is voluntary; helping out at the old folks home is voluntary. Being forced to accept a physical assault as a condition of flying is not voluntary.
If you believe that having your jewels fondled, rubbed and polished by a stranger with a badge and an attitude is just a "simple pat down", then go right ahead and submit. Personally, I think it is a gross invasion of privacy perpetrated by an out of control government.
You've apparently already surrendered your pride as well as your privacy -- how much more are you willing to give up to get a little security?
I worked with cops, rode along with cops, and watched book ins with cops. They NEVER grabbed someones jewels. They pat down pockets, they run down pant legs to make sure nothing is stuck around your legs, but NEVER have I seen a cop grab someones junk in a pat down. Now, if they suspect you are HIDING something, they take you into a PRIVATE room, where a cop of the same sex has you display your open cavities, but the COP never touches them.
I think he's saying flying is voluntary...which is a choice. Also, the pat down is voluntary because you're only patted down if you refuse a backscatter X-ray scan.
Our airport has no x-ray scanner. Its pat down or dont fly.
Ive also read where 3% of passengers are patted down even if they go through the scanner.
Or are randomly selected ... or if the scanner sees something the screener doesn't recognize (like a prosthetic or urine bag, etc.).
Cops grab the groin area all the time on pat downs. Turn on Cops, watch them grab the crotch of a suspect.
Below, 1:40 mark he says, "groin."
hahaha, said it, but didnt do it. They sure dont do it here.
I found a list of the 68 airports with scanners: http://www.geekosystem.com/which-airports-use-full-body-scanners/
It happens ...
:lol: I was going to post that, too, but didn't want to break a rule. :lol:
The big picture is the groping fear is to insure compliance with the porno scan which was sold to the TSA by a former employee's company Rapiscan.
And as Stephen Colbert said " I hope it is not pronounced rape-i-scan".
I empathize with the people having their prosthetic inspected... but, what might you be able to hide inside a hollow one? And how long before terrorists start recruiting people with a prosthetic to the cause? And the first time a plane goes down because a guy had a bomb in his prosthetic leg/arm, you can bet there will be a line to blame the airport, security, and government for allowing it through.
That's part of the problem... and I keep saying it... The same people screaming they don't want these intrusive security measures are the same people who scream when someone is able to sneak something through. You can't have it both ways.
I also empathize with the searching of children... but we also know there are those who will use children as tools. I don't know what the answer there is.
Ultimately I think we are going to be forced to decide one thing or the other:
A. Keep increasing security to more intrusive, slow, and potentially offensive measures to catch each new kind of threat and damn the consequences.
B. Back off on most of the security, agree to accept that some bad people will get some bad things through and some people will die.
When posed that way, I guarantee more people would opt for B and then immediately whine that they didn't go for A when something bad happens.