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

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 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 32 of 32

Thread: Tsa dadt?

  1. #31
    Global Moderator
    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen

    Re: Tsa dadt?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    First: just saw a headline and the head of the TSA does admit the new patdown is more "invasive" than in the past(source).
    This I'll have to look into if at all possible, especially on WHAT has changed and when. I know 3 years ago the physical search checked around the groin area, and used the back of the hands. I've not heard anything in the media to suggest that somehow there is a palm of the hand used now, or that there's further "groping" or prodding or touching beyond running the back of the hand along the legs.

    I know the head of it is relatively new, and I wonder what exactly is the "more invasive" part and if what has changed is actually what the public/media is complaining about or if that's more of a technicality but the guys in damage control
    "I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
    "A court took away a presidency"
    "...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
    It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.

  2. #32
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM

    Re: Tsa dadt?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    Depends where you're flying, how much you're willing to pay, and how quickly you need to get there. If you assume flying is optional and therefore eligible for the maximum amount of government invasiveness, you could make the same argument for going to shopping malls (you could just order everything you need on eBay) and walking down the street (you could live your life as a lonely hermit).

    Where did you get this strange notion that just because there are alternatives to a form of transportation, government can and should make the experience as miserable and invasive as possible, anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    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.
    I didn't ask about contraband. I asked how many terrorist attacks have been thwarted. None to my knowledge. The only two post-9/11 attempted terrorist attacks that I'm aware of were both thwarted by the passengers, not the TSA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    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.
    Except security checkpoints don't actually do that, since as I mentioned, the terrorist could accomplish exactly the same thing by blowing himself up in the security line. There is NO deterrent...except, of course, the deterrent of doing exactly the same thing the latest terrorist attempt did. ONE guy tried to blow up a plane with explosives in his shoes, so now EVERYONE has to take their shoes off. ONE guy tried to blow up a plane with explosives in his underwear, so now EVERYONE gets the invasive genital pictures and/or genital manhandling.

    Way to go TSA. The next time a terrorist has no creativity whatsoever and tries to do exactly the same thing either of those guys did, the TSA will be sure to stop them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    The "Federal Nudie Booth" is not much longer than the metal detector. But alright, we get to the heart of your apparently think there should be no security for airports.
    It's not that I'm opposed to it, I just don't care about the minor stuff like metal detectors. I ride the metro every day with far less security, and so far no one has tried to kill me. The metal detectors are probably a waste of money, but if it makes some passengers feel that they're safe, I don't really care. The choice between genital pictures and/or genital manhandling is a far different matter. This is far more invasive and still doesn't do anything additional to protect people from terrorism, which isn't that big of a threat in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    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.
    A couple years ago I was pulled for one of the random checks at the airport. It was basically just a patdown. A bit excessive and silly, but not really THAT invasive. That is not what they are doing now. As of a couple weeks ago, they feel up your thigh until they meet "resistance" (i.e. your junk).

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    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.
    Well, I guess that's a pretty clear distinction between our views of civil liberties. If your attitude is "bend your ass over" every time an authority figure wants to know what's in your anal cavity, then I doubt anything I say will convince you otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    To access the sterile area of an airport your person must be secured.
    Uh-huh. Remind me again how these new security procedures accomplish that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    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.
    Nah. The TSA, while a silly and ineffectual organization, isn't "my issue." I really don't give a damn about most of the stupid **** they do.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 11-17-10 at 03:52 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

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