|
Post by curiousgeorge on Nov 17, 2010 22:21:06 GMT
It's just for everyone's protection from all those granny terrorists, don'tcha know. Next up is body cavity checks at Walmart.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 18, 2010 1:43:06 GMT
what TSA is doing would get your arrested for sexual assault under normal circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Nov 18, 2010 20:39:16 GMT
what TSA is doing would get your arrested for sexual assault under normal circumstances. It might be fun to load up on pickled eggs, burrito's and beer a couple hours before boarding just in case you get pulled out of line for a pat. ;D
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 19, 2010 5:15:46 GMT
I've flown several times since it all started. Nothing has really changed.
I saw a sign about "what the officers see" at the Seattle airport yesterday, but really I don't care. I didn't go through it anyway, but even if I did, it's not as explicit as what we used to see and show in the lockerrooms when I was in sports in high school. I really don't think anyone wants to see me anyway.
It seems to me that everyone wants the security of knowing everyone else has been scanned, but they don't want to deal with being scanned themselves. I don't see it as the big bad violation that a few seem to be screaming it is.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Nov 19, 2010 13:40:13 GMT
If the procedure were effective at finding a bad guy, it wouldn't be quite so offensive, but any statistician or good inspector will tell you that "random" screening is a complete waste of time if your objective is to locate one bad apple ( or anything else ) mixed in among several thousand good ones. The chances of finding it that way are very, very slim. The mathematics of it ( I could bore you with the numbers, but I won't ) don't support the goal at all. In the quality control business, the key is to control the process; which in the case of passengers or cargo, means preventing the introduction of dangerous/suspect people or cargo throughout the chain. In other words; "profiling". Good luck with getting that past the PC police.
Btw, if you want to test the effectiveness of "random sampling" for yourself, get a box of say 500 white marbles and mix in say 3 or 4 black ones. Then " randomly sample" say 20 or so without looking and see how many of the black marbles you find. I'd bet my next paycheck you won't find all of them, and likely won't find even 1.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 19, 2010 16:37:05 GMT
what TSA is doing would get your arrested for sexual assault under normal circumstances. It might be fun to load up on pickled eggs, burrito's and beer a couple hours before boarding just in case you get pulled out of line for a pat. ;D I'm going to insist on a male to pat me down. If you are going to be molested you might as well get SOME pleasure out of it.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Nov 19, 2010 20:18:12 GMT
It might be fun to load up on pickled eggs, burrito's and beer a couple hours before boarding just in case you get pulled out of line for a pat. ;D I'm going to insist on a male to pat me down. If you are going to be molested you might as well get SOME pleasure out of it. Then I'd suggest you don't fly out of San Francisco. You may not get what you expect.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 20, 2010 0:15:53 GMT
If the procedure were effective at finding a bad guy, it wouldn't be quite so offensive, but any statistician or good inspector will tell you that "random" screening is a complete waste of time if your objective is to locate one bad apple ( or anything else ) mixed in among several thousand good ones. The chances of finding it that way are very, very slim. The mathematics of it ( I could bore you with the numbers, but I won't ) don't support the goal at all. In the quality control business, the key is to control the process; which in the case of passengers or cargo, means preventing the introduction of dangerous/suspect people or cargo throughout the chain. In other words; "profiling". Good luck with getting that past the PC police. Btw, if you want to test the effectiveness of "random sampling" for yourself, get a box of say 500 white marbles and mix in say 3 or 4 black ones. Then " randomly sample" say 20 or so without looking and see how many of the black marbles you find. I'd bet my next paycheck you won't find all of them, and likely won't find even 1. Please do bore me with the numbers. I would look forward to that. The analogy is flawed in that marbles do not have a reasoning capacity and therefore are not trying to escape through your screening. They are not evaluating whether or not it is worthwhile to try to go through your screening process. You are choosing them, not the other way around. People are not like that. The people who come through the airport screening are doing so by their own free will for one purpose or another. Their purpose may be harmless or harmful, but they consciously make a decision and weigh the risks/benefits for themselves - something marbles do not do. In this sense, people evaluate when it is not worth the risk, and make other plans. That, more than statistical analysis, is the purpose of the screening. The way I see it, TSA is in a no-win situation with this. If they do not use all available techniques to screen and prevent penetration, then when the next terrorist incident occurs, they will be paraded in front of congress looking for political points, criminalized, investigated, and generally put into bad public repute. (Actually, that'll happen even if they use all available techniques, but if they had not used all available techniques, then they would have no leg to stand on) If they take steps they think are "all available techniques" then people complain about it before hand, and greatly exaggerate the intent or the violation in order to gain political points. In such a situation, what do they do? Take the "outcry" right now, and tell me: If they stopped screening tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, there was a successful terrorist attack, would not the very people who are raising the stink today be calling for the heads of TSA leadership the day after for stopping the screening? Wouldn't the same people who want to make a political issue out of the screening today change sides in order to take advantage of the political opportunity presented by such a catastrophe? They can do that because their nuts weren't on the stump so to speak - they had nothing invested so they can change sides according to the political opportunity. That's something else that marbles can't do and counting marbles can't tell you. Now if they (TSA) don't screen everyone (grannies included), then they get accused of racial profiling, gender profiling, or whatever new term a political opportunist may come up with in the future. They actually get accused of that anyway, but in that case, there may be some truth to that. If they screen everyone, then they get made fun of for screening grannies. Another thing that can happen is that if they don't screen grannies, then maybe the people they are trying to protect against find ways to exploit that (that would be my first focus if I were a bad guy and could discern that pattern, but I'm not a marble). I think the use of terms like "terrorist grannies" is just to raise emotions to support a political point rather than actually and truthfully considering why it might be done. Again, people whose nuts aren't on the stump don't have to think those things through before speaking out against it. Personally, I fly all the time. I stand by what I said that we all want the security of knowing everyone else was scanned, we just don't want the inconvenience of being scanned ourselves. I don't think the scanning is any big deal. I just think some people are trying to make political points off of it right now. But if you think there is a better way, then put your nuts on the stump by getting involved in a place where you can implement your ideas. When you do that, though, just be ready for the political opportunists to turn their words on you.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 20, 2010 2:37:57 GMT
I'm going to insist on a male to pat me down. If you are going to be molested you might as well get SOME pleasure out of it. Then I'd suggest you don't fly out of San Francisco. You may not get what you expect. all the more reason to request a male. You don't know what you are getting with females.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 20, 2010 2:40:15 GMT
If the procedure were effective at finding a bad guy, it wouldn't be quite so offensive, but any statistician or good inspector will tell you that "random" screening is a complete waste of time if your objective is to locate one bad apple ( or anything else ) mixed in among several thousand good ones. The chances of finding it that way are very, very slim. The mathematics of it ( I could bore you with the numbers, but I won't ) don't support the goal at all. In the quality control business, the key is to control the process; which in the case of passengers or cargo, means preventing the introduction of dangerous/suspect people or cargo throughout the chain. In other words; "profiling". Good luck with getting that past the PC police. Btw, if you want to test the effectiveness of "random sampling" for yourself, get a box of say 500 white marbles and mix in say 3 or 4 black ones. Then " randomly sample" say 20 or so without looking and see how many of the black marbles you find. I'd bet my next paycheck you won't find all of them, and likely won't find even 1. Please do bore me with the numbers. I would look forward to that. The analogy is flawed in that marbles do not have a reasoning capacity and therefore are not trying to escape through your screening. They are not evaluating whether or not it is worthwhile to try to go through your screening process. You are choosing them, not the other way around. People are not like that. The people who come through the airport screening are doing so by their own free will for one purpose or another. Their purpose may be harmless or harmful, but they consciously make a decision and weigh the risks/benefits for themselves - something marbles do not do. In this sense, people evaluate when it is not worth the risk, and make other plans. That, more than statistical analysis, is the purpose of the screening. The way I see it, TSA is in a no-win situation with this. If they do not use all available techniques to screen and prevent penetration, then when the next terrorist incident occurs, they will be paraded in front of congress looking for political points, criminalized, investigated, and generally put into bad public repute. (Actually, that'll happen even if they use all available techniques, but if they had not used all available techniques, then they would have no leg to stand on) If they take steps they think are "all available techniques" then people complain about it before hand, and greatly exaggerate the intent or the violation in order to gain political points. In such a situation, what do they do? Take the "outcry" right now, and tell me: If they stopped screening tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, there was a successful terrorist attack, would not the very people who are raising the stink today be calling for the heads of TSA leadership the day after for stopping the screening? Wouldn't the same people who want to make a political issue out of the screening today change sides in order to take advantage of the political opportunity presented by such a catastrophe? They can do that because their nuts weren't on the stump so to speak - they had nothing invested so they can change sides according to the political opportunity. That's something else that marbles can't do and counting marbles can't tell you. Now if they (TSA) don't screen everyone (grannies included), then they get accused of racial profiling, gender profiling, or whatever new term a political opportunist may come up with in the future. They actually get accused of that anyway, but in that case, there may be some truth to that. If they screen everyone, then they get made fun of for screening grannies. Another thing that can happen is that if they don't screen grannies, then maybe the people they are trying to protect against find ways to exploit that (that would be my first focus if I were a bad guy and could discern that pattern, but I'm not a marble). I think the use of terms like "terrorist grannies" is just to raise emotions to support a political point rather than actually and truthfully considering why it might be done. Again, people whose nuts aren't on the stump don't have to think those things through before speaking out against it. Personally, I fly all the time. I stand by what I said that we all want the security of knowing everyone else was scanned, we just don't want the inconvenience of being scanned ourselves. I don't think the scanning is any big deal. I just think some people are trying to make political points off of it right now. But if you think there is a better way, then put your nuts on the stump by getting involved in a place where you can implement your ideas. When you do that, though, just be ready for the political opportunists to turn their words on you. So you think it is ok to pull a woman's tampon out because it might be a fuse? Examine her more thoroughly because she is wearing a pad? Stick their hands down his pants then without changing gloves stick their hands down yours? All of which are happening.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 20, 2010 2:55:06 GMT
www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13534628Cancer surviving flight attendant forced to remove prosthetic breast during pat-downBy Molly Grantham - bio l email CHARLOTTE, NC (WBTV) - A Charlotte-area flight attendant and cancer survivor contacted WBTV after she says she was forced to show her prosthetic breast during a pat-down. **** www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-naked-scanners-airports-dangerous-scientists.html'Naked' scanners at US airports may be dangerous: scientists (Update)November 13, 2010 by Karin Zeitvogel Some US scientists warned Friday that the full-body, graphic-image X-ray scanners now being used to screen passengers and airline crews at airports around the country may be unsafe. **** lewrockwell.com/orig3/monahan1.html Coffee, Tea, or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wife’s Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell at the Airport and Then Lying About Why We Put You There?by Nicholas Monahan This morning I’ll be escorting my wife to the hospital, where the doctors will perform a caesarean section to remove our first child. She didn’t want to do it this way – neither of us did – but sometimes the Fates decide otherwise. The Fates or, in our case, government employees. On the morning of October 26th Mary and I entered Portland International Airport, en route to the Las Vegas wedding of one of my best friends. Although we live in Los Angeles, we’d been in Oregon working on a film, and up to that point had had nothing but praise to shower on the city of Portland, a refreshing change of pace from our own suffocating metropolis. At the security checkpoint I was led aside for the "inspection" that’s all the rage at airports these days. My shoes were removed. I was told to take off my sweater, then to fold over the waistband of my pants. My baseball hat, hastily jammed on my head at 5 AM, was removed and assiduously examined ("Anything could be in here, sir," I was told, after I asked what I could hide in a baseball hat. Yeah. Anything.) Soon I was standing on one foot, my arms stretched out, the other leg sticking out in front of me à la a DUI test. I began to get pissed off, as most normal people would. My anger increased when I realized that the newly knighted federal employees weren’t just examining me, but my 7½ months pregnant wife as well. I’d originally thought that I’d simply been randomly selected for the more excessive than normal search. You know, Number 50 or whatever. Apparently not though – it was both of us. These are your new threats, America: pregnant accountants and their sleepy husbands flying to weddings. **** www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/security/tsa-revolt-body-scanning-for-profit.htmlTSA Revolt: Body Scanning for Profit"No Dose of Backscatter Ionizing Radiation Has Ever Been Proven Safe."Russia Today points out an important detail being left out of most mainstream media reports about the new body scanning devices being rolled out in airports everywhere: former Department of Homeland Security Chief, Michael Chertoff, who has been advocating this technology on any news program that will have him is personally profiting from their implementation. As a Security Consultant and Chairman of the Chertoff Group, one of his main clients is Rapiscan, a manufacturer of these devices. Last year, the Department of Homeland Security awarded contracts of US$160 million each to two manufacturers of these back-scattering devices, one which which was Rapiscan. Beyond the issue of Chertoff's illegal advertising his product on news programs by pretending to be a public servant, there is some debate about the safety of these new Back-scatter X-Ray Body Scanning devices. One former intelligence agent and present-day security consultant, Wayne Simmons appeared on Andrew Napolitano's "Liberty Pen" and said that while the device is an excellent tool, "There is no dose of backscatter ionizing radiation that has ever been proven safe," and that he would prefer to see only passengers who are deemed to be suspicious going through these devices, with the bulk going through the metal detectors, with which we've all become accustomed. **** news.antiwar.com/2010/11/17/tsa-chief-submit-or-dont-fly/TSA Chief: Submit or Don’t Fly
Appointed Head of TSA Shrugs Off Senate Calls to Relax Screeningby Jason Ditz, November 17, 2010 As an appointed official, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) chief John Pistole doesn’t necessarily have to care about public opinion. One might have hoped, however, that faced with calls to back down by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, he might pause for at least a moment. Not so, however. Instead Pistole lectured the Senators on the importance of his invasive searches, insisting that privacy complaints, whether coming from the American public or the Senate, would not change any of his policies. He went on to field a complaint from Sen. Ensign (R – NV) that the searches offended religious modesty. Pistole responded that religious people were entitled to their beliefs but suggested that they shouldn’t try to fly, adding that anyone who refuses to submit to the more intrusive screening would be banned from flying. The installation of new “full body” scanners has sparked a huge outcry, as the scanners produce graphic images of passengers. The alternative, termed an “enhanced pat down,” has been likened to overt molestation, with images of TSA agents groping passengers sparking public outcry. With the bureaucrats responsible for the policies so far removed from the political process, however, these objections are being met with more demands to obey, or else.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 20, 2010 7:39:05 GMT
So you think it is ok to pull a woman's tampon out because it might be a fuse? Examine her more thoroughly because she is wearing a pad? Stick their hands down his pants then without changing gloves stick their hands down yours? All of which are happening. Maggie, ever so often, I just have to say "BS." You're talking to someone who clears airport security over 100 times/year on average. They're not perfect, but they're not what people are trying to make them out to be in this latest wave of accusations, either. It's very simple, if you want to believe that, if you are worried that is going to happen to you, then choose another mode of transportation. Very simple. Flying is not a fundamental right, it's a choice you make. You can always take the train, take the bus, or just drive. There's no way you can make the assertion that nobody has targeted planes in the past. If you have a better way of deterring that, then step up with it and get it implemented. The way I currently see it, it's mostly people getting overstimulated over a small thing, and trying to make political points with it.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 20, 2010 8:03:28 GMT
www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13534628Cancer surviving flight attendant forced to remove prosthetic breast during pat-downBy Molly Grantham - bio l email CHARLOTTE, NC (WBTV) - A Charlotte-area flight attendant and cancer survivor contacted WBTV after she says she was forced to show her prosthetic breast during a pat-down. **** You're given the choice between being scanned or being patted down. It's up to you. Another choice you have is to take another mode of transportation. Our favorite word "may." Once again, you have the choice between being patted down, or being scanned by the back scatter X-ray. You also have a choice to take an alternative form of transportation - nobody forces you to fly. Coffee, Tea, or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wife’s Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell at the Airport and Then Lying About Why We Put You There?by Nicholas Monahan This morning I’ll be escorting my wife to the hospital, where the doctors will perform a caesarean section to remove our first child. She didn’t want to do it this way – neither of us did – but sometimes the Fates decide otherwise. The Fates or, in our case, government employees. On the morning of October 26th Mary and I entered Portland International Airport, en route to the Las Vegas wedding of one of my best friends. Although we live in Los Angeles, we’d been in Oregon working on a film, and up to that point had had nothing but praise to shower on the city of Portland, a refreshing change of pace from our own suffocating metropolis. At the security checkpoint I was led aside for the "inspection" that’s all the rage at airports these days. My shoes were removed. I was told to take off my sweater, then to fold over the waistband of my pants. My baseball hat, hastily jammed on my head at 5 AM, was removed and assiduously examined ("Anything could be in here, sir," I was told, after I asked what I could hide in a baseball hat. First hint of the author's slant here. I can tell already that this is not an objective story. And if he had flown any time in the last several years, he would know that removing a baseball hat is nothing new, either. I refer to the post I made above that you are responding to. Yeah. Anything.) Soon I was standing on one foot, my arms stretched out, the other leg sticking out in front of me à la a DUI test. I began to get pissed off, as most normal people would. My anger increased when I realized that the newly knighted federal employees weren’t just examining me, but my 7½ months pregnant wife as well. I’d originally thought that I’d simply been randomly selected for the more excessive than normal search. You know, Number 50 or whatever. Apparently not though – it was both of us. These are your new threats, America: pregnant accountants and their sleepy husbands flying to weddings. **** www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/security/tsa-revolt-body-scanning-for-profit.htmlSo tell me, Maggie, have we been attacked on airplanes before? If you were someone with that on your mind, would you, or would you not look for exceptions to the scanning as a vector for attack? And if anyone is ever successful, what would you say about the people who made the exception. This is, as he said, a guy who is pissed, and as such, he is stretching the story for drama. I've been through the airports numerous times. I've been selected sometimes for additional screening ranging from examining the inside of my backpack for explosive residue to going through the puffers to being patted down. I know first hand how I've been treated in virtually every airport in the western US, and several farther east. My experience doesn't match this guy. However; I've seen several people become abusive with certain airport or airline employees, start shouting, and making a fuss over things ranging from being told their bags were too big for a carry on to having a "100 pound girl being sent down here to push my wheelchair." I know how people are, and how quickly stories grow when it suits their purpose (even though I don't always know what that purpose is). You post a story from someone I don't even know, and that's going to take precedence over the patterns that have been established in my mind from years of first hand and eye witness experience? I have seen someone opt for a hand pat-down in lieu of the back scatter X-ray. TSA Revolt: Body Scanning for Profit"No Dose of Backscatter Ionizing Radiation Has Ever Been Proven Safe."Russia Today points out an important detail being left out of most mainstream media reports about the new body scanning devices being rolled out in airports everywhere: former Department of Homeland Security Chief, Michael Chertoff, who has been advocating this technology on any news program that will have him is personally profiting from their implementation. As a Security Consultant and Chairman of the Chertoff Group, one of his main clients is Rapiscan, a manufacturer of these devices. Last year, the Department of Homeland Security awarded contracts of US$160 million each to two manufacturers of these back-scattering devices, one which which was Rapiscan. Beyond the issue of Chertoff's illegal advertising his product on news programs by pretending to be a public servant, there is some debate about the safety of these new Back-scatter X-Ray Body Scanning devices. One former intelligence agent and present-day security consultant, Wayne Simmons appeared on Andrew Napolitano's "Liberty Pen" and said that while the device is an excellent tool, "There is no dose of backscatter ionizing radiation that has ever been proven safe," and that he would prefer to see only passengers who are deemed to be suspicious going through these devices, with the bulk going through the metal detectors, with which we've all become accustomed. **** news.antiwar.com/2010/11/17/tsa-chief-submit-or-dont-fly/TSA Chief: Submit or Don’t Fly
Appointed Head of TSA Shrugs Off Senate Calls to Relax Screeningby Jason Ditz, November 17, 2010 As an appointed official, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) chief John Pistole doesn’t necessarily have to care about public opinion. One might have hoped, however, that faced with calls to back down by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, he might pause for at least a moment. Not so, however. Instead Pistole lectured the Senators on the importance of his invasive searches, insisting that privacy complaints, whether coming from the American public or the Senate, would not change any of his policies. He went on to field a complaint from Sen. Ensign (R – NV) that the searches offended religious modesty. Pistole responded that religious people were entitled to their beliefs but suggested that they shouldn’t try to fly, adding that anyone who refuses to submit to the more intrusive screening would be banned from flying. The installation of new “full body” scanners has sparked a huge outcry, as the scanners produce graphic images of passengers. The alternative, termed an “enhanced pat down,” has been likened to overt molestation, with images of TSA agents groping passengers sparking public outcry. With the bureaucrats responsible for the policies so far removed from the political process, however, these objections are being met with more demands to obey, or else. So don't fly until there is a better system in place. Better yet, find that better solution, and push for it to be implemented, but you'd better be right. If you're wrong, then there are a lot of lives at stake ... mine included, and often the lives of my family as well.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 20, 2010 8:08:13 GMT
I also have the choice of getting rid of a government that has overstepped its constitutional bounds. The "rights" the government has are rights I have but have transferred to the government. If I don't have the right to feel someones crotch or stick my hands down their pants then the government does not have that right.
People really need to go back over the concept of sovereignty.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 20, 2010 8:10:49 GMT
Flying is not a fundamental right, it's a choice you make. Flying is a private service. I have the right to purchase it and to set the standards under which I will purchase it. The government does not have the right to sexually assault me because I want to purchase this service.
|
|