View Poll Results: At the airport, I would rather be groped/searched by

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • a straight agent of the same gender

    5 29.41%
  • an openly gay agent of the same gender

    1 5.88%
  • a straight agent of the opposite gender

    6 35.29%
  • an openly gay agent of the opposite gender

    5 29.41%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: Tsa dadt?

  1. #21
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: Tsa dadt?

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    Armpits? I guess you aren't up on current events. You'll be in for a pleasant surprise next time you fly.
    And gotta love how much people jump onto media hype and story of the day when its something they want to rally behind but decry it at other times.

    The procedure to run the back of the hand up and down the leg, to the groin area, of people in a physical search when one is necessary is not a "current" procedure but one that's been in place for some time.

  2. #22
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:12 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,194

    Re: Tsa dadt?

    Maybe the TSA just needs to hire some grief counsellors.





    Purrrrrrrrs
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  3. #23
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Tsa dadt?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And gotta love how much people jump onto media hype and story of the day when its something they want to rally behind but decry it at other times.

    The procedure to run the back of the hand up and down the leg, to the groin area, of people in a physical search when one is necessary is not a "current" procedure but one that's been in place for some time.
    The new procedure just started a couple weeks ago. Or if it's existed before, then the definition of when a search is "necessary" has changed. Basically, your options now are to have the TSA take naked pictures of you, or to have the TSA manually feel your junk.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 11-17-10 at 11:13 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #24
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Tsa dadt?

    Good grief. At my age, I'm just happy to find somebody who still wants to grope me.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  5. #25
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: Tsa dadt?

    The procedures for the search, to my understanding, haven't changed. These have been the general standard procedures for a physical search for some time. Additionally, its the same search that would happen if you refused to go through a metal detector but still wanted to board, or if you had a medical condition that made it so that you couldn't go through the detector.

    The difference is is that now they have the full body scanner x-rays. And, thus, having new screening methods means people can also now refuse to use that screening method. And just like refusing or being unable to go through screening methods before, the alternative is a physical search or you don't board.

    Flying is not a "right". The X-ray scanners are not like the comic book x-ray specs that give you a playboy-esque view of the person. If you don't want to go through the electronic security system, fine, you still gotta get checked if you want to fly. If you get checked your need to be checked thuroughly and not just given an obvious place that is blatantly being told to you "we will not check there".

    If people have an issue with the x-ray scanners, I get that. I don't agree, but I get it. But this idiocy about "groping" their "junk" is absolutely ridiculous.

  6. #26
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Tsa dadt?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    The procedures for the search, to my understanding, haven't changed. These have been the general standard procedures for a physical search for some time. Additionally, its the same search that would happen if you refused to go through a metal detector but still wanted to board, or if you had a medical condition that made it so that you couldn't go through the detector.

    The difference is is that now they have the full body scanner x-rays. And, thus, having new screening methods means people can also now refuse to use that screening method. And just like refusing or being unable to go through screening methods before, the alternative is a physical search or you don't board.
    That's a pretty big difference. No one's going to refuse a simple metal detector unless they have some medical reason for doing so, but the full body x-rays are going to make a lot of people uncomfortable. And there was nothing wrong with the simpler systems in the first place.

    The purpose of the manual search is not to prevent terrorism. It is to make the alternative to mandatory nudie pictures as unattractive as possible, so that people don't choose it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    Flying is not a "right". The X-ray scanners are not like the comic book x-ray specs that give you a playboy-esque view of the person.
    Would you be so nonchalant about civil liberties if the government wanted to see through your clothes when you enter a shopping mall, or when you walk down the street?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    If you don't want to go through the electronic security system, fine, you still gotta get checked if you want to fly. If you get checked your need to be checked thuroughly and not just given an obvious place that is blatantly being told to you "we will not check there".
    As our security procedures get more and more invasive, determined terrorists will find a way to hide weapons in more and more clever ways. That is, if they really care about making it onto the plane at all...as I mentioned in a different thread, they could achieve the same result (killing a few dozen people and shutting down air travel) if they blew up their bomb while waiting in the security line.

    And not to mention that air terrorism in ANY form is rare enough that it doesn't warrant this kind of invasive security.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    If people have an issue with the x-ray scanners, I get that. I don't agree, but I get it. But this idiocy about "groping" their "junk" is absolutely ridiculous.
    Getting felt up by government agents who have no probable cause is essentially just gratuitous groping. It would be different if they had some reason to suspect a particular traveler of wrongdoing.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 11-17-10 at 01:16 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #27
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: Tsa dadt?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    That's a pretty big difference. No one's going to refuse a simple metal detector unless they have some medical reason for doing so, but the full body x-rays are going to make a lot of people uncomfortable. And there was nothing wrong with the simpler systems in the first place.
    And again, that's an issue with regards to the full body scanners not with the searches. The searches and why they happen has not changed, its the technology before it that has. Complain about that, sure, but the ludicrous notions of "changed" regulations to "grope" peoples "junk" in "sexual assult" is getting idiotic.

    The purpose of the manual search is not to prevent terrorism. It is to make the alternative to mandatory nudie pictures as unattractive as possible, so that people don't choose it.
    So wait, you just spent the first paragraph acting like you read what I said...and then make a statement that basically ignores the actual facts I stated. How is it that a manual search was created years and years prior to the "nudie picture" machine specifically to be able to make the alternative to said future "nudie picture" machines unattractive?

    Prior to the "nudie picture" machines, what as the purpose of the searches then?

    Would you be so nonchalant about civil liberties if the government wanted to see through your clothes when you enter a shopping mall, or when you walk down the street?
    I imagine that if the Government managed to have a legal claim made on the land that said malls were on, had legal regulatory authority over said mall, and had legal claim to the air within the mall, and through all that had a reasonable case for the need of security mixed with other, if less efficient, methods to procure said clothes were available.....yeah, I'd not have a huge issue with it.

    I believe walking down the street one has a far higher level of expected and accepted level of privacy than one does when partaking in a commerical enterprise on government property.

    As our security procedures get more and more invasive, determined terrorists will find a way to hide weapons in more and more clever ways. That is, if they really care about making it onto the plane at all...as I mentioned in a different thread, they could achieve the same result (killing a few dozen people and shutting down air travel) if they blew up their bomb while waiting in the security line.
    Absolutely true. However, what you're arguing is a ridiculous slippery slope. Why have people checked at all prior to getting on a plane, they could just do their act prior to getting on it. Heck, why actually have law enforcement, people will still find ways to break laws. Actually, why have laws, they're just going to be unable to be fully enforced by law enforcement.

    Is it arbitrary to a point to state that the security must begin at "X" spot? Perhaps. However unless there's going to be NO security that spot has to be chosen at some point. The point that the security gets so invasive that its over the line we'll see it having a significant and noticable affect on the actual service being used. Thus far that's not truly been the case.

    Still, my argument has zero to do with the scanner. As I said, that's a whole different fight and one that I'm not nearly as fervent on. I FULLY understand, even if I don't fully agree, with people having issues with that. My issue is with the utter and complete exaggeration, ignorance, misinformation, and gross distortion and overreaction that is taking place with regards to the physical searches.

    Getting felt up by government agents who have no probable cause is essentially just gratuitous groping. It would be different if they had some reason to suspect a particular traveler of wrongdoing.
    Again, you've got an extremely strange definition of "getting felt up" compared to what I know. When someone complains of "getting felt up" the first thing that pops to my mind is not someone clearly telling them before hand followed by running the back of their hand rigidly and mechanically along the outside of their pants.

    Take the body scanners out. What would your solution be if a person refused or wasn't able to go through an X-Ray? Just outright deny them the ability to fly? Allow them to fly without a search? Have a search but specifically avoid any kind of contact with anything considere sensitive in any way? Or just not have any security at all when traveling into government buildings?

    If the issue is the way they conduct the physical search, which has been relatively the same throughout the existance of TSA, then the issue shouldn't be about the body scanners at all. If the issue is about the body scanner then there's no reason to be bitching about "groping" and other such ridiculous notions because that has nothing to do with the body scanner.

  8. #28
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Tsa dadt?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    I imagine that if the Government managed to have a legal claim made on the land that said malls were on, had legal regulatory authority over said mall, and had legal claim to the air within the mall, and through all that had a reasonable case for the need of security mixed with other, if less efficient, methods to procure said clothes were available.....yeah, I'd not have a huge issue with it.

    I believe walking down the street one has a far higher level of expected and accepted level of privacy than one does when partaking in a commerical enterprise on government property.
    It's only government property if the government says it is. Same with airports. For that matter, the same with streets. And since the "expected and accepted level of privacy" is a function of whether or not government agents routinely grope people and/or look through their clothing in those circumstances, this is a circular argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    Absolutely true. However, what you're arguing is a ridiculous slippery slope. Why have people checked at all prior to getting on a plane, they could just do their act prior to getting on it. Heck, why actually have law enforcement, people will still find ways to break laws. Actually, why have laws, they're just going to be unable to be fully enforced by law enforcement.
    The key difference, of course, is that law enforcement reduces crime even if it's not 100% perfect. Whereas airport security doesn't do a damn thing. Has a terrorist attack EVER been thwarted by airport security? It certainly doesn't happen very frequently. All of these high-tech devices are nothing more than security theater.

    As for why have people checked at all prior to getting on a plane: Meh. A metal detector is cheap and quick enough. But I wouldn't really care if they didn't even do that. I reckon I'd be about equally safe on the plane. I ride the metro all the time without going through a metal detector, much less the Federal Nudie Booth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    If the issue is the way they conduct the physical search, which has been relatively the same throughout the existance of TSA, then the issue shouldn't be about the body scanners at all. If the issue is about the body scanner then there's no reason to be bitching about "groping" and other such ridiculous notions because that has nothing to do with the body scanner.
    Think of it this way: What percentage of Americans really care enough about traditional metal scanners that they would refuse them? Probably less than 1%, nearly all for medical reasons. What percentage of Americans might object to government agents oggling their nudie pics? Probably a lot more.

    So what you're essentially doing is implementing an old procedure (the manual junk-touching) in a much wider range of circumstances than before. Of course that's offensive, and an affront to civil liberties. Just like most people don't mind if the highway patrol cops give a suspected cocaine smuggler a full cavity search, but they'd raise all kinds of hell if cops started doing it for routine traffic stops. If they did that, do you think that "the full cavity search has been part of the police repertoire for years" would fly?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 11-17-10 at 03:25 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #29
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: Tsa dadt?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It's only government property if the government says it is. Same with airports. For that matter, the same with streets. And since the "expected and accepted level of privacy" is a function of whether or not government agents routinely grope people and/or look through their clothing in those circumstances, this is a circular argument.
    Um, airports are government property because they're owned or subsidized by the government, not because they just deem it so.

    To go to the store one must walk down the street. To go shopping. To go visit someone else. To go to work. To do ANYTHING outside of ones own land you must enter onto the street. This is a required daily routine action that nearly every single solitary person must indulge in in some way on a weekly if not daily basis and has zero alternatives other than going on those streets.

    This is a far cry from flying, which for most people is not a daily or weekly activity, that can be circumvented by other means such as trains, private jets, or cars, and is not routine for the majority of Americans so does not stand up to having the same reasonable expectation of ease of use as a simple street.

    The key difference, of course, is that law enforcement reduces crime even if it's not 100% perfect. Whereas airport security doesn't do a damn thing. Has a terrorist attack EVER been thwarted by airport security? It certainly doesn't happen very frequently. All of these high-tech devices are nothing more than security theater.
    Yes, terrorists and criminals have been thwarted by airport security. Guns, knives, drugs, and and other weapons or contraband are caught going through check points multiple times per year. Additionally, much like law enforcement, the way it "reduces" crimes is in large part due to the deterent nature of it and the difficulty in making crime be able to happen. The majority of crime that is "reduced" by the nature of law enforcement is not incidents where law enforcement actually stop the crime from happening but rather incidents where the crime doesn't occur when it otherwise would because of the deterent of the justice system and of law enforcement.

    As for why have people checked at all prior to getting on a plane: Meh. A metal detector is cheap and quick enough. But I wouldn't really care if they didn't even do that. I reckon I'd be about equally safe on the plane. I ride the metro all the time without going through a metal detector, much less the Federal Nudie Booth.
    The "Federal Nudie Booth" is not much longer than the metal detector. But alright, we get to the heart of your issue...you apparently think there should be no security for airports.

    Think of it this way: What percentage of Americans really care enough about traditional metal scanners that they would refuse them? Probably less than 1%, nearly all for medical reasons. What percentage of Americans might object to government agents oggling their nudie pics? Probably a lot more.
    Your language in this is so laughable its almost insulting. Please, go put out a playboy type magazine with x-ray images. I'm sure you'll get a ton of cash for such alluring "nudie pics". And indeed, people looking over a rather bland image for anything of question to quickly move to the next one is definitely what I think of when I hear the word "oggling". You're terminology throughout this is nothing but a dishonest ridiculous joke.

    Regardless of more people being annoyed with the body scanners than the metal detectors, the searches that are going on are no different than before and the outrage being levied upon them are ridiculous over exaggerated and filled with astounding hyperbole.

    So what you're essentially doing is implementing an old procedure (the manual junk-touching) in a much wider range of circumstances than before. Of course that's offensive, and an affront to civil liberties.
    If a bunch of paranoid nutball prudes are so scared someone wants to get their jollies off by looking at their unflattering imagine through an x-ray scan for a couple of seconds, ****'em.

    See, its fun using idiotic hyperbole exaggerating language in conversation in attempt to make my point look better by making the opposing side look worse through insulting language.

    Just like most people don't mind if the highway patrol cops give a suspected cocaine smuggler a full cavity search, but they'd raise all kinds of hell if cops started doing it for routine traffic stops. If they did that, do you think that "the full cavity search has been part of the police repertoire for years" would fly?
    And no one is giving full body cavity search for routine traffic stops. They're doing a pat down only after someone refuses to go through the routine stop yet refuses to not relent on attempting to access a secure area. And the reason for the pat down is because a search has to be done that covers the same ground as what the technological search would do.

    So yes, if routine traffic stops gave a damn about what was in someones anal cavity, and they had some way to do it other than physically giving you a cavity search, and you deny them the ability to do that, then yeah...bend your ass over.

    To access the sterile area of an airport your person must be secured. You can do it quickly and with less contact by utilizing the technology that is available. If you choose to forgo said technology you don't get to somehow bypass the fact that your person must be secured. And the only way to do that if you won't use the technology is to do it physically. That is in no way similar in any way to your worthless analogy of comparing a routine traffic stop, which has nothing to do with searching ones body cavity, to giving people cavity searches. But its that kind of over the top ridiculous hyperbole that epitomizes the arguments going on right now and the level of piss poor intellectual honesty that is being put on display with this topic throughout the media.

    You, and others, are acting like you have an issue with the body scanner. But your actions and words speak louder than your protests to the contrary do. Your issue is with TSA and anything that you can latch onto to bitch about it more...regardless of whether its inaccurate, misleading, exaggerated, or incorrect.

  10. #30
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Tsa dadt?

    First: just saw a headline and the head of the TSA does admit the new patdown is more "invasive" than in the past(source).

    Second: The security rules are not there by accident. There are good reasons why flying requires a security check. I doubt this qualifies as a violation of constitutional rights. I think we do at times get carried away in the name of security, but I don't think this is one of those times

    Third: I think after about day 2 of the new procedures, those watching the machine and those doing the patdowns are so bored and annoyed with the procedure they are not getting any pleasure from it.

    I think people are just overreacting way too much over this.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •