Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

Post Reply
User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

Post by Ian » Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:24 pm

Privacy shmivacy. When I fly, I want the aircraft as safe as reasonably possible. The effectiveness of these scanners lies not only in what they're able to see, but what they're able to deter. Would-be terrorists might go elsewhere because they exist. If in the meantime a TSA employee gets to see a momentary x-ray-like image of my twig & berries, that doesn't bother me a bit.

I've flown probably fifty times over the last five years. Going through security has yet to ever make me late for a flight, it has yet to make me strip down in public, and it has yet to confiscate anything from me. If it ever does any of these things, then maybe I'll complain a little about privacy rights when I fly.

User avatar
Ronja
Just Another Safety Nut
Posts: 10920
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:13 pm
About me: mother of 2 girls, married to fellow rat MiM, student (SW, HCI, ICT...) , self-employed editor/proofreader/translator
Location: Helsinki, Finland, EU
Contact:

Re: Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

Post by Ronja » Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:34 pm

Feck wrote:Mind you it's funny because perceived security and real security are different things .
You can say that again. From the experiences of some soldiers on their way home to the US from Afganistan:
So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our Soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the Soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this:

TSA Guy: You can’t take those on the plane.

Soldier: What? I’ve had them since we left country.

TSA Guy: You’re not suppose to have them.

Soldier: Why?

TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on.

TSA Guy: Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets.

Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

Me: Dude, just give him your damn nail clippers so we can get the f**k out of here. I’ll buy you a new set.

Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security]

This might be a good time to remind everyone that approximately 233 people re-boarded that plane with assault rifles, pistols, and machine guns–but nothing that could have been used as a weapon.
Full story here: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/1 ... a-outrage/
"The internet is made of people. People matter. This includes you. Stop trying to sell everything about yourself to everyone. Don’t just hammer away and repeat and talk at people—talk TO people. It’s organic. Make stuff for the internet that matters to you, even if it seems stupid. Do it because it’s good and feels important. Put up more cat pictures. Make more songs. Show your doodles. Give things away and take things that are free." - Maureen J

"...anyone who says it’s “just the Internet” can :pawiz: . And then when they come back, they can :pawiz: again." - Tigger

User avatar
beige
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:52 pm
Location: Bristol, UK
Contact:

Re: Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

Post by beige » Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:39 pm

A couple of weeks after the twin towers went down we were flying back from Germany after visiting Grandparents. My Grandad in his infinite wisdom gifted my mother an old camping stove complete with a calor gas bottle as he no longer needed it. My mother added it to her luggage and it made it all the way through back to England with us.

They made us take off our shoes in Munich in case we had explosives hidden in them, but apparently he cannister of pressurised combustible gas in the cargo hold was inconsequential. My Dad almost had a heart attack when he opened up the suitcase and it was just sat there on top.
In the best laid plans of history lie the ruins of the past
And a chronicle of suffering shows the mythic pall they cast
To believe is true religion, but to see is truth at last
Oh no, too late to hold a trial, time doesn't wait for the watchmaker's dial

Image

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

Post by Coito ergo sum » Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:55 pm

eXcommunicate wrote:
The Mad Hatter wrote:What freedom is being given up?
How about the Constitutional right to unreasonable search, seizure, and the implied right to privacy?
That is certainly implicated here, because we have governmental action here. However, what is reasonable depends on the circumstances and the risks involved. To me - walking through a scanner is not unreasonable, and neither is a pat down, under the circumstances of boarding a flight. I would think it's unreasonable for just walking around the street, but I see it as reasonable if one wants to go into the federal courthouse, the White House, or on an airplane. I think it's reasonable for such a search to occur before getting on a plane because there are very limited other options to ensure that explosives are not making their way onto the airplane on the passengers' persons. And, I do not see post-incident law enforcement and prosecution as sufficient under the circumstances, because there is a significant risk of everyone on the plane, including the perpetrators, already being dead.

With regard to privacy, I don't know of any case or constitutional principle that suggests that one has a right to privacy with respect to a search that is independent from the legality of the search. If the search is reasonable, the privacy right has not been invaded.

However, even if we look at it from a privacy standpoint - we already go through scanners to search for whether we are carrying contraband. The only difference here is that someone may see a grey and fuzzy outline of a body. I view that as minimal, and the objections to it childish. but - reasonable minds can differ on that, and I have heard some pretty loud and emotionally charged objections to being seen. Apparently, there are significant numbers of folks who think that someone seeing a grey and fuzzy image, vaguely outlining their muffin tops or testicles is a very big deal. Fair enough, but I disagree.

As to privacy and the pat-down - nobody was complaining about the pat down before - the only difference here is that their searching in the nook and crannies. I acknowledge that reasonable minds can differ. I just, personally, think it's minimally invasive, a totally big nothing that's over in about 5 minutes after which I can be sipping my pre-boarding cocktail while checking the scores of the game.

I am literally unable to understand, so far, the sheer abject horror expressed by folks at having a pat down where their undercarriage gets a little of the old "how's your father?" I don't understand and can't relate to the sheer terror and traumatic stress being expressed. I have a strong suspicion it is a whipped up frenzy. I don't know, I could be wrong. It's perplexing to me.



eXcommunicate wrote: I realize that we're on Ratz, where members post photos of their fiddly bits for all to see, but some of you seem pretty keen on giving the government the right to do just about anything they well please to your body in the name of "security." How far are you willing to go here?
I am not willing to give the government the authority to do just about anything they well please in the name of security. In the context of boarding an airplane, however, I have no desire to die because some Muslim group objects to the women they oppress getting their fiddly bits touched for a second in connection with a search for explosives. I see no way to, in advance, to distinguish who will be carrying these items, and who will not. I am not in favor of searching only certain races, colors, creeds, or national origins, because that wouldn't be fair, would foment resentment, and is in the long run foolish because if Al Qaeta knows that only Arabs or Muslims got searched, for example, then they'd get a Caucasion to convert and do the deed.

Whatever process that is implemented needs to be fair and equally applied without invidious discrimination.

That being said, I think that not only would I give the government the right to use these scanners at the airport, I wouldn't mind if the image was crystal clear and showed the naughty bits in high definition, provided that the images are not stored unless something is revealed that is problematic. I would be comfortable if the scanners were mandatory for everyone, because pat downs slow down the line, and I want to get on my plane. However, I'm o.k. with the enhanced pat down, because it is just a quick feel about the nooks and crannies to make sure nothing is snuggled up in there that ought not to be. I have no problems with strip searches in private, if the law enforcement agent has a demonstrable and articulable reasonable suspicion that something illegal would be revealed by the strip search. I also have no problem with people refusing the searches in advance of getting in line at security and walking away. They need not be searched - they can go via another means of transportation.

I can't think of anything more the government can do, besides making everyone strip off their clothes. I would oppose that, however, because it looks like the scanner is just as effective as that.
eXcommunicate wrote: The machines have shown up in the wake of the so-called underwear bomber, who tried to blow up a plane with chemicals stored in his briefs. Would this technology have stopped him?
The guys who make the machines have said, "We wouldn't have caught that."
I've heard both claims, that it could have caught him, and that it wouldn't have. I don't think security measures have to be 100% effective in order for us to use them, though. The security we have now wouldn't have caught the underwear bomber either. Hopefully, they will keep enhancing the methods used and the technology until the consensus becomes that we would catch another underwear bomber in the future. One thing is for sure, relying on a passenger to subdue the fucking monster trying to martyr himself for his false deity and worm ridden false prophet with a pig snout and penchant for buggery. I'd rather we try everything we possibly can to keep that evil, horrid, disgusting sow of a human and his filthy cultist friends from getting on the plane, and then send out a notice to the world that if one of those creeps actually does make it on the plane that the passengers are issued a James Bond license to kill and would be permitted to beat the fucking scumbag to death (provided he stops breathing before the plane lands).....oops...did I say that last bit out loud?
:biggrin:
eXcommunicate wrote: Do you think there's been an over-reaction, on the part of the government and the press, to the underwear bomber?
That case was really instructive. Nobody was injured, and the plane landed safely. It was a success!


If that's a success, then I don't want to know what failure is. The plane landed because the bomber was largely incompetent and a passenger had the sack to intervene. Fuck that noise. A success? Bah! It was an abject failure, redeemed by blind luck.

eXcommunicate wrote:
And it was pre 9-11 security that made it a success. Because we screen for superficial guns and bombs, he had to resort to a syringe and 90 minutes in the bathroom with a bomb that didn't work.
The last bit...."bomb that didn't work" did not need to be the case. A reasonably competent person, with some minor planning adjustments, could knock the plane down.

Is the argument now being made that "pre--9/11 security" was sufficient? I'd have to respectfully disagree with anyone making that implication.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

Post by Coito ergo sum » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:00 pm

Ronja wrote:
Feck wrote:Mind you it's funny because perceived security and real security are different things .
You can say that again. From the experiences of some soldiers on their way home to the US from Afganistan:
So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our Soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the Soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this:

TSA Guy: You can’t take those on the plane.

Soldier: What? I’ve had them since we left country.

TSA Guy: You’re not suppose to have them.

Soldier: Why?

TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on.

TSA Guy: Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets.

Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

Me: Dude, just give him your damn nail clippers so we can get the f**k out of here. I’ll buy you a new set.

Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security]

This might be a good time to remind everyone that approximately 233 people re-boarded that plane with assault rifles, pistols, and machine guns–but nothing that could have been used as a weapon.
Full story here: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/1 ... a-outrage/
That''s merely a prime example of government incompetence. The rule needn't be written so stupidly. The law makers and bureaucrats who make rules make them like that because they are generally at best half-way competent. It is one of the prime reasons I tend to start from the proposition that I don't want the government handling things. There are certain things it's shown it can handle, but even then it's generally over budget and late (like the military and space).

But, I wouldn't blame the TSA guy here. He doesn't have the discretion under the law to make the judgment that letting the soldier keep his nail clippers is reasonable in light of the circumstances. All the TSA guy has is a list of things not allowed on the plane, and if he was discovered not following those rules he could be fired. It's the bureacrats who write the rules and the lawmakers who legislate them, that need to use their brains and write better rules that make sense.

User avatar
eXcommunicate
Mr Handsome Sr.
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:49 pm
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Re: Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

Post by eXcommunicate » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:12 pm

Ian wrote:Privacy shmivacy. When I fly, I want the aircraft as safe as reasonably possible. The effectiveness of these scanners lies not only in what they're able to see, but what they're able to deter. Would-be terrorists might go elsewhere because they exist. If in the meantime a TSA employee gets to see a momentary x-ray-like image of my twig & berries, that doesn't bother me a bit.

I've flown probably fifty times over the last five years. Going through security has yet to ever make me late for a flight, it has yet to make me strip down in public, and it has yet to confiscate anything from me. If it ever does any of these things, then maybe I'll complain a little about privacy rights when I fly.
Giving up your rights is okay as long as it's convenient. Understood.
I am literally unable to understand, so far, the sheer abject horror expressed by folks at having a pat down where their undercarriage gets a little of the old "how's your father?" I don't understand and can't relate to the sheer terror and traumatic stress being expressed. I have a strong suspicion it is a whipped up frenzy. I don't know, I could be wrong. It's perplexing to me.
Straw man. There are legitimate privacy and civil rights concerns here. That you so quickly dismiss them is disturbing. If anything, it is you who have hysteria over the possibility of dying from a terrorist attack.

Like I asked before, Coito. Where is your line? Certainly forcefully sedating all passengers would be "safer" as far as preventing terrorism goes. Would you recommend this? Certainly body cavity searches would be a more thorough screening, yes?
Last edited by eXcommunicate on Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Michael Hafer
You know, when I read that I wanted to muff-punch you with my typewriter.
One girl; two cocks. Ultimate showdown.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

Post by Coito ergo sum » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:21 pm

eXcommunicate wrote:It's appalling how much bodily freedom and privacy you guys are willing to give away for "security" that is truly an illusion. None of these procedures will prevent a bomb from getting into the cargo hold.
No single procedure will stop materials from getting on with passengers and also stop stuff getting in cargo holds. I think the stuff getting in the cargo holds needs to be scanned and searched too.
eXcommunicate wrote:
And what if terrorists start hiding bombs up their asses,
At the moment, we ought to be using all the technology we have now, and we should be training screeners to analyze behavior to try to reveal which passengers are likely to be hiding something (Israel does that time of thing). We ought to also be working on technology that can scan the passenger and distinguish between body parts and stuff hidden in it. We should be improving the scanners as fast as possible, so that eventually a single scan would reveal explosives.
eXcommunicate wrote:
would you then advocate your children and loved ones receive body cavity searches from rubber-gloved mouth-breathers before they board an air plane?
Only if there is a reasonable, demonstrable and articulable suspicion that such a search is warranted in light of the circumstances. I would suggest that the option to leave and not board the flight be given first. Right now, if cops have a reasonable, articulable, demonstrable suspicion that a passenger is carrying drugs up their butt, the cops can get a warrant real quick for a body cavity search. Those procedures seem well-suited for explosives shoved up the butt, and I am far more concerned about butt explosives than butt drugs.
eXcommunicate wrote:
Perhaps everyone should be chained to their seats in-flight, catheterized, and administered a sedative for the duration of the flight... for your safety. A backscatter scan or pubic hair sniffer won't prevent a terrorist from blowing himself up at the mall this coming Black Friday, or from blowing himself up IN LINE at the airport before he's even screened.
That's true, but airport security was never intended to protect malls. With your logic, there should be no security because none of it prevents terrorists from blowing up malls. Anyone shopping on Black Friday should be, incidentally, committed to an insane asylum until their dysfunction is cured.
eXcommunicate wrote:

Image

The shoe bomber was not stopped by the TSA. The shoe bomber was stopped by alert and courageous passengers.
Which, I recall, was in a previous post characterized as a "success" of the system by Napolitano. If that's a success, then let's just fucking disband security and let the passengers defend the planes. As we board, a flight attendant can issue us TASERs and nun-chucks.

The new fortified cockpits and vigilant passengers are the best weapons we have against another 9/11. Everything else, so far, has been window dressing. Terrorists don't even have to attempt to stage another 9/11 style attack, when we waste billions of USD on useless procedures that are more designed to catch contraband and placate law abiding citizens than to prevent a psycho from hijacking the plane.[/quote]

I don't see as the Obama Administration has an alternative. It's impossible for anyone to come up with a cure-all for this security problem all at once. So, we can either do nothing and wait for the perfect, flawless solution, or we can do what we can, when we can. The Obama Administration must at least try, no?

Plus, what are they going to do? Pull back on the security now because of protests over modesty? Really? Let that announcement happen today, the Administration rolls back security measures, right? Then three weeks from now even a minor attack occurs, or another bomber tries to blow up a plane. If he succeeds, then there will be a lot of people blaming the fact that security was rolled back. Experts would opine that if the enhanced security measures were in place, we would have at least had a "chance" to catch the guy. Obama would be branded a failure, and a fringe group of conspiracy theorists would propagate the notion that it was actually done on purpose - another "inside job."

In this case, I think there is no alternative but to do everything we can do. As a practical matter, we can't do nothing or next to nothing and wait until the best solution conceivable is offered - it has to be improved incrementally. And, politically, the Administration - which is who controls the TSA and airport security and has plenary authority over what the TSA does, and the constitutional obligation to protect Americans from foreign and domestic enemies. can only shoot itself in the foot (or face) by giving anyone a foot in the door to argue that they could have done more.

If I had to bet, I would bet that after the shoe bomber debacle (not a success, but a stroke of luck). Obama likely made the order loud and clear: You will fucking damn well do EVERYTHING humanly possible to do, or I will cut your nuts (or tits) off!

User avatar
eXcommunicate
Mr Handsome Sr.
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:49 pm
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Re: Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

Post by eXcommunicate » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:24 pm

I don't see as the Obama Administration has an alternative. It's impossible for anyone to come up with a cure-all for this security problem all at once. So, we can either do nothing and wait for the perfect, flawless solution, or we can do what we can, when we can. The Obama Administration must at least try, no?
Just do something, regardless of civil rights and efficacy concerns...? The alternative is to use effective security procedures, balanced with the rights secured by living in a free society.
If I had to bet, I would bet that after the shoe bomber debacle (not a success, but a stroke of luck). Obama likely made the order loud and clear: You will fucking damn well do EVERYTHING humanly possible to do, or I will cut your nuts (or tits) off!
Is this what you call effective policy?
Last edited by eXcommunicate on Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Michael Hafer
You know, when I read that I wanted to muff-punch you with my typewriter.
One girl; two cocks. Ultimate showdown.

User avatar
Thinking Aloud
Page Bottomer
Posts: 20111
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:56 am
Contact:

Re: Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

Post by Thinking Aloud » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:26 pm

eXcommunicate wrote:
I don't see as the Obama Administration has an alternative. It's impossible for anyone to come up with a cure-all for this security problem all at once. So, we can either do nothing and wait for the perfect, flawless solution, or we can do what we can, when we can. The Obama Administration must at least try, no?
Just do something, regardless of civil rights and efficacy concerns...?
If I had to bet, I would bet that after the shoe bomber debacle (not a success, but a stroke of luck). Obama likely made the order loud and clear: You will fucking damn well do EVERYTHING humanly possible to do, or I will cut your nuts (or tits) off!
Is this what you call effective policy?
What do you recommend?

User avatar
eXcommunicate
Mr Handsome Sr.
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:49 pm
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Re: Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

Post by eXcommunicate » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:29 pm

Thinking Aloud wrote:
eXcommunicate wrote:
I don't see as the Obama Administration has an alternative. It's impossible for anyone to come up with a cure-all for this security problem all at once. So, we can either do nothing and wait for the perfect, flawless solution, or we can do what we can, when we can. The Obama Administration must at least try, no?
Just do something, regardless of civil rights and efficacy concerns...?
If I had to bet, I would bet that after the shoe bomber debacle (not a success, but a stroke of luck). Obama likely made the order loud and clear: You will fucking damn well do EVERYTHING humanly possible to do, or I will cut your nuts (or tits) off!
Is this what you call effective policy?
What do you recommend?
I recommend stopping this insane slide towards police state tactics under the cover of the irrational fear of terrorism. Another 9/11-style attack is virtually impossible, due to cockpit security and passenger diligence. No one is going to let terrorists take control of a plane in a post-9/11 world. So that leaves us with bombings or other such acts... acts that we've lived with and effectively minimized for decades before these new procedures were put into place.
Michael Hafer
You know, when I read that I wanted to muff-punch you with my typewriter.
One girl; two cocks. Ultimate showdown.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

Post by Coito ergo sum » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:31 pm

eXcommunicate wrote:[
I am literally unable to understand, so far, the sheer abject horror expressed by folks at having a pat down where their undercarriage gets a little of the old "how's your father?" I don't understand and can't relate to the sheer terror and traumatic stress being expressed. I have a strong suspicion it is a whipped up frenzy. I don't know, I could be wrong. It's perplexing to me.
Straw man. There are legitimate privacy and civil rights concerns here. That you so quickly dismiss them is disturbing. If anything, it is you who have hysteria over the possibility of dying from a terrorist attack.
I don't have any hysteria. I merely weigh the risks and the possible outcomes, and the burden suggested by the scanner and the search. I view the possible outcomes, even though statistically unlikely, as extraordinarily severe (crashed plane, hundreds dead, and another war as the culprits and planners are identified and the US retaliates with vigor). The burden on the passenger is, in my view, light.

It's also not a straw man. I have not attributed an argument to anyone that is not really their argument. I can give you several examples - the guy who freaked about someone "touching his junk" - the woman who equated the pat-down with "rape" and passengers describing the pat down as causing them to start crying and suffer emotional trauma. That is what I have an impossible time understanding. I don't feel that kind of reaction is warranted. And, that's my opinion, and I plainly stated that reasonable minds can differ, didn't I? I plainly acknowledged that a lot of people are very much of the opposite view than I am.

And, don't talk about straw men after you brought up nonsense about strapping passengers tot heir seats and sedating them. If you're concerned about straw men, don't use them yourself. The idea that you can imagine some ridiculous state of affairs like strapping passengers to their seats and sedating them doesn't have anything to do with whether the searches presently done are reasonable.
eXcommunicate wrote: Like I asked before, Coito. Where is your line? Certainly forcefully sedating all passengers would be "safer" as far as preventing terrorism goes. Would you recommend this? Certainly body cavity searches would be a more thorough screening, yes?
I described where my line is in great detail. Didn't you read it? I addressed both of those questions.

User avatar
eXcommunicate
Mr Handsome Sr.
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:49 pm
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Re: Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

Post by eXcommunicate » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:36 pm

I described where my line is in great detail. Didn't you read it? I addressed both of those questions.
Yes, sorry, I did not see it in your original (extremely verbose) replies. As I understand now, your line in the sand is, "Whatever makes me comfortable, fuck everyone else's comfort." Correct?
Michael Hafer
You know, when I read that I wanted to muff-punch you with my typewriter.
One girl; two cocks. Ultimate showdown.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

Post by Coito ergo sum » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:37 pm

eXcommunicate wrote:
I don't see as the Obama Administration has an alternative. It's impossible for anyone to come up with a cure-all for this security problem all at once. So, we can either do nothing and wait for the perfect, flawless solution, or we can do what we can, when we can. The Obama Administration must at least try, no?
Just do something, regardless of civil rights and efficacy concerns...? The alternative is to use effective security procedures, balanced with the rights secured by living in a free society.
No, do something that works as well as present technology allows it to work, and make sure to the fullest extent possible that people don't bring bombs on the plane.

With respect the alternative security procedures you're suggesting, I'd need to hear specifics first.
eXcommunicate wrote:
If I had to bet, I would bet that after the shoe bomber debacle (not a success, but a stroke of luck). Obama likely made the order loud and clear: You will fucking damn well do EVERYTHING humanly possible to do, or I will cut your nuts (or tits) off!
Is this what you call effective policy?
I was writing figuratively. I am sure that the Obama Administration's policies on this are more nuanced than that. I am sure that he was pissed at the shoe bomber debacle - something like that could kill his Presidency.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

Post by Coito ergo sum » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:49 pm

eXcommunicate wrote:
I described where my line is in great detail. Didn't you read it? I addressed both of those questions.
Yes, sorry, I did not see it in your original (extremely verbose) replies. As I understand now, your line in the sand is, "Whatever makes me comfortable, fuck everyone else's comfort." Correct?
Yeah - I got verbose again. Sorry, but I was trying to be complete and illustrate that while I am taking a position that is diametrically opposed to yours, I nevertheless see the reasonable search and seizure issue as being implicated here. I'm not saying your crazy. I'm just saying I disagree. I don't think the scanner and the pat down are unreasonable under the circumstances, and I wanted to explain in detail why I thought that. I think my case is fairly strong. However, I did leave room for the fact that my very indifferent attitude toward being touched or seen may not be shared by most folks. I left room for the notion that I might well be in the small minority of folks who aren't traumatized by having their junk briefly touched (if the process is fair and professional).

I never said "whatever makes me comfortable, or fuck everyone else's comfort." Reasonableness is a very amorphous term, not admitting of a very specific definition when applied to given circumstances. What is reasonable to you depends on the facts and circumstances and what you consider to the risks and outcomes are, and what you consider to be the costs and concerns. Many people can have many different concepts of what the risks and outcomes are, and what the costs and concerns are.

I merely expressed that as for me -what I consider reasonable - the scanner and the pat down are reasonable because they are very short in duration, we already have pat downs (these just go a few inches higher and may be a bit more "searching"), and having someone who doesn't know who you are and can't later identify you see a fuzzy, grey image of your body for a couple of minutes doesn't seem like a huge cost or concern in light of the possible outcome of a downed plane and people dead, and the US bombing some other place around the world to retaliate. The risk of the latter happening is low, but that's not just a fender bender - that is an international incident, heavy loss of life, and potentially the start of a war.

We're already taking a few minutes per passenger on average to handle security, and adding 2 or 3 minutes to that, enhancing the pat down, and adding a fuzzy grey scanned image viewed by someone that doesn't know the passenger and can't identify them later doesn't seem all that unreasonable in light of the possible outcomes.

Yes, I feel the scanners are reasonable - but not because of any flippant off-hand comment about my "comfort," but instead because of a reasoned weighing of the costs and benefits involved with doing the scans/patdowns or not doing them.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

Post by Coito ergo sum » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:59 pm

eXcommunicate wrote:
Thinking Aloud wrote:
eXcommunicate wrote:
I don't see as the Obama Administration has an alternative. It's impossible for anyone to come up with a cure-all for this security problem all at once. So, we can either do nothing and wait for the perfect, flawless solution, or we can do what we can, when we can. The Obama Administration must at least try, no?
Just do something, regardless of civil rights and efficacy concerns...?
If I had to bet, I would bet that after the shoe bomber debacle (not a success, but a stroke of luck). Obama likely made the order loud and clear: You will fucking damn well do EVERYTHING humanly possible to do, or I will cut your nuts (or tits) off!
Is this what you call effective policy?
What do you recommend?
I recommend stopping this insane slide towards police state tactics under the cover of the irrational fear of terrorism. Another 9/11-style attack is virtually impossible, due to cockpit security and passenger diligence. No one is going to let terrorists take control of a plane in a post-9/11 world. So that leaves us with bombings or other such acts... acts that we've lived with and effectively minimized for decades before these new procedures were put into place.
What do you recommend to actually, in the real world, do in terms of airport security? What alternative do you propose.

If you're suggesting that the TSA think of something else - well, I'm sure they've thought about it, and done studies and research, and this is what they can come up with. I can't think of anything else they could be doing to make sure someone doesn't tuck explosives behind their balls and up their butt crack other than to either (a) feel for it, or (b) use imaging tech to try to see it. If you have an alternative that is reasonable, I'd like to hear it.

From your comment above, you seem to be arguing that we just eliminate them and just keep on doing what we were doing. In my view, this is foolhardy because we know, via intelligence gathering in the US, Germany and other countries, that terrorist groups are trying to plan and carry out airline attacks and blow up airplanes in mid-flight. The degree and the determinedness and the increased number of persons who want to do this sort of thing is much greater now than it was in decades past. We can only rely on the incompetence of our adversaries for so long, and in my view the clock is ticking.

We're not talking about just 9/11 style attacks - which were hijackings and suicide flights - we're talking bombs and mid-air explosions bringing down a plane over populated areas such that there may be additional casualties on the ground. So, whether another 9/11 attack is unlikely due to cockpit doors is not determinitive.

And, we aren't just concerned with the the tragic loss of life on the airplane and possibly on the ground below, but there are national and international economic effects (recall, that 9/11/01 cost trillions of dollars) - another attack might also cause economic chaos. Furthermore, there are long term military and international relations concerns - if some guy blows up a plane and can be tied to an Iranian group, or Iran in particular, what would the US do in response? By preventing a terrorist attack over Chicago, for example, we might well be preventing a war.

Even the great peacemker Obama, I daresay, will feel tremendous pressure to act in retaliation to any such attack. The American people were out for blood in 2001 and 2002. Think of what another attack would do to the drum beats of war?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tero and 20 guests