Sexurity screening....?
 

I dont know about you.....but this just seems a bit too invasive. I mean...come on, it seems she even flashed them some totty to prove she didn't have a boobie bomb.

http://www.10news.com/news/3799783/detail.html

Woman Upset With Screener's Request To Feel Her Breasts
Kingsford Drives Home Rather Than Submit To Airport Search

POSTED: 8:55 am PDT October 11, 2004
UPDATED: 3:15 pm PDT October 11, 2004
SAN DIEGO -- A woman said she drove home from Denver rather than submit to what she viewed as an intrusive search by airport security screeners.

Ava Kingsford, 36, of San Diego said she was flagged down for a pat-down search at Denver International Airport last month as she prepared to board a flight home with her 3-month-old son.

Kingsford objected when a female screener with the Transportation Security Administration told her, "I'm going to feel your breasts now."

"She was patting me down, and frisking me, and basically covering all parts of my body, my legs, and wanding me with the security wand. And when I thought she had completed her search, she looks at me and said, 'I'm going to be feeling your breasts now,'" Kingsford said. "I was stunned, and I said, 'I beg your pardon?!'"

Kingsford said when she told the screener that she was uncomfortable with it, more security agents and police officers arrived. They told her that she couldn't board her flight without submitting to the final step of the search.

"I was shaking, I was sobbing. I couldn't believe that this was happening to me. It was surreal. It was like out of a movie, with these guys yelling at me, telling me that, yes, she has to feel my breasts or I'm not getting on my airplane," Kingsford said.

Do you think a TSA screener went overboard by asking to touch a woman's breasts during the secondary screening process?
Yes. This is unnecessary. You can see explosives or other hidden devices just by pulling a shirt tight.
No. In this day and age, screeners have to be more vigilant, and a full pat-down search of women requires going beneath, between and above the breasts.


They took her to a private area to continue the search, but she said she was still uncomfortable with them touching her breasts so she tugged down her shirt to show them that she wasn't hiding anything.

"And then they said, 'That's it. We're not going to complete the search and you're not boarding your plane,'" Kingsford said. "They escorted us out and said they didn't care how we got home, it wasn't their problem."

She and her fiance ended up renting a car for the 15-hour drive home.

The Transportation Security Administration said its screeners did nothing wrong.

The agency announced extra security measures last month in the wake of the mid-air bombing of two Russian jetliners. Authorities believe two women smuggled explosives onto the aircraft, possibly in "torso packs" underneath their clothing.

Bob Kapp, customer service manager for the TSA in Denver, said that to conduct a thorough pat-down search of women, "it does require going beneath, between and above the breasts."

Kapp said a few people have been a little bit alarmed by the procedure. But he called it "a sign of the times" that is probably here to stay.

Kingsford said she's anxious about boarding another flight any time soon.

"I don't see how they can get away with feeling women's breasts. I don't see how they can say it's part of their new security policy. It's an infringement, a violation, in my opinion. It's just wrong," Kingsford said.

Kingsford said she had nothing to hide, and the TSA agents could plainly see that.

"I was wearing a pretty form-fitting tank top. There's nothing really to be hiding. You could see my figure. I didn't have any packs. She had patted down my torso. She had completed the torso pat down and wanded me with a security wand but some reason she said she wanted to see my breasts," Kingsford said.

"It was uncomfortable and I felt violated. And the way we were treated when I didn't concede was like I was a criminal. It was an awful experience," she said.

Sobbing? Oh grow up lady... I'd be willing to be she's majorly overly dramatizing this event... Boo hoo for her --please never fly again - please...

Maybe she thinks she's uber hot and the female security guard just wanted her...

Y'know, I was just beginning to feel that I was going overboard with trying to avoid flying in this country, then this happens. :mad: Why anyone would put up with this, I don't understand. Next, they'll want to do cavity searches.

As far as I'm concerned, if they're not going to strip everyone naked for every flight, and perhaps doing cavity searches on EVERYONE, perhaps giving them paper clothing for the duration of the flight, then they have no cause to do less. It's either worth doing, or it's not.

I was flying back from ft lauderdale last summer....the plane had been delayed 3 hours...I had left all my stuff with a friend in the bar and gone back out to smoke...of course that airport doesnt have a smoking room on any concourse like Atlanta does so I had to completely go outside and go back thru security to get back in...didnt think it was a big deal...made it thru fine the first time.

When I went back thru I set off the alarm, where as I hadnt before, and had to submit to a personal search where I summarily got felt up when it turned out they figured it was either my piercings or my underwires that set off the wand, and they "had" to check my boobs.

Its not that big of a deal...I wasnt traumatized by it...she needs to get over it...there is a time a place to make a stance, and in my opinion its not when you're facing the alternative of spending 15 hours in a car with a 3 month old.

I'd have to say that she is over dramatizing as Mal pointed out. Did they need to feel her breasts? I'd say no unless there are people using breast implant bombs now? :hmm:

My underwire bra sets off the scanners at some airports (some are more sensitive than others, which is one concern) Whenever I am frisked, it's always by a female (my one major temper tantrum in an airport was caused by them not having enough female screeners, my flight was being called, and the male screeners werent allowed to touch me) She tells me what she's about to touche before she touches and she most always runs her hand under by bra -- It's so NOT a big deal...

And they don't "feel", the same way you'd "feel" a woman's boobage area... all they do is run their hand over the area - generally the back of their hand...

She's got her 15 minutes of fame...

Making a stand in defiance is an important thing... cutting off your nose to spite your face is just stupid.

a moment of discomfort instead of renting a car 1 way for a 15 hour drive back home... that's not cheap. didn't get on the plane, forfeited airfare... that's also not cheap.

I hope that she got her money's worth... if it was skogafoss, we'd weigh the options of the costs (car, airfare, time, lost trip) vs. the "humiliation" and decide at that point.

well ths woman is obviously a stupid moron and I cant blame her since she is blonde.(Im not saying all blondes are dumb but she tops the cake) She has to be one of the stupidest blondes I have either talked to/heard about/or read about. If touching my crotch helps protect passengers on a plane and gets me to where I need to go safely then by all means grab the schlong and lets move along. Security is an issue now a days with everything going on so if you are avoiding flying becuase you dont want to get "touched" then you have issues you need to deal with. If you cant see that this is for our protection then you need to open your eyes. It may seem its getting out of hand but if it makes it safer to fly why not do it.

It's not for our protection. It's to make us feel like they're doing something, which they are: they're taking your civil liberties. What if I'm not really a fat man? Maybe it's all make up and I've got a bomb. You let the thin edge of the wedge in, and you'll lose your freedoms next. The terrorists won. I wish people would realize that, when they give up the very freedoms the terrorists were against, in the name of "protection", that they've given in.

Maybe she had something she was "hiding" under her boobs...something not terroristic but something illegal.

if it was all make up then it would appear via wand and metal detector. also frisking a human body doesn't feel like a person in a fat suit.

They've done that to me before---and funny it was at the Denver International Air Port (i have family there). They pulled me to the side and the female that was frisking/wanding me said .. "Ma'am, I'm going to have to feel your breasts now. I know this is uncomfortable, but It has to be done" I didn't know what to say. I just froze. She patted them down really quick and it was no big deal, IMO. It was just really embarrassing because some people heard her and looked over.

We have to have security though, especially these days.

Personally, I'm more than happy to give up a few rights if it means saving a dozen lives. I can't imagine how many planes would blow up if we didn't have thorough security right now.

dude denim, I think you are just to anal about this. What would you do if you got on a plane and every single person had a strip search and the one person who doesn't get their crotch/boobs checked has a bomb and blows up the plane...what then? NOTHING becuase your ass would be dead....if security has to search every single frikin hair on my head/body to make sure it is safe to fly then damnit they will do it. It's not saying terrorist's won, its saying I want myself and others on the plane to be safe and have a safe flight.

While I usually complain louder than anyone at the ineffectiveness of airline security, I know what I have unintentionally "smuggled" onto planes, against what I have gotten confiscated (confiscated -- plastic knife, taken on board -- 6 inch chef's knife - on the same flight the same day same guard -- saw one didn't see the other - I had honestly forgotten it was there until I got home and unpacked my suitcase)

I have no objection at them taking extra precautions, and taking extra care, I do not see at all how it's an infringement of my rights to be patted down, I make the choice to fly, I make the choice to go thru airline security, it's up to me to abide by their rules. Are they just supposed to give me a pass because I "look" honest.

All I have to say to this is...AMEN

1) The security in airports sucks ass. They haven't done jack in terms of effective security.

2) "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
-- Benjamin Franklin

denim, because you took the train down to NYC during the last meet, did you think that was safer or less rights infringing because you weren't subjected to a search?

I'll remind you of Madrid 3/11 and Colin Ferguson on New York's Long Island Rail Road.

I'll agree that security hasn't improved since the 70's.

As far as 2. I'll take that from a different point of view. Giving up the right to travel freely because the same security that has been in place since the 70s has been upgraded is the person who is giving up the essential liberty.

Heh, I've had my pony tail checked occassionally... :)


No argument from me at all, but I keep hoping they're trying - least they better be, with the number of miles I log a year.

Where is it written that going thru an airport, ounimpeded, an essential liberty? Or any place for that matter, one of my clients has an remote office in a courthouse, that I go to occassionally, I've been going there for five years, and go thru massive security hoops to get thru the front door.

Amen. So there's at least one person who understands what I'm saying. I guess we'll just have to protect the sheep.

I'm not sure I completely understand your response. Are you being sarcastic about taking our civil liberties being taken from us?

We were not the ones who flew a few planes into the World Trade Center. Because of a few wacked out terrorists, we all need to be a little more cautious, a little more protective and a little more patient with the new way we have to live our lives. If you don't like it, don't get on the fucking plane! Now you can go on living the rest of your lives being bitter about the extra security at airports, bitter about your civil liberties being taken away, or you can get over it already and realize it won't change to satisfy YOUR heirarchal needs.

I'm not as interested in "security" as I am in security, and I'm not at all interested in the BS they pose as "security" in airports. On a train so far, I've not been subjected to any kind of rights violation except for their check of ID, which is not truly necessary but which I have a harder time bitching about, though I'd like to. As far as I'm concerned, the State has no right to ID me, inspect me, violate me, or anything else. If they have that right, then they have the right to do it ALL, and in that case, they should if they're serious about security. But they're not, as shown by various people who get through with such, as Mal said, above.

All they're doing these days is getting us ready for a more thorough violation later.

Was he the guy who defended himself, or some psycho? I don't try to keep track of 'em.

Yes, you have the right to be ridiculous.

See the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution for that one.

I was thinking the same exact thing but with not so many big words. :D If you can't summit to the new way of life then you obviously need to not leave your house because it can only get more cautious every where you go. If you have to give up liberties to be more safe or feel more safe why not. Why be a complete moron and fight being safer? That sounds stupid to me but that is my opinion.

Not even a little bit. I've never been more serious.

I only get on planes these days when it's too far to drive or I don't have time to get there by another method. What's your point?

I'm all interested in it being 100% thorough. When i lived in Singapore everyone had to go through thorough bag inspections and chemical swab checks. It added lots of time to boarding but that's their protocol.

I'd love for it to be that way because it's exactly like you said, it's everyone, but that's where the problem is. Someone like Mal travels weekly and that would be detrimental to her ability to work as it would remove alomst 1 days work time from her schedule.


Colin Ferguson is the guy who defended himself claiming "Black Rage" he killed 9 people on a commuter train in 94.

My point is we are doing the best we can with the current sign of the times. I don't think my civil liberties are being taken away in the least bit because they have to pat me down before entering a plane. I think people are making a big deal about it just to hear themselves talk sometimes. If people, in general, are not happy with the screening process, or would be offended from having someone pat them down for possible explosives, then stay away from airports. It is a choice, not a civil liberty.

Amen to that....take the frikin bus or car...damnit by all means walk your ass to where you have to go. I get tired of listening to people complain about the security now a days. Yeah it isnt the best but atleast its something. If you choose to not fly because of getting pat down then that is your problem but dont complain about it becuase you "DONT LIKE" the fact that you have to be touched now to board a plane. Gawd this whoel "I dont like and I dont feel" crap pisses me off!!!!

The constituion and the bill of rights does not apply to private companies, private groups, or private property.

I'm quite serious about that statement. If I was to give up my love of traveling, the nation and the world, then I'd be giving up an essential liberty. I don't see it any more invasive than it was in the 70s and 80s. It's just not behind closed doors, it's out in the open.

Hitler disarmed the populace in the name of their "security." The term Schutzstaffel, or SS, is roughly translated to "homeland security."

From another website:

I don't buy the argument of security over rights ANY day.

As much as I don't want some moron poking around my junk before I get on a plane I'll tell each of you this:

It's a lot less uncomfortable than HAVING YOUR PLANE SLAMMED INTO THE SIDE OF A BUILDING! maleficent is spot on Get over it...

He's talking about searches of one's person without probably cause.

This is not Germany, and Bush, as much as I dislike some of the decisions he has made, is not Hitler. One "homeland security" was used to cleanse an ethnic population, the other "homeland security" was used to protect our transportation, borders, and people from terrorism. How can you possibly compare the two?

ROFL....some people dont care about being uncomfortable because they would rather be stupid and do the hard thing by just avoid flying and drive 8 hours instead of a take a plane that will get you there in 3. They dont want to feel like they are losing their rights because someone has to feel their junk but to each his own. Some people are stupid like that.

You're right in that Bush is not Hitler. However, once power is given to a government it is extremely difficult to take it away. Our founding fathers knew this, and that's why they originally created such a limited federal government and included the right of the people to bear arms. Incidentally, the SS originally did all the things you say our dept of homeland security is in place to do - in fact, that's precisely why it was said to have been created.. All it takes is one "aspiring man" to gain control now, and who knows. Our descent is not nearly as fast as others have been in the past, but it's happening. And, no, it won't be as "evil" or bloody as those in the past. Our descent is of a new breed - one of government supported corporate pseudo-slavery.

Science fiction is just that - fiction - but it tends to always have a basis in truth. We didn't go to the moon by being shot out of a giant gun, but we did go to the moon. Likewise, our "1984" will be and is becoming much less overt and clear, but it's coming no less.

I agree, except there is a huge difference in a democracy and a dictatorship and the "aspiring person(s)" who run either. We have this little thing called an election where people vote for who they want in power for the next 4 years. If you don't exercise that power, which by the way is one of our civil liberties, then the so called "descent" you talk about will not be the fault of our leaders, but the fault of the people who truly hold the power.

well according to DHS Rail security is coming too....they ran a 30 day pilot program back in may to start preparing for it

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display...9&content=3529

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display...0&content=3842

and this part of the program from july

Hitler was voted into office.

This is already happening and has been for some time.

calm down bro :thumbsup: some people are naturally going to see things different. You can't get mad at them for it..it's' what makes society unique. Everyone has a different POV. Sure security is a necessary thing.. but as others have pointed out sometimes the line can be crossed and our liberties are trampled on.

I know, but when you travel every week of every month of every year and every time you hear someone grumbling in the background it starts to get irritating..LOL

I'll give a hearty AMEN to that... (and it's usually the "amateur" travellers that cause all the lines at security -- but I could rant for hours about that)

amateur travellers....a.k.a. people who have not yet been desensitized by the loss of their rights preventing unreasonable search and seizure.

OK, so I'm desensitized -- but how is it unreasonable?

I think it's more unreasonable that I have to go thru metal detectors and seperate myself from my bag if I ever want to set foot in the sears tower and walk 10 feet to the Corner Bakery sandwich place.

But to get on an airplane? I don't consider it unreasonable.

When they can tell me, as the constitution requires, EXACTLY what they expect to seize and why they suspect that I must have this item on my person, then it's reasonable. And the fact that I have metal on my person is not "probable cause."

SM70, I usually value your opinion, but I can't agree with you on this stance. You are using the Constitution, in particular, Amendment IV to defend a petty nuisance at most. The probably cause exists in EVERY person thay they select for screening. Remember Richard Reid? Remember the shoe bomb that only needed a match or butane lighter to blow the entire plane to pieces? How many lives does it take for people to realize we don't live in 1776 anymore. We need to incorporate laws and amendments into the Constitution to reflect the way we live our lives today. They don't need to tell you EXACTLY what they expect to find, because frankly, no one knows. They know anyone can pose as a threat and they need to treat everyone as such. Or, we will end up having more Nicole Millers. Nicole was a good friend of mine who died on flight 93. If a little extra searching of my person will save just 1 more Nicole Miller, I'll drop my pants at the airport anyday.

When the Constitution is successfully amended, I'll stop complaining. Until then, the fourth amendment is still there in that very wording. And I don't think anyone's going to get the constitution amended to say that the government has the right to search people arbitrarily because "anyone" can be a threat.

Who's to say it stops at airports? Anyone could be storing stockpiles of chemical warfare in their garage. We just don't know. I guess we should randomly search people's garages as well since anyone could be a terrorist. No particular reason to think they might be, just that ANYONE could be.

It sounds ludicrous, but it's very similar logic. Once rights begin to be violated it starts a very slippery slope.

I am not a criminal and I have a right to not be treated as one until they have reason to suspect me of being one.

It takes just one moron or one asshole to change that.. did you not get recess, art in the afternoon, playtime revoked as a kid? it took just one idiot to ruin it for everyone else. I see no difference here.

That may be true but anyone can say they aren't a criminal and still do something against the law. Shoot, even criminals say they aren't guilty of their crime so what is the difference if an inocent person like yourself saying they aren't a criminal and the next day they have a bad day and go postal on the post office?

If you search one person then search everyone if it means safe traveling for all. The constituation is barely even followed now a days anyways so why stick by something that the court will just manipulate or find loop holes to get around? Justice is a rare thing these days..... :hmm:

I just read I think yesterday that some 10 or 12 year old girl shot her mom in the face while she was sleeping because she didnt like being grounded....WTF is up with that...anyone no matter age/race/etc can be a asshat so if it can start that early why not take every precaution now??

I've flown 120 segments per year on Delta (Delta gets you there --- eventually) for the last five+ years. This quote is sooooo definitely true. The "amatures" are the absolute worst. The people who think they can still take scissors on a plane in carry on baggage, the people who get indignant because they have to take their shoes off or the ones who get even more indignant when they don't remove them and get selected for the double-sphincter test are horrendous. It's not that hard to get through the line and if you get selected for additional screening -- suck it up and again consider the potential alternative.

/begin official rant
When I get on a plane being operated by a private carrier like Delta I have the right to expect that they in conjunction with the regulators controlling the operation of private commercial aviation have done everything in their power to ensure that I arrive safely at my destination. If you don't like the inconvenience that you must go through to get past the screening, if you feel like you are being looked upon as a criminal, if you feel like you just can't get past the idea that you are UNTRUSTED until screened then please ... do us all a favor and take the damn bus. There are too many ass-hats in that line to begin with so if you are not capable of learning the rules and how to make them work for you instead of against you the by taking the bus you'll make flying easier on all of us.
/end rant

Oh yeah....if you think flying in the US is difficult -- try sneaking your don't wanna be screened whinny ass onto an "El Al" flight out of Israel. :lol:

The difference between a criminal who says they are not guilty and me is that there is probable cause to suspect the person of the crime before they are treated as a criminal.

As for the recess, etc example, that's irrelevant because recess is not a right.

And we don't take every precaution now because then we would have a police state and no one would have any rights because we all "might be" criminals.

As a side not, I find it **EXTREMELY** sad that someone is arguing that "the constitution is barely followed these days" anyway so that it shouldn't matter.

I guess I should just give up and start working on the Newspeak dictionary right now if that's the position we're supposed to take.

dude your missing the point....it doesnt matter if we are taking every precaution now or not...the fact of the matter is that they are doing something now...they are atleast trying to do something to limit problems.

If you can't take the fact that it is barely followed then you need to open your eyes a little bit more. I deal with criminal cases all day long and I see it so live with it or move IMHO.

I dont fly as often as you or Mal...but I do have the intelligence to have the forethought to check airline websites and the TSA website to see updated lists of procedures and what is and isnt allowed in the airports and security checkpoints Im going to be going thru.

Its so hard for some people to exercise a little common sense......and Im sorry I dont consider it a violation of self to be screened that way when you're going to be sitting in a metal tube with no escape with 100+ people you've never laid eyes on before.

I just don't get your reasoning SM70. Would you prefer another 20 planes go down by the hands of terrorists so your rights won't be violated? Because something was added to our constitution in 1776 (when there were no fucking planes in the first place) you are willing to see more Americans die on our own soil? You want everyone to be presumes innocent until the bomb in their shoe goes off and kills everyone on the plane?

You make a comparison to someone's garage? No one's garage blew up and destroyed the WTC, nor did someone's garage fly around the country with targeted sites in mind. My friend Nicole was not in someone's garage when she died in Pennsylvania.

These are modern times with modern terrorists, with modern means to blow every last SOB in America to kingdome come. Can't we apply laws and amendments to fight these people? I am glad you are proud of your constitution and what it stands for, but this is 2004 and we need strong rules and regulations in place to protect us from 2004 dangers.

We know you are not a criminal, but they don't. It is the element of the unknown that justifies their need to search EVERYONE equally.

Actually, it's the job of the citizens to not live with it and fight for change. Again, hence the right to bear arms - if all else fails, we as citizens have the ability to forcefully effect change. Thomas Jefferson himself believed that revolutions were necessary from time to time to keep government in check. Personally, I'd like to fight for it through non-violent means.

The government only has power in so much as we give it. Demokratia - people power. WE are the government, yet our collective apathy has turned that upside-down. WE have the responsibility to make sure that the government respects our rights, not the responsibility to "live with it or move."

I have a car. People - many people - have used cars as weapons. Let's ban all cars, or require searches for all people before they enter their cars. Or perhaps lie detector tests installed in cars that you have to state you will not intentionally use the car for a murderous purpose before you can start it? I fail to see the difference.

Innocent until proven guilty. Should we get rid of this too?

The only way to have true security is through the destruction of freedom. Our founding fathers felt freedom was more important than security, and I still do. If you want security, stop letting your government piss off the rest of the world.

Actually, it's perfectly legal and none of our 4th amendment rights are being violated. Why? In the past, the Supreme Court has declared it legal for anyone to be subject to a pat down search without a warrant because of the threat of air piracy. They issued the opinion that the airport security checkpoint is an "emergency search" because of that threat of air piracy.

I totally agree that they're putting on nothing more that a show to give America a warm fuzzy feeling that they’re being made more "secure" when in fact, hundreds if not thousands of people by now have gotten past TSA wonders and nothing is being done about it. As a pilot, I deal with those brainless fuckers every day I go to work and I dread every minute of it.

they require searches of all cars that park in our parking garage.. here in NYC and in LA.

Same applies in Kansas City aswell...Anything can be used as a weapon and thats why they invented criminal background checks/drug testing...etc...now a days everyone is guilty till proven inocent. fly same flyguy, I thank you guys/girls each time I fly...great job

Ok, we have Highway Patrol, City and State police, traffic lights, now cameras at intersections, etc......we have ways to try and effectively patrol the roads and individuals cars. They do what they can with what they have.

You are trying to find examples to compare to the airline industry and you can't equate anything with them, mainly in part because we have not had to deal with such a threat before. They are trying to do what they can with what they have as well.

SM70, I am not happy with it either, but I have to accept the fact that we need to change the rules a little to apply what is currently going on in our lives. If I didn't like what they were doing on planes, I would never fly again. That's my choice too.

You make it see like there is a better way to handle the situation. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

Listen, we have highway patrol, etc, because those are methods to monitor automobile usage without violating rights. When you drive your car, you are assumed to be innocent of wrongdoing until a police office sees you swerving, speeding, or what have you. Find a way to do the same for airplanes. Off the top of my head, air marshalls would help out in this regard - LOTS of them. No sense of security is worth my freedom.

correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like SM and Denim seem to be saying (boy this could be ugly) that when a country is constantly monitoring and for a lack of better terminology "freaking out" over every little thing that could "possibly" happen; then the terrorists have accomplished a huge feat. They have made us forget how strong we are, they've made us forget our freedoms and they've made us scared. I see what both parties are saying so I'll just be content to add that POV. Secret if I'm wrong then feel free to bash it.. we already had our own private debate heh

they have air marshalls, maybe not on all flights like they should but they have them....toss out another idea :)

Yes, I know we have air marshalls, and they're the only viable option really, so we need more. Get them on every flight. Other than that, there are few options that are not harmful to our individual rights. And, again, my rights trump security, so you gotta work with what you've got. Make planes physically more difficult to hijack, get more air marshalls, arm the pilots. These do not affect my freedoms.

Another option is privately run security. I should mention that. Then they can set whatever arbitrary rules they want regarding searches.

good idea on the private security.....that could be something they could work really well.....well time will tell what happens so lets pray for the best.

We're not being "screened" by private companies/groups/property, but by the Federal Government, to which the Fourth Amendment applies specifically. Try again.


It wasn't done AT ALL as far as I know in the 70s or 80s except in very unusual circumstances. All they did back then was put people through metal detectors.

I was thinking of the white guy who blew some punks away on that same train, who was villified for defending himself. Ah well.

So why are you reading this thread? :D

Yes, and that happens all the time, y'know? Oh sure, there's no pink elephants around now, so I guess the pink elephant repellant is working.

Honestly, this is one of my major reasons for WANTING BUSH OUT OF GOVERNMENT.

Hitler wasn't Hitler until he was. What's your point?

so having kerry in office is going to stop airport security screening?

According to history, a warm body democracy is always followed by dictatorship.

Fair enough. When it was private, everyone screamed that it wasn't consistent or good enough, thus the TSA was born, that's the way that I recall it. Maybe federal mandates and guidelines for those private companies to do so, which I understand is starting to happen as smaller airports.

maybe i'm confusing my international travels but I do recall some invasive searches after the Lockerbie incident.

that was Bernard Getz and that was the subway in the middle of the night. Colin was during rush hour on the way home.

Yes, I'm aware of it, but it's a known waste of time. All the terrorists have to do is attack the system outside of the train itself. Trivial. There is no way to secure the rail system.

that is true but it should be noted (possibly sooner) that the United States is a REPUBLIC not a democracy. now carry on :thumbsup:

We see eye-to-eye on this. I haven't been commenting on your posts 'cause it'd just get repetitive. :)

I strongly disagree that it's a petty nuisance. After that, we just have to agree to disagree.


Yeah, he was a moron who got through security anyway. So, what about the next moron who gets through the security by doing something they're not looking for yet? The actual security was the people on the plane who didn't let him do what he wanted to do: they stood up for themselves. There is no other real security.

Excuse me, but is that what it sounds like, a cavity search? So they really are doing that to some people?

I see, so planes were being blown up every day before they started this bs, then? FEW is the number of the
"asshats", or society would have fallen apart a long time ago.

You're damn straight I won't fly El Al! I've known about that crap for decades. I used to know a woman who was strip searched by them as a 9yo! I'll NEVER fly there.

No, they're doing something to appear to be trying to limit problems. But the effectiveness of what they're doing is minimal. If what they were doing was (1) actually effective, and (2) done to everyone, not just randomly selected people, THEN I'd have less of a problem with it.

I see the fall of the US Constitution as the end of this grand experiment, and am looking for a new place to live. If you accept it, I just find that sad.

Yes. And yes. If we have no principles, why are we telling everyone we know what's right?

You've got it right. I've nothing to argue with or add there, off the top of my head.

They started with that, and it wasn't good enough for some people, being rather uneven and confused, so they required the Feds to do it. :(

So what I want to know is if this is wrong......are we just supposed to let anybody on a plane with absolutely NO screening?

No, that's not what I'm looking for. Both candidates suck ass totally, no question. However, keeping Bush sends the signal that we like what he's done. I won't send that signal for anything. I can only get rid of one candidate at a time though, so Kerry will have to wait for the boot until 2008.

That's how I recall it too. I'm not saying that private security would necessarily be better, but it wouldn't violate the 4th. And if different companies did it differently, I could base my selection of airport or airline by which kinds of security they used.

I can't do anything about what goes on in other countries. I can't vote there. I can vote here, at least.

Yeah, that sounds right. I'd've given Getz a medal and dropped the matter. (shakes head, grimacing)

It's a Republic with warm body democracy. I'm missing what you're telling me. Guess I should break out a dictionary. (breaks out a dictionary) Okay, I guess I'm still missing your point.

In an ideal world, yeah. In this world, I already suggested one screening method: strip EVERYONE down to skin, privately, allow them paper coverings for use on the plane, then give them their clothes back after they arrive, with their luggage. No carry-ons with very rare exceptions only with an appropriate license. I don't have a solution for the cavity search problem. Seems to me there'd be a way to deal with it if we wanted to make the effort to figure it out.

That could be added to the method from "The Fifth Element", where once loaded, everyone is put to sleep for the duration.

Or you could go the other way, requiring some kind of license to fly as a passenger, issued perhaps by the FAA, which would include training on using some kind of standard firearm loaded with a tranq for use only on the plane. Everyone would have one, and anyone who acted up could be shot, then arrested on landing.

There are effective solutions, but the half-assed bs they've implemented has no particular benefits and takes away civil liberties to boot. I want it fixed or dismantled and I want the people who came up with it fired, preferably out of a canon.

I'd rather offend everyone than to have people singled out for such offense, especially if offending everyone includes a real solution. And on this board, I think we can agree that this society is very sick wrt skin. Require that attitude to go away, for safety. :|

Yes, I agree to disagree at this point. I love the smell of a good debate in the morning!

denim and SM70, I do agree with all you have said to a point. I believe our country has been very reactive to the threat of terrorism. I don't mind losing a few of my personal freedoms in order to preserve my life a little longer. I know you both value what was written in our constitution over 300 years ago and hold what was written close to you personally. I think the constitution should be changed to reflect our current society and the threats we face. Plenty of differences of opinion here.

Well, over 200 years ago actually, but yeah.

The point is that nothing has really changed. People are still people, they still use the same methods, though with new technology, to accomplish the same ends. It's a problem.

For more on this topic, see Heinlein's The Puppet Masters. No, NOT the movie, the book. There's a shitload of nudity in the book, for reasons you'll just have to read the book to find out. Security.

Typo, I did mean 200 yrs.

Oh my god, denim is on a tear!

(please.. use up online one post for what you wanna say)

There were too many posts to reply to, Hal. Some of them on different pages. Let's just say the software has some issues and one big reply would have been a good thing. I did combine a few of them. And I've gone on a tear on this topic before. It's one of my biggest current issues.

Water_boy1999: I feel better. It's just that there probably are people out there who really would believe 300 years. :(

So you want to be a literalist...okay.

a) double-sphincter treatment = Please step aside sir/madam because you have been chosen for additional screening. I'm not suggesting that anyone has even had a BCS at the hands of the TSA although to listen to some of the complaining that's going on here that's the conclusion that one could come away with.

b) asshats = people who are:

- not prepared for getting through the screening process by either carrying metal on their person that sets off the metal detector, or carrying something in their bags akin to scissors, or thinking that when the say we highly recommend that you take your shoes off and run them through the x-ray machine -- they really don't mean THEIR shoes.
- once they fail the primary screening these people become indignant at having to go through yet additional screening and want to make a huge scene out of it because obviously they are just being hassled because the TSA people have nothing better to do.

c) El Al has been known in some cases to hold a potential passenger over for an "interview" for hours at a time, even at the expense of having them miss their first scheduled flight.


The screening process is here to stay and I for one wouldn't mind it getting a little more intrusive. If you give a screener even the simplest reason for having the slightest doubts about your intentions then shame on you. You know the rules have changed. That's no secret. Learn them. Embrace them. Understand that when you fly you will be asked to pass through a metal detector. Your carry on bags will be scrutinized. Simple planning and a little thought before you head for the terminal will get you through without hassle. If you are selected for additional screening you might as well cooperate and then thank the TSA reps for doing their job to help make you safe. It's really not that hard.

The sentiment in this thread that's feeling like your civil liberties are being violated by this screening process is LUDICROUS. Get over it...it's here to stay so deal with it or like I said just take the damn bus and stay out of the security line that I will be patiently waiting in for my opportunity to be violated.

EDIT:
Whooops ... there I go being somewhat sarcastic again.... I'm not literaly expecting to be violated. :rolleyes:

Kjroh, thanks for those answers.

Now read the rest of the thread. :)

I hate when people spout this quote off in the context of the present. al-Qaida wasn't flying airplanes into buildings when Franklin said it. The world is a different place and requires different methods to guarantee security. If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem? If I have to show up 2 hours early for a flight and let them X-ray my shoes so they can be certain I don't have a bomb, then I'm happily going to let them because I know I don't. And dammit, they're going to do the same to you because I want to make sure you don't have one either.

-Mikey

I know that I would surely rather be searched than have the plane/train I am travelling in explode mid journey - but then I live in a land without the civil liberty outcry that seems to come from the US.

I would definitely rather be inconvenienced than dead :)