• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

  • Total voters
    59
jamesrage said:
My worry is that these unconstitutional searches will be extended to everywhere else and possibly video cameras everywhere. Because terrorists in other countries have blown up everything from bicycles to trains.
Click to expand...

I doubt that you really have anything to worry about. Oh sure you might start seeing a camera on every street corner eventually, but since it is a public place it is to be expected that you wouldn't have any privacy. But for things like putting chips in people and GPS trackers in cars....not going to happen.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I doubt that you really have anything to worry about. Oh sure you might start seeing a camera on every street corner eventually, but since it is a public place it is to be expected that you wouldn't have any privacy.
Click to expand...

If the same people who think the 4th amendment applies only in side your home with the curtains closed justify unconstitutional searches at airports then why would they not apply that everywhere else? After all Terrorist have blown up everything from bicycles to trains, which probably has happened more frequently than just someone flying planes into buildings.


But for things like putting chips in people and GPS trackers in cars....not going to happen.
Click to expand...

I am sure years ago people never thought they would get virtually stripped searched when they are not even a suspect of crime and no warrant at a airport.But they are trying to GPS as a means to charge you extra taxes.

Big Brother is riding shotgun: Oregon blames mandatory GPS for cars on hybrids — Autoblog Green



As for the government mandating chip implants, they will probably find some other way or let the private companies do it for them by implanting chips into their employees.
FT.com / Technology - US group implants electronic tags in workers
 
jamesrage said:
If the same people who think the 4th amendment applies only in side your home with the curtains closed justify unconstitutional searches at airports then why would they not apply that everywhere else? After all Terrorist have blown up everything from bicycles to trains, which probably has happened more frequently than just someone flying planes into buildings.
Click to expand...

Because there is a line where it must stop.


jamesrage said:
I am sure years ago people never thought they would get virtually stripped searched when they are not even a suspect of crime and no warrant at a airport.But they are trying to GPS as a means to charge you extra taxes.

Big Brother is riding shotgun: Oregon blames mandatory GPS for cars on hybrids — Autoblog Green
Click to expand...

The moment they start using it to track people instead of how many miles they drive on the roads for tax reasons then you will have a point. And I will be right there with you in telling them where to shove it. But the gov does need money in order to keep the roads up, and with the increasing usage of hybrid cars on the road how do you expect them to get that money with just a gas tax and still be fair? Believe me I don't like the idea either.

jamesrage said:
As for the government mandating chip implants, they will probably find some other way or let the private companies do it for them by implanting chips into their employees.
FT.com / Technology - US group implants electronic tags in workers
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between the chips in that article and GPS chips. One can track your location, the other has to be read with a scanner. Also even that company does not make it compulsory to have.

If you're really that worried about people tracking you then I have to wonder if you have a cell phone? Every new cell phone now adays has gps trackers in em.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Because there is a line where it must stop.




The moment they start using it to track people instead of how many miles they drive on the roads for tax reasons then you will have a point. And I will be right there with you in telling them where to shove it. But the gov does need money in order to keep the roads up, and with the increasing usage of hybrid cars on the road how do you expect them to get that money with just a gas tax and still be fair? Believe me I don't like the idea either.



There is a big difference between the chips in that article and GPS chips. One can track your location, the other has to be read with a scanner. Also even that company does not make it compulsory to have.
Click to expand...

You must be totally oblivious to how incrementation works. You willingly gave the government an inch and you decided its alright if they try to take a mile.


If you're really that worried about people tracking you then I have to wonder if you have a cell phone? Every new cell phone now adays has gps trackers in em.
Click to expand...


I have a cell phone however its treated like a land line, it doesn't leave the house. Also the battery can be taken out.
 
jamesrage said:
You must be totally oblivious to how incrementation works. You willingly gave the government an inch and you decided its alright if they try to take a mile.
Click to expand...

Nope I know how it works. I'm just not going to read a conspiracy into every little thing that I don't happen to like.

jamesrage said:
I have a cell phone however its treated like a land line, it doesn't leave the house. Also the battery can be taken out.
Click to expand...

And a GPS unit can be taken out of a car to. Even if it is slaved to the computer in the car.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Nope I know how it works.
Click to expand...

Either you do not or you are a liar.

I'm just not going to read a conspiracy into every little thing that I don't happen to like.
Click to expand...

A few years ago we just had metal detectors at airports to see if passengers are carrying metal objects and non invasive pat downs.Now we have virtual strip searches and invasive pat down. You are honestly telling me that after using the guise of using GPS so they can monitor how far you travel to charge taxes that they wouldn't use GPS to monitor where you travel and you do not think that if companies start implanting their employees with chips that government wouldn't make it mandatory under the guise of more secure IDs?



And a GPS unit can be taken out of a car to. Even if it is slaved to the computer in the car.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't the government just mandate that the GPS be embedded into something that can not be taken out of the car or embedded somewhere where someone could not easily get to without spending a lot of money paying a mechanic to do? Better yet equip police with scanners to see if you are driving without your GPS put scanners into the speed trap cameras that automatically notify the authorities you are driving without a operational GPS unit in your car? Perceived incompetence of the government is no reason to let them violate the 4th amendment. These people in the government are not as stupid as you would like to think.
 
jamesrage said:
Either you do not or you are a liar.
Click to expand...

Or maybe I do know and realize that even with baby steps they cannot get everything that they want implemented because they know that the people will eventually say "enough is enough!"? I'll give you fine example of baby steps if you wish. The social security cards. When they came out they said it was just for census purposes. Now you can't do anything without having to provide it.

You don't know me James, don't assume anything about me and I will not assume anything about you.

jamesrage said:
A few years ago we just had metal detectors at airports to see if passengers are carrying metal objects and non invasive pat downs.Now we have virtual strip searches and invasive pat down. You are honestly telling me that after using the guise of using GPS so they can monitor how far you travel to charge taxes that they wouldn't use GPS to monitor where you travel and you do not think that if companies start implanting their employees with chips that government wouldn't make it mandatory under the guise of more secure IDs?
Click to expand...

Part in bold: yeah so? Last I knew going through airport security was totally optional and up to you. Unless you are trying to tell me that you are forced to go through them? If so then I would gladly view such proof.

Part underlined: Oh I'm sure they would use such information. But only if they had a warrant. Which would be perfectly legal as per the Constitution. If they used it for anything else and were found out about it I am quite sure that there would be an uproar. One which I would join.

As for the ID's. Nope. That is just conspiracy talking.

jamesrage said:
Wouldn't the government just mandate that the GPS be embedded into something that can not be taken out of the car or embedded somewhere where someone could not easily get to without spending a lot of money paying a mechanic to do? Better yet equip police with scanners to see if you are driving without your GPS put scanners into the speed trap cameras that automatically notify the authorities you are driving without a operational GPS unit in your car? Perceived incompetence of the government is no reason to let them violate the 4th amendment. These people in the government are not as stupid as you would like to think.
Click to expand...

A GPS unit would have to be attached to the computer of the car in order for it to read the gas milege of the car. If the government were to start using it as you suggest then it would still have to be plugged into that. No two ways around it. It would not be hard to find. This is one of the reasons that a gas milage tax would be unworkable and why I don't support it.

As for police being able to detect it in their cars...not possible. A GPS unit in your car is just a reciever. It recieves the signals from the satellites up in orbit around the Earth and then calculates the transit time of each message and figures out the distance to each satellite. Since the GPS unit is not sending out any signals a cop along side the road could not have anything that they could detect.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Part in bold: yeah so? Last I knew going through airport security was totally optional and up to you. Unless you are trying to tell me that you are forced to go through them? If so then I would gladly view such proof.
Click to expand...

Businessmen often need to go through them, travel to keep their jobs. The issue is the degree of airport security - especially carried out by our FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IMO, optionality or lack therefore is irrelevant, and the TSA needs to have somebody controlling the reigns.
 
Travelsonic said:
Businessmen often need to go through them, travel to keep their jobs. The issue is the degree of airport security - especially carried out by our FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IMO, optionality or lack therefore is irrelevant, and the TSA needs to have somebody controlling the reigns.
Click to expand...

No businessmen needs to go through them. There are other modes of transportation if they have to go somewhere.

And you are of course entitled to your opinion. Being forced to do something and given the option to do something of your own free will makes a big difference on weather it violates rights or not.
 
Being as how i'm new to the site and havn't read the whole thread i'm going to keep this short and sweet and hope no one gets mad.

No one, but yourself can force you to do anything. The only restrictions anyone has are the ones they place on themselves or let others place upon them. If you want to use an airplane as your method of transportation you're going to have to make some sacrifices when it come to privacy, for the sake of your safety and the safty of other passengers. If your not happy with that then simply use another mode of transportation.

As for how the safety procedures are "invasive," last time I traveled by plane I simply had to walk thru a metal detector and place my carry-ons on a conveyor to be scanned. Unless you have something to hide, nothing more would happen.

There are always going to be exceptions. A security officer who's crooked, a faulty scanner, who knows. Murphy's law prevails.
 
kal_daka87 said:
Unless you have something to hide, nothing more would happen.
Click to expand...

Illogical premise - if you take advantage of the social and legal constructs that make up privacy, one is "hiding" things - good, bad, legitimate, or not being moot. Given that, one can't then hold true a statement of absolute in the opposite extreme.
 
Last edited:
Travelsonic said:
Illogical premise - if you take advantage of the social and legal constructs that make up privacy, one is "hiding" things - good, bad, legitimate, or not being moot. Given that, one can't then hold true a statement of absolute in the opposite extreme.
Click to expand...

The point of the discussion is that those "constructs" are being violated. If you try to hide something while going through the basic security measures, like the metal detectors, and it goes off - you are going to be subjected to additional searches.

There is nothing socially or legally that will prevent them from carrying out their searches in the present moment. If the officers doing the searches do it unlawfully or disrespectfully, thats where the legal measures step in, but not until after the fact.

Yes, you have the option to refuse the searches. However, that is at the risk of not being allowed on the plane, losing out on the cost of a usually pricy airline ticket, and possibly being escorted out of the building by police or worse. So again, it comes down to what you are willing to accept.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No businessmen needs to go through them. There are other modes of transportation if they have to go somewhere.

And you are of course entitled to your opinion. Being forced to do something and given the option to do something of your own free will makes a big difference on weather it violates rights or not.
Click to expand...

This is not entirely true, particularly for businessmen. This is due to the length and time scales in our modern world for accomplishing tasks. If some guy in Fort Collins had to go to Denver or Cheyenne; yes they wouldn't need to fly. If on the other had some guy in LA had to go to Chicago, could only leave at most a day ahead of time, and had to be back within 2 days; the only practical resource would be flying. It's the same in many people's personal lives. You have X time off for vacation or holiday; how are you going to spend it? Sure, you can take a train and then rent a car, you can just flat out drive, etc. But if you're on a limited schedule like the vast majority of Americans than you either don't go or you fly. In essence, to move around the country flying is essential. Until there is a time when perhaps we have true high speed rail or some other technology that can compete with flying. Most people are forced to takes flights over other forms of transportation.
 
Ikari said:
This is not entirely true, particularly for businessmen. This is due to the length and time scales in our modern world for accomplishing tasks. If some guy in Fort Collins had to go to Denver or Cheyenne; yes they wouldn't need to fly. If on the other had some guy in LA had to go to Chicago, could only leave at most a day ahead of time, and had to be back within 2 days; the only practical resource would be flying. It's the same in many people's personal lives. You have X time off for vacation or holiday; how are you going to spend it? Sure, you can take a train and then rent a car, you can just flat out drive, etc. But if you're on a limited schedule like the vast majority of Americans than you either don't go or you fly. In essence, to move around the country flying is essential. Until there is a time when perhaps we have true high speed rail or some other technology that can compete with flying. Most people are forced to takes flights over other forms of transportation.
Click to expand...

He still doesn't have to fly via airport. He could...

1: Take a private jet.
2: Take a hired 2 seater plane since those are not subject to the TSA's security measures.
3: Make better schedules so that they can take a car, train or bus to their destination.
4: Quit his job and get one that does not require him to fly.

Flying is not essential to get around the country. There are other options. No one is forced to go through the airport.
 
kal_daka87 said:
There are always going to be exceptions. A security officer who's crooked, a faulty scanner, who knows. Murphy's law prevails.
Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding me of Murphy's law. Most everything that's wrong with our system can be attributed to it.

I don't believe anyone sets out to do wrong or bad things. Uncontrollable circumstances drive them to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do.

ricksfolly
 
I think the body scans and pat downs are too intrusive, especially when they are used on random travellers (not just someone who may have set off the metal detector) or every passenger. They treat everyone as a terrorists without probable cause.

And, they cost more money than they're worth. We pay for all these things, but they can't even prevent every potential terrorist threat, since most of those that have been attempted in the last 8-9 years, the flights originated in other countries that did not have our procedures. And those threats would not have been prevented by any security measure in place. Especially if you take into account that all security measures are public, therefore, all terrorists will know what the TSA is going to be doing to try to prevent them from perpetrating an attack and take appropriate measures to counter those methods. However, some very effect methods against terrorist attacks and even some personal attacks (many of the plane bombings of the 60s were people trying to suicide insurance fraud from my reading), include metal detectors and behavior profiling, along with trained dogs and further screenings when there is a good suspicion that someone might actually be trying/hiding something, not just random searches.

On top of all this, there is at least as much potential of your plane going down due to mechanical failure or hitting a flock of birds as there is it going down from terrorist attack. And, none of this security is even close to being used in other transportation areas where there is the same potential to take out large amounts of people, such as trains, buses, and intracity public transportation.
 
MaggieD said:
Of course, you know your options are loaded. I don't have to tell you that.

So, I'll change them to suit myself. ;-)

Metal detector....everybody.
X-Ray of all carry-ons....everybody.
Additional screening based upon profiling:
Full body scan or --
A pat down as done by police officers when searching for weapons, sans the cavity search.
Click to expand...

They should get rid of those scanners... they don't do anything useful and emit radiation, violate our human rights and dignity, would be illegal if it was performed by someone not given this false authority.

That said, if they are going to do a pat down, I would ONLY put up with the pat down as a police would do it, and that means that can't touch your privates without essentially a warrant and only in extreme circumstances after an arrest. The fact is that more planes crash then are victims of terrorist attack.

Though I am hesitant even on the profiling, THOUGH, the 'profile' should be people that look suspicious... meaning, someone that looks like he's in a gang might be justified in more intensive searches, or people that are acting suspicious... but no matter how you slice it, what's going on at airports has pushed the envelope TOO far.
 
For the record, from what I have read and what I personally know about radiation due to my former occupation, I am not concerned about the radiation the scanners emit. It is insignificant compared to what a person receives in a year and from just flying. I think that these things should be fought on the premise that they are overly intrusive and not worth the it (financially or practically), and the radiation argument should be left alone. It really is insignificant, even if you fly frequently (going through them even 100 times in a year), at least from the amount that the government is saying these things are putting out. If someone could prove that they are putting out more, then it could be argued from a "too much radiation" standpoint.
 
roguenuke said:
For the record, from what I have read and what I personally know about radiation due to my former occupation, I am not concerned about the radiation the scanners emit. It is insignificant compared to what a person receives in a year and from just flying. I think that these things should be fought on the premise that they are overly intrusive and not worth the it (financially or practically), and the radiation argument should be left alone. It really is insignificant, even if you fly frequently (going through them even 100 times in a year), at least from the amount that the government is saying these things are putting out. If someone could prove that they are putting out more, then it could be argued from a "too much radiation" standpoint.
Click to expand...

Yes... the actual radiation argument is not very strong... UNLESS you work for the TSA and are running the scanners... THEN, you are getting a dose of radiation from EVERY scan, and THAT over the course of a year would push a person well beyond the 'safe' exposure limit.

As to your question, if you're going based off the original claims of the x-rays generated, it has come out since then that it's 20 or 50 TIMES what was originally stated, depending on which machine. Further, Napolitano LIED by saying John Hopkins university called it safe, when the doctors actual statement was more along the lines of 'statistically SOMEONE is going to get skin cancer from those machines'.

But ya, the radiation is a weaker argument... one that should be relegated to " ... and also it gives you a dose of radiation"

I would ask though, since you have experience working with radiation, what do you think of the guidelines these TSA agents are following in their use of the scanners?? (Ie : not going to the other side of a lead wall, no radiation badges, no radiation training, etc.?)
 
BmanMcfly said:
Yes... the actual radiation argument is not very strong... UNLESS you work for the TSA and are running the scanners... THEN, you are getting a dose of radiation from EVERY scan, and THAT over the course of a year would push a person well beyond the 'safe' exposure limit.

As to your question, if you're going based off the original claims of the x-rays generated, it has come out since then that it's 20 or 50 TIMES what was originally stated, depending on which machine. Further, Napolitano LIED by saying John Hopkins university called it safe, when the doctors actual statement was more along the lines of 'statistically SOMEONE is going to get skin cancer from those machines'.

But ya, the radiation is a weaker argument... one that should be relegated to " ... and also it gives you a dose of radiation"

I would ask though, since you have experience working with radiation, what do you think of the guidelines these TSA agents are following in their use of the scanners?? (Ie : not going to the other side of a lead wall, no radiation badges, no radiation training, etc.?)
Click to expand...

Well the only dosage I have seen is one that says that a scan gives about 2 microrem of radiation. So even if it is 20-50x that much that would only be about 40 to 100 microrem. The yearly limit is 5000 millirem. So we're talking a very miniscule dosage.

And the farther back a person is from the machine, the less they will be exposed to. When dealing with radiation we always consider time, distance, and shielding. Here is the distance equation.

Distance Calculation

(BTW, the "mR" stands for milliRoentgen which is generally equivalent to a rem, depending on the type of radiation, the calculations do not change however, no matter if you are using mrem or mR)

So, if the operator is 5 ft away from the source and the person being scanned is a foot away from the source, and the source is giving off 2 microrems per scan at the assumed 1 ft away, then the operator is only receiving about .04microrems per scan. This doesn't take in the shielding though provided by the machine itself, since the person being scanned is inside the machine with metal around it, and many things provide different amounts of shielding, depending on the type of radiation. Now, I have no idea what the actual numbers are for how far away the operator is from the source compared to how far away the person be scanned is, but one of the easiest ways to cut down on the radiation received by the operator (if it is a concern) is to change where the operator sits and/or add more shielding to the outside of the machine. Even TSA though, would have to abide by the radiation limits already in place for people who work with radiation.

I wonder who these doctors are that believe it will cause skin cancer. The chances of getting any cancer from even working around ionizing radiation from nuclear power (which are higher levels and doses than these scans are) is only increased by .04% when considering the average dose received by a worker over their lifetime. It doesn't make much sense that such a smaller dosage would be likely to increase the chance of getting skin cancer by any significant amount.

I can understand pilots and other aircrew being concerned, since they already receive a high amount of radiation from the many flights that they do take. So getting extra from these machines would be taking a risk of going over limits (and a huge waste of money), although even for them it isn't likely unless they are pregnant (expectant mothers have lower limits).
 
Kal'Stang said:
He still doesn't have to fly via airport. He could...

1: Take a private jet.
2: Take a hired 2 seater plane since those are not subject to the TSA's security measures.
3: Make better schedules so that they can take a car, train or bus to their destination.
4: Quit his job and get one that does not require him to fly.

Flying is not essential to get around the country. There are other options. No one is forced to go through the airport.
Click to expand...

None of those may be feasible given his circumstance. Point is, without tax payer dollars the airline companies wouldn't be there. We subsidize them, we pay for the airports, we pay for the security. And because we so heavily favor the airline companies than any other form of mass transportation, flying becomes, in any practical sense, the only real option for certain travel. Peope are, in short, forced to go thorugh the airport.
 
Ikari said:
None of those may be feasible given his circumstance. Point is, without tax payer dollars the airline companies wouldn't be there. We subsidize them, we pay for the airports, we pay for the security. And because we so heavily favor the airline companies than any other form of mass transportation, flying becomes, in any practical sense, the only real option for certain travel. Peope are, in short, forced to go thorugh the airport.
Click to expand...

The fact that airports get government money is irrelevant. Government funding in no way gives people the right to anything.

And just because people heavily favor airline travel in no way makes it the only form of transportation or suggests that people are forced to use it. Favoring something does not equal being forced to use it.

Those things that I listed are alternatives and are choices. Just because those choices may not be as nice/good as flying from an airport does not mean that they are not viable.
 
I voted for all the poll options, including "Other".

But I wanted to draw attention to the one right above that, "walking through a metal detector."

It is highly important that there be metal detectors in airports, or when the Zombie Apocalypse arrives, there will be nothing to warn the zombies when a group of survivors tries to sneak up on them with lethal weaponry whilst trying to make it onto the last surviving plane or some such.

Highly important…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom