"Don't touch my junk!"

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Chris Blount, Nov 15, 2010.

  1. Nov 16, 2010 #61 of 282

    Shades228 DaBears

    Mar 18, 2008
    I think people should go through security like they do in Japan or India and see what it's like there.
  2. Nov 16, 2010 #62 of 282

    RAD Well-Known Member

    Aug 5, 2002
    So, what do they do there for passenger screening?
  3. Nov 16, 2010 #63 of 282

    dennisj00 Hall Of Fame

    Sep 27, 2007
    Lake Norman, NC
    We don't want government in our life, but yet we yell when we need government in our life.
  4. Nov 16, 2010 #64 of 282

    dsw2112 Always Searching

    Jun 12, 2009
    I agree. As someone who spends more of my life than I'd like at an airport I don't see the problem... Flying isn't a right folks.

    For those that have a beef with searching children, you might be surprised to hear that there are a great many illegal weapons found on young children every year...
  5. Nov 16, 2010 #65 of 282

    fluffybear Hall Of Fame

    Jun 19, 2004
    Let us also not forget that many terrorist groups have no problems using children as vessels to deliver their explosives.
  6. Nov 16, 2010 #66 of 282
    Chris Blount

    Chris Blount Creator of DBSTalk Staff Member Administrator DBSTalk Gold Club

    Jun 22, 2001
    Again, easy to say but in this economy?
  7. Nov 16, 2010 #67 of 282
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    People really should already have been saying this since 2001... and really before that back in the 1970s with plane hijackings... but people never learn OR they forget.

    When things are ok, people complain of intrusion... but when something goes wrong, everyone wants to point fingers and blame.

    Remember the people who sued the airlines and our government for "letting" those 2001 crashes happen?

    That is as much a part of the intrusive security as anything.
  8. Nov 16, 2010 #68 of 282

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    Sep 3, 2007
    This entire story is ridiculous. The person involved brought this upon themselves.
  9. Nov 16, 2010 #69 of 282

    armophob Difficulty Concen........

    Nov 13, 2006
    Fort Pierce, FL
    The terrorists have won the war.
    This is just another example of the theater of security at the airports. The bread truck driver or toilet paper supplier behind the scenes does not have to jump through these hoops.
    We are now letting the entire world know that we are terrified to fly without a formal groping of our ball sacks and boobies.
    We have lost the war.
  10. Nov 16, 2010 #70 of 282

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    Sep 3, 2007
    Oh please...what a load of you know what. :rolleyes:
  11. Nov 17, 2010 #71 of 282
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2003
    Actually, a legalized search. Seizure would only be a problem if the screener grabbed the junk - but still legalized.

    It isn't the pat downs, it is the felt ups.

    Unless you work for them, the government didn't make you move 2000 miles away from family. And if family moved 2000 miles away from you perhaps they are sending a message? :D

    My furthest family trip has been under 400 miles (my wife's grandparents). My furthest family lives around 600 miles away (my wife's uncle/aunts) but we don't go to their place ... we see them only wherever the funeral/wedding is. My wife's immediate family is all within 170 miles and my side is all within 60 miles (for my side I'm the one who moved away ... the rest are all within 10 miles of each other). There have been times in the past when the family has been more spread out but our extended family has valued togetherness.

    Especially in this economy. If you don't want to fly for your job I'm sure your employer can find a dozen others willing to do your job, including the flight.

    I had to have a physical for one of the jobs I applied for this summer. It wasn't pleasant having a doctor feeling me up both front and back (I could feel that finger the rest of the day) but it was part of the compromise of wanting to work for that company. If I didn't want to be inspected I didn't have to apply for the job. I'm sure there were dozens of other candidates.

    Employers can be choosy. They have plenty of [strike]cattle[/strike] candidates to choose from.
  12. Nov 17, 2010 #72 of 282
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2003
    A load of truth?

    I wouldn't go to the extent of saying "the terrorists won" but there have been many changes in our trusting society because of said terrorists. There is a general distrust of each other when it comes to anything "threatening". Is that guy taking a photo of a rail yard a harmless rail fan or is he planning an attack? Does the guy in a van at the end of the runway like watching planes take off and land or does he have a missile launcher ready to shoot down the next big plane? Is a guy who Googles "Thermite" or any explosive material noted on the show a fan of Mythbusters or someone who wants to burn/blow something up. Is the farmer stocking up on ammonium nitrate to clear stumps on his farm or to make a political statement?

    The innocence is gone.
  13. Nov 17, 2010 #73 of 282
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    What innocence?

    As I mentioned earlier... why are we locking our doors and windows? Why is home security a booming business? ADT and other companies were booming in home security long before 2001. And how about all the car alarm/security systems?

    Then of course there were all the post WWII bomb shelters... and there have been people urging you to "stock up with water, toilet paper, bread, etc." for almost any Chicken Little scenario. Heck, here in NC any time the weather man even hints it might be cold enough to snow ALL the bread and water and essentials disappear like magic from store shelves!

    Why did people start building homes instead of living in caves?

    LONG before the terrorists, people were afraid of something happening... and wanted to do something to prevent it OR at least appear to be doing something to prevent it... and we have long histories of military and police forces in place to "protect and serve."

    IF you are too afraid to go outside because you think the terrorists will get you... that is when they win! They don't win because you start paying attention and try to improve security... in many cases, security that should have always been a part of the system anyway.

    Why was the Federal Air Marshall program ever scaled back? They had a need for it... they began the program... then years without problems and they scaled it back... worse, they told people they had scaled it back!

    Even IF you decide not to install home security and decide not to lock your doors... you don't put a neon sign out front saying "I'm gone" whenever you leave the house.

    Even the illusion of security helps a little... and actual security helps more!

    I agree that we should be trying to catch people before they get too close... but you can't catch people before they do something... You can't arrest a guy for thinking about robbing you, not unless you can prove he is planning it... and even then, if he hasn't broken any laws in the planning, you have to wait until he breaks some law.

    I do agree, though, that everyone should be subject to the security... not just the passengers. Employees of the airlines and airport should be going through the same security too. IF anyone gets a free-pass end-around from the security measures, then the process is broken.
  14. Nov 17, 2010 #74 of 282
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2003
    Comparitive innocence. I'm not saying that there were not things to be afraid of before ... even irrational fears such as nuclear attack (hint: hiding under a flimsy wooden desk will not save you). Just that thanks to the actions of a few we have overreacted and live in a less innocent world.

    I wasn't alive in WWII but I have seen the "Loose lips sink ships" and other campaigns that encouraged people NOT to trust anyone.

    Are these changes really an improvement in security? Or just a harassment of the innocent who now become victims of the fear of terrorism?

    Do we still have nothing to fear but fear itself?

    I'm not afraid of the terrorists getting me when I go outside or even go to Chicago or another major city. I am afraid of the government getting me and accusing me of high crimes just because I show a little too much interest in infrastructure or drive around a block one too many times.

    Or you have to pass a law for him to break. Try making any threat against the President of the US ... you don't have to have a plan or the means to carry it through all you have to do is make the threat and you will face fines and jail time because someone wrote a law. "Conspiracy to commit ..." is a fairly broad law that covers any planning to commit a crime and is an easy law to break without any action or means to follow through. We're only a couple of words away from thought crimes. Perhaps today you can't arrest a guy for thinking about a robbery ... but you can arrest two guys for discussing how to rob someone. That's conspiracy!

    Perhaps not the same security but at least the identity process. Would even the most stringent passenger security stop a flight crew member from getting on board a flight with a weapon? Especially one licensed to carry a weapon in the cockpit? I suppose we need to wait for said security to fail and a flight crew member be implicated in a terrorist act before deciding if more security is needed. Nine years after 9/11 there has been plenty of time for people to be planted in the ranks of the trusted.
  15. Nov 17, 2010 #75 of 282

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    Jun 6, 2009
    Locks keep honest people honest. No matter how elaborate your security, if someone wants to get inside your home or business bad enough, they will.

    Same with these scanners, pat-downs and other measures. If the scum-bags are determined enough, they'll find a way. Are we ready to be stopped and searched two miles away from the airport so some fool can't self-detonate in a crowd of people waiting at baggage claim?
  16. Nov 17, 2010 #76 of 282

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    Mar 18, 2006
    Actually, it was Tannerite and we did blow some stuff up:



    Our names are now probably on a list somewhere.
  17. Nov 17, 2010 #77 of 282

    durl Hall Of Fame

    Mar 27, 2003
    I understand that there are these new "rules" and there are some that say we can opt out of activities if we don't want to follow these rules. I believe this line of thinking applies in many cases but not all of them...and not in airport security.

    I'm a believer in the "work smarter, not necessarily harder" credo. I want airports to conduct security (preferably their own and not let TSA handle it, but I suppose they'd rather pass liability over to the federal government...) but I want them to conduct it with common sense.

    When I go through security, the agents looks at me and tells me to walk through the metal detector, then I go get my things off the conveyor. They never study ME. They look at "stuff" rather than ask questions that might help them determine if a passenger means to do harm. Instead, every piece of luggage potentially has weapons and every passenger is a potential terrorist. We all know that's not true. It's one thing to be vigilant (and they should be) but rather than cast a wide net that captures everyone, it would be better, I believe, to profile passengers and look for bad people rather than just bad devices.
  18. Nov 17, 2010 #78 of 282

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    Jul 28, 2004
    From everything I've heard and read...that's underway as well. Once key to aming this stuff work is actually the inconsistency...not knowing just how they will check individuals as you approach the TSA area.

    I fly more than most, and again...the whole security/inspection process is alot more hype and worry about something than it really deserves. next year, things will change again, and again the year after that. It's not a static process or the same technology being used all the time in all places.

    I have 0 worries when I fly...other than perhaps the mentally unstable parents of little screaming kids that they let go unsupervised on flights...but my noise cancelling headphones eliminate that problem. :D
  19. Nov 17, 2010 #79 of 282

    Nick Charter Gold Club Member DBSTalk Club

    Apr 23, 2002
    You are right, of course...much better to profile people as Israel does instead of handling our socks and underwear, not to mention fondling our private parts.

    However, the problem is two-fold. One, we have become a pc society in which profiling, a legitimate preemptive strategy, would never be allowed in the US; two, if profiling by careful observation were to be allowed, I do not believe the average front-line TSA screener could be trained well enough to be an effective profiler.
  20. Nov 17, 2010 #80 of 282

    ProfLonghair Hall Of Fame

    Sep 26, 2006
    Doesn't apply to my comment on the above comment. The State Patrol is an arm of the government that built and maintains the roads (or pays the contractors that do, same difference). So, they count as the owners. TSA does not own the airport.

    I am unaware of any federally owned/operated airports. They are either private or owned/operated by a state/city/county type authority.

    Not nearly enough.

Share This Page

spam firewall