captainzib wrote:laz wrote: Looks like a waste of money and manpower to me. Is this really going to deter an attacker? It'd just force them to use a body cavity.So who's seen Man on Fire?
Great movie!
I wish...you had...more time.
captainzib wrote:laz wrote: Looks like a waste of money and manpower to me. Is this really going to deter an attacker? It'd just force them to use a body cavity.So who's seen Man on Fire?
Great movie!
I wish...you had...more time.
If any of us had a computer that we used to view images of naked underaged children we would be in jail and once released be on a list for the rest of our lives.
The TSA is a joke, It is a waster of money that we do not have. It doesn't make us any safer.
audifan wrote: I gotta say if you are offended because your a fat bastard or whatever reason then you have two options THE TRAIN or DRIVE YOURSELF
I am neither fat nor particularly modest, and I have a big problem with the TSA's security theater. It's an ineffective bureaucratic organization with reactionary policy that exists to make us feel safer, without actually contributing to our security. As was proven by the thwarted bomb attempt in Detroit on Christmas, the best thing - maybe the only thing - the government has done to contribute to our safety on flights has been to raise the awareness of the passengers. On that flight, the passengers that acted against the terrorist did the job the TSA and many other government organizations failed to do.
I flew over Christmas, for the first time in several years. I resolutely don't like it, for a variety of reasons. I won't be doing it again for domestic travel, if I can at all avoid it. I don't feel good about being forced to abandon my rights and be subjected to the scrutiny of an undertrained, ineffectual wage laborer, working under the misguided direction of politicians.
This security theater does not deter terrorists, as has been proven. They will find their way around it with new tactics, or they will change their targets. In the mean time, I don't feel like sacrificing my rights while the government plays catch-up with their policies.
I'll drive, thanks.
I remember when I worked at the airport as a baggage handler to pay for college. Some of our international flights required us to have the bags scanned before the went on the plane, and this was handled by a private company. The guy who ran the machine was a moron, and routinely just let stuff "slip" because he didn't want to be bothered.
When the TSA was put in charge we were all excited because we'd be rid of this slack-off moron who couldn't care less about his job. His last day with that contract company was a Friday. Monday, he came back, wearing a TSA uniform.
Take it for what it's worth.
If you think the choices are:
then it's time to work on the critical thinking skills and look at the actual risks involved.
Agreed. We should all drive Hummers with 56 airbags at 35 mph - driving is WAY more dangerous than flying on an airplane. Heck, regular driving is probably more dangerous than ACTUALLY BEING HIJACKED. The TSA buffoons have a twofold job - one, as an arm of the federal government, they have an obligation to soak up as much money as possible all while trying to make themselves seem indispensable (ie expanding) all of the time. Two, they have to make flying LOOK safer as a result of recent advances. Even with this naked scanner thing, more people will be pacified than scared off.
This, my friends, is what scares me about the world. The best security in the world isn't going to prevent one prepared individual from taking down a plane. This is all smoke and mirrors, and I value my privacy very much. I won't be flying unless forced to by business with this nonsense.
EricM wrote: Actaully, I have been looking for situatinos where it is legal to show off my junk.
No kidding.
Why are people so uptight about a group of people who were unfit for real jobs in law enforcement examining their genitalia?
If I was Supreme High Exhaulted Ruler Of Earth two things would happen:
All you motherberkeleyers would fly naked, drugged to incapacitation and stacked in crates like your pets. You can fit more people, fire all the stewards and nobody who is unconscious, naked and sealed in a box is blowing the berkeley out of anything.
I would get me an awesome hat like the pope and strut around like the lemur king on that penguin cartoon.
The next step - shove explosives up your butt or wedge them in the "taint" area of your body. "Taint your balls, taint your butt." That area.
Truth is....the TSA is a joke. The stupid human tricks we do aren't working. The two best things ever done for flight security:
The rest is just being jerked around.
Terrorists could surgically install explosive devices in the bodies of suicide bombers. The bombers may not even suspect that their surgery was not performed to fix what ever was initially wrong. A surgically installed cell phone could be used for detonation. If this caused any issues at security, the bomber may just declare it is his "pacemaker".
At the same time, the US could surgically install tracking devices inside terrorists being held in Federal prison. Once these terrorists are set free, we would be able to track them to their buddies.
Hopefully, we get to them first.
all i can think of is the jackass skit with the rubber and the toy car...a doctor and an xray
Xceler8x wrote: - locked cockpit cabin door. - situational awareness for the passengers.
This was mentioned on NPR recently. They said that the biggest effective change in air travel security is the mindset change of passengers. They realize that hijackers now are not looking to fly the plane to Cuba, but rather to blow it up, and so they respond accordingly.
Don't forget, TSA just recently let some guy walk around the security checkpoint.
alex wrote:audifan wrote: I gotta say if you are offended because your a fat bastard or whatever reason then you have two options THE TRAIN or DRIVE YOURSELFI am neither fat nor particularly modest, and I have a big problem with the TSA's security theater. It's an ineffective bureaucratic organization with reactionary policy that exists to make us feel safer, without actually contributing to our security. As was proven by the thwarted bomb attempt in Detroit on Christmas, the best thing - maybe the only thing - the government has done to contribute to our safety on flights has been to raise the awareness of the passengers. On that flight, the passengers that acted against the terrorist did the job the TSA and many other government organizations failed to do. I flew over Christmas, for the first time in several years. I resolutely don't like it, for a variety of reasons. I won't be doing it again for domestic travel, if I can at all avoid it. I don't feel good about being forced to abandon my rights and be subjected to the scrutiny of an undertrained, ineffectual wage laborer, working under the misguided direction of politicians. This security theater does not deter terrorists, as has been proven. They will find their way around it with new tactics, or they will change their targets. In the mean time, I don't feel like sacrificing my rights while the government plays catch-up with their policies. I'll drive, thanks.
I was more under the impression that what saved the passengers wasn't so much themselves as the bomber just plain failing at blowing up the bomb.
Joey
And I don't care much about my privacy very much concerning my body. If someone wants to see my donger with the xray specs, that's fine. I do care about my intelectual privacy and such though. Most people I know are of the "if they wanna see me naked, that's there problem" mindset, or they are attractive enough to not care. I know it's not going to cure planes blowing up, but I don't think it will hurt.
Joey
joey48442 wrote: And I don't care much about my privacy very much concerning my body. If someone wants to see my donger with the xray specs, that's fine. I do care about my intelectual privacy and such though. Most people I know are of the "if they wanna see me naked, that's there problem" mindset, or they are attractive enough to not care. I know it's not going to cure planes blowing up, but I don't think it will hurt. Joey
So if aTSA official took you aside into a room and told you to strip naked you'd be fine with that? There's no room for abuse there, nope.
Now let's expand the analogy and say that terrorists start using car bombs in populated areas,I'm sure you'll be fine with a patdown checkpoint every time you drive into a major city right? After all, driving is a privilege like flying.
...or maybe bombers start taking people out in public parks, you'll be fine with a random x-raying by a policeman correct? Its for safety after all.
We all have our level of tolerance for being intruded upon. Just remember that some people prefer not to have to give up certain levels of physical privacy to random individuals empowered by the state.
Greg, So if I understand your post correctly, given the knowledge that a real threat existed, you would rather be blown up than be subjected to any security that might prevent that happening? That may be fine for you, but I think a lot of people would not be comfortable with that.
I dont see what the deal is , big deal you see outlines or am i missing something . The scary part is the screener touching herself as she watches the screen . Back in the day I used to stash beer and minis in my carry on smiling that I had beat the five dollar beer 
Don49 wrote: Greg, So if I understand your post correctly, given the knowledge that a real threat existed, you would rather be blown up than be subjected to any security that might prevent that happening? That may be fine for you, but I think a lot of people would not be comfortable with that.
Again, it's not an either-or situation.
The comment that the big effective change is in the attitude of other passengers and the reinforcing of cockpit doors is bang on the money.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if airlines were responsible for their own security again. Then travellers could make the determination on whether they wanted body cavity checks or to be blown up.
Here is my peeve.
Why is that if the traveler pays a private company more money (buys first class or buys frequently), then the govt (TSA) will service that customer quicker (first class security line which is shorter)?
There is no such thing as a first class security line. At larger airports you may have a line for flight crew and employees as well as individuals needing special assistance. The only breakdown you will see may be a family friendly line for passengers traveling with children, car seats etc.,an express line for experienced travelers with minimal carry on or items to divest, or a line for passengers designated by the airline for additional screening.
Why is no one on this board screaming about how they're wasting our tax dollars? Frankly, they could spend the money better elsewhere if they actually want to improve our safety. They don't care. They just want to keep jobs and give the appearance of keeping us safe. All they're doing is giving more power to the least effective security checkpoint.
"Oh noes! The terrorists found a way to sneak dangerous stuffs onto a plane by circumventing normal security measures! We need to strengthen those normal security measures!"
It's like saying "Someone smashed a window and broke into my house! I need more locks on my front door!"
At the local international airport, if you fly a general aviation airplane in to catch a commercial flight, you are parked at a separate terminal. You are then met by a single unarmed guy in a van who picks you up and drives you across the tarmac, past all the planes and under the gate concourses. Security hole much?
The best suggestion I've heard so far was to give all the passengers bats on the airplanes. Maybe just stick some billy clubs in the back pockets of all the seats.
Isn't this a board of people who feel like regular people can and should be responsible for taking care of themselves?
Don49 wrote: There is no such thing as a first class security line. At larger airports you may have a line for flight crew and employees as well as individuals needing special assistance. The only breakdown you will see may be a family friendly line for passengers traveling with children, car seats etc.,an express line for experienced travelers with minimal carry on or items to divest, or a line for passengers designated by the airline for additional screening.
That's not true. I recently flew to Australia. We left from DC. In DC there was most definitely a "Flying first class" line. When we bought our tickets they let us know we could pay extra to skip the normal person's line.
Complete bullE36 M3 if you ask me.
Salanis wrote: Why is no one on this board screaming about how they're wasting our tax dollars? Frankly, they could spend the money better elsewhere if they actually want to improve our safety. They don't care. They just want to keep jobs and give the appearance of keeping us safe. All they're doing is giving more power to the *least* effective security checkpoint. "Oh noes! The terrorists found a way to sneak dangerous stuffs onto a plane by circumventing normal security measures! We need to strengthen those normal security measures!" It's like saying "Someone smashed a window and broke into my house! I need more locks on my front door!" At the local international airport, if you fly a general aviation airplane in to catch a commercial flight, you are parked at a separate terminal. You are then met by a single unarmed guy in a van who picks you up and drives you across the tarmac, past all the planes and under the gate concourses. Security hole much? The best suggestion I've heard so far was to give all the passengers bats on the airplanes. Maybe just stick some billy clubs in the back pockets of all the seats. Isn't this a board of people who feel like regular people can and should be responsible for taking care of themselves?
Hey - I complained about how much the cost!
Xceler8x wrote:Don49 wrote: There is no such thing as a first class security line. At larger airports you may have a line for flight crew and employees as well as individuals needing special assistance. The only breakdown you will see may be a family friendly line for passengers traveling with children, car seats etc.,an express line for experienced travelers with minimal carry on or items to divest, or a line for passengers designated by the airline for additional screening.That's not true. I recently flew to Australia. We left from DC. In DC there was most definitely a "Flying first class" line. When we bought our tickets they let us know we could pay extra to skip the normal person's line. Complete bullE36 M3 if you ask me.
anyone remeber clear? http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/06/23/clear.airport.terminated/index.html
Don49 wrote: Greg, So if I understand your post correctly, given the knowledge that a real threat existed, you would rather be blown up than be subjected to any security that might prevent that happening? That may be fine for you, but I think a lot of people would not be comfortable with that.
I would rather take my chances with a mad bomber than have some security guy ogling me. And judging by the reaction I've gotten every time I've gone to check on a suspicious package most people seem to agree.
Acorn wrote:Don49 wrote: Greg, So if I understand your post correctly, given the knowledge that a real threat existed, you would rather be blown up than be subjected to any security that might prevent that happening? That may be fine for you, but I think a lot of people would not be comfortable with that.I would rather take my chances with a mad bomber than have some security guy ogling me. And judging by the reaction I've gotten every time I've gone to check on a suspicious package most people seem to agree.
I don't care if I'm ogled. I ogle women all the time and don't care if someone wants to return the favor. To me this is like carrying a gun. I would rather have the security, and not need it, than need it and not have. And if I get blown up and die because someone else was afraid some tsa employee was going to find out how small his ding-dong is, well, then, I'm going to be pissed.
Joey
You'll need to log in to post.
