Jump to content

Is this what flying has come down to?


Go Skins

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1290006694' post='942286']
And people thought Bush's policies were intrusive?
[/quote]

Honest question: Did O'bama really have anything to do with this? It's not like he is sitting there drawing up TSA plans all day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only person who thinks that they have every right to do this? You are basically renting space on their property. If you do not want to play by their rules, you should not expect to have the availability to use their service.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Xombie' timestamp='1290008258' post='942296']
Am I the only person who thinks that they have every right to do this? You are basically renting space on their property. If you do not want to play by their rules, you should not expect to have the availability to use their service.
[/quote]

Nah, I'm with you, I don't care about this. I will walk through, they will laugh at my little junk and I will move along.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Xombie' timestamp='1290008258' post='942296']
Am I the only person who thinks that they have every right to do this? You are basically renting space on their property. If you do not want to play by their rules, you should not expect to have the availability to use their service.
[/quote]

[quote]Backscatter X-ray uses ionizing radiation, a known cumulative health hazard, to produce images of passengers’ bodies. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with defective DNA repair mechanisms are considered to be especially susceptible to the type of DNA damage caused by ionizing radiation. Also at high risk are those who have had, or currently have, skin cancer. Ionizing radiation’s effects are cumulative, meaning that each time you are exposed you are adding to your risk of developing cancer. Since the dosage of radiation from the backscatter X-ray machines is absorbed almost entirely by the skin and tissue directly under the skin, averaging the dose over the whole body gives an inaccurate picture of the actual harm. In their letter of concern, the UCSF faculty members noted that “the dose to the skin could be dangerously high”. The eyes are particularly susceptible to the effects of radiation, and as one study found allowing the eyes to be exposed to radiation can lead to an increased incidence of cataracts.[/quote]

There has been [b]no[/b] radiological certification, there have been [b]no[/b] long-term studies as to the health affects of these machines. Are you going to put your developing child through this? Your pregnant wife or girlfriend? We have their assurance that it's safe, but the government said the same thing about asbestos and Agent Orange.

Never mind the fact that these scanners [url="http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Full+body+scanners+waste+money+Israeli+expert+says/2941610/story.html"]don't fucking work[/url] and are a multi-billion dollar waste of our money.

Many people, including myself, have legitimate concerns about this technology and our only other option is to have our genitals squeezed by some low-wage jerk off?

Yeah, fuck the 4th Amendment...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1290013457' post='942319']
There has been [b]no[/b] radiological certification, there have been [b]no[/b] long-term studies as to the health affects of these machines. Are you going to put your developing child through this? Your pregnant wife or girlfriend? We have their assurance that it's safe, but the government said the same thing about asbestos and Agent Orange.

Never mind the fact that these scanners [url="http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Full+body+scanners+waste+money+Israeli+expert+says/2941610/story.html"]don't fucking work[/url] and are a multi-billion dollar waste of our money.

Many people, including myself, have legitimate concerns about this technology and our only other option is to have our genitals squeezed by some low-wage jerk off?

Yeah, fuck the 4th Amendment...
[/quote]


You do not have to fly. If I apply for an apartment to rent, and the renter has strict rules about not allowing firearms on his/her rental properties, has security guards at the main gate, and metal detectors at every rental space entrance, I have to make a decision to abide his/her rules before signing the lease contract or moving on to look for another option to fulfill my needs. There is zero difference between the two, other than one space is for 12 months, and the other is for 12 hours. It is their property, business, and clientele that they are protecting, not your sensibilities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Xombie' timestamp='1290014413' post='942322']
[b]You do not have to fly.[/b] If I apply for an apartment to rent, and the renter has strict rules about not allowing firearms on his/her rental properties, has security guards at the main gate, and metal detectors at every rental space entrance, I have to make a decision to abide his/her rules before signing the lease contract or moving on to look for another option to fulfill my needs. There is zero difference between the two, other than one space is for 12 months, and the other is for 12 hours. It is their property, business, and clientele that they are protecting, not your sensibilities.
[/quote]


Kinda hard to get to Europe by car so I disagree. I'll make a more in-depth response later as I'm at work, but I am making a business agreement with an airline, not the TSA. Security is a requirement to get onto the plane and consummate that agreement, but the airports also have a choice whether or not to use the TSA for such a purpose. This particular agency has gone batshit crazy in their demands, and hopefully this backlash will cause the airlines to push back on the airports to change their security choice...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1290017971' post='942339']
Kinda hard to get to Europe by car so I disagree. I'll make a more in-depth response later as I'm at work, but I am making a business agreement with an airline, not the TSA. Security is a requirement to get onto the plane and consummate that agreement, but the airports also have a choice whether or not to use the TSA for such a purpose. This particular agency has gone batshit crazy in their demands, and hopefully this backlash will cause the airlines to push back on the airports to change their security choice...
[/quote]


If you want to go the smartass route, take a boat. If you want to discuss the issue without a smarter-than-thou attitude, I am willing to continue with an intelligent response, as well. Flying is a privilege, not a right. That being said, if consumers made their voices heard with their travel dollars instead of making useless noise signing blog petitions and trying to make 'gotcha' recordings, these security standards would follow the money much quicker than following the martyred cries coming from the internet. 2 months of vast declines of ticket sales over the busiest travel season of the year would change more than someone claiming a 4th amendment violation and having a legion of headnodders agreeing in unison.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1290017971' post='942339']
Kinda hard to get to Europe by car so I disagree.
[/quote]

[b][size="7"]au contraire[/size][/b]
[img]http://www.toy-tma.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Oregon-Trail-Ford-the-River.jpg[/img]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Xombie' timestamp='1290020241' post='942350']
If you want to go the smartass route, take a boat. If you want to discuss the issue without a smarter-than-thou attitude, I am willing to continue with an intelligent response, as well. Flying is a privilege, not a right. That being said, if consumers made their voices heard with their travel dollars instead of making useless noise signing blog petitions and trying to make 'gotcha' recordings, these security standards would follow the money much quicker than following the martyred cries coming from the internet. 2 months of vast declines of ticket sales over the busiest travel season of the year would change more than someone claiming a 4th amendment violation and having a legion of headnodders agreeing in unison.
[/quote]


I wasn't trying to be a smartass and think you overreacted a touch. And the "We won't Fly" thing is directly targeting the money. Whether it will be successful or not is to be seen, but I'm hoping it is...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Xombie' timestamp='1290020241' post='942350']
If you want to go the smartass route, take a boat. If you want to discuss the issue without a smarter-than-thou attitude, I am willing to continue with an intelligent response, as well. Flying is a privilege, not a right. That being said, [b]if consumers made their voices heard with their travel dollars instead of making useless noise [/b]signing blog petitions and trying to make 'gotcha' recordings, these security standards would follow the money much quicker than following the martyred cries coming from the internet. [b]2 months of vast declines of ticket sales over the busiest travel season of the year would change more [/b]than someone claiming a 4th amendment violation and having a legion of headnodders agreeing in unison.
[/quote]

How does this happen again without someone starting to cry fowl and sharing it on the internet or other forms of media?

You also didn't address his point that the airlines are not mandating this, TSA is. If American Airlines had this security check and Continental didn't A. your argument would make sense and B. It would only last a few months as everyone would opt out for continental.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1290020631' post='942355']
Really? I did not know that.
[/quote]


[url="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Amid-airport-anger_-GOP-takes-aim-at-screening-1576602-108259869.html"]Indeed[/url]

And I wasn't aware of that myself until yesterday...

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1290020511' post='942352']
[b][size="7"]au contraire[/size][/b]
[img]http://www.toy-tma.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Oregon-Trail-Ford-the-River.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

That's a covered wagon, dude...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1290021558' post='942360']
Will it be filled with comely sod-busters willing to grope my genitals?
[/quote]

hahahahahahaha

We're in vegas, we should get some hot as hell hookers to do this job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]
[size="5"]TSA and America's Culture of Zero-Risk[/size]

(c) 2010 Richard Forno. Permission granted to reproduce freely with credit.

The lede on the DRUDGEREPORT most of Monday showed a Catholic nun being patted down at an airport security checkpoint, with the caption starkly declaring that "THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON."

He's right.

Ten years after 9/11, Americans who fly are facing a Faustian choice between subjecting themselves to a virtual (and potentially medically damaging) strip search conducted in questionable machines run by federal employees or a psychologically damaging pat-down of their bodies. Osama bin Ladin must be giggling himself silly this week.

But what should we expect in a society that requires adults to wear bicycle helmets while pedaling in the park, provides disclaimers of liability on TV advertisements, or prints warnings on fast-food coffee cups? The name of the game is zero risk. Not risk mitigation, or accepting responsibility for one's actions, but risk aversion. It's a failure to acknowledge that we can't protect against everything bad that can happen to us, so we must protect against everything we think might -- might -- be harmful at some point.

It's living in fear.

TSA has established itself as the lead federal agency charged with perpetuating this risk-averse culture at airports around the country. The proof is evident over the past ten years: Because of the Shoebomber, we have to remove our shoes. Thanks to the Christmas Crotchbomber, we are subjected to invasive scanning or government-mandated molestation. Because there's a potential for explosives in liquid or gel form, we've got the "Three Ounces in A Baggie" rule. Wearing a sweater or bulky fleece hoodie? Take it off (along with your shoes and belt) so it can be examined. Or frisking Granny, or asking toddlers to drink from their Sippy-cups to make sure it's really Mommy's milk inside. And let's not forget the thankfully defunct prohibitions on knitting needles, insulin syringes, matches, lighters, or standing during the last 30 minutes of flights to Washington, DC.

All in the name of protecting the homeland.

Given this latest round of homeland hysteria, I must ask again -- what happens after the next 'new' attempt to smuggle something onto a plane? Actually, we know the answer: another item will go on the Prohibited Items List and additional screenings of passengers will be conducted, followed by more patronising security-speak from our Department of Homeland Insecurity asking law abiding folks to give up more of their privacy and personal "space" in the interest of Homeland (er, "State") Security. Big Brother, meet Big Sister. With all her homeland security lobbyists along for the ride.

Where does it end?

Due to this nationalised risk aversion and a docile public, we're now living in a country that subordinates law abiding travelers to quasi-law-enforcement employees of a government agency empowered to make up the rules as it goes along and arrest/fine those who question, challenge, or refuse to comply with their demands while impeding their travel within this great country. What does all of this do to our nation? Our way of life? Our way of thinking as citizens?

Perhaps this is intentional, and we're being conditioned to accept the actions of TSA and embrace a zero-risk mentality on our society. What else can explain the statement made earlier today by TSA Director John Pistole that citizens who protest what they see as government transgressions into their privacy are being "irresponsible"? Calling us irresponsible when protesting this latest round of TSA actions is no different than our being labelled unpatriotic when protesting or questioning some of the provisions in the controversial USA PATRIOT Act. Same stuff, different Administration.

[b]The American public needs to recognise the nature of the terror threat and accept a certain level of risk in their lives and travels instead of kowtowing to every reactive security 'enhancement' proclaimed by TSA as necessary to protect the country. [size="5"]In terms of airport security, we are the laughing stock of the industrialised world, and an embarrassment to knowledgeable security professionals.

The tragedy of 9/11 wasn't just the attacks of that day, but what has happened to America in the years since.
[/b][/size]
Which begs the question: who should we be afraid of, really -- "them" or "us?"[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Xombie' timestamp='1290020241' post='942350']
Flying is a privilege, not a right.
[/quote]

And I missed this part the first time around.

That statement is complete and utter nonsense. That’s police state thinking, and unless we’ve become Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, it has no place in these United States.

OK, let the hysterical cries for “safety” and the ad hominem attacks begin...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1290051997' post='942459']
And I missed this part the first time around.

That statement is complete and utter nonsense. That’s police state thinking, and unless we’ve become Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, it has no place in these United States.

OK, let the hysterical cries for “safety” and the ad hominem attacks begin...
[/quote]
I caught it and decided it was too ridiculous to warrant a reply. *sigh*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1290006694' post='942286']
And people thought Bush's policies were intrusive?
[/quote]
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/129651-gop-lawmaker-full-body-scanners-violate-fourth-amendment

Chertoff, Bush's former head of Homeland Security lobbied for these to be put in. They were ordered with Obama's stimulus money. Chertoff is now a consultant for one of the manufacturers of the body scanners.

Continuity of agenda tbCh.

I'm flying for Christmas. Can't wait to my junk grabbed by TSA after I opt out of a body scan. Go America.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least this guy followed the money trail...

[quote][size="5"][b]GOP lawmaker: Full-body scanners violate Fourth Amendment[/b][/size]

By Elise Viebeck - 11/17/10 10:29 AM ET

A GOP lawmaker said Tuesday the full-body scanners now employed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) violate the Fourth Amendment to the constitution, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

During a one-minute speech on the House floor, Rep. [b]Ted Poe (Texas) also blasted former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff as a "political hack" and accused him of profiting from the proliferation of the devices. [/b]

[b]"There is no evidence these new body scanners make us more secure. But there is evidence that former Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff made money hawking these full body scanners," Poe said.[/b]

He went on to explain that Chertoff, who served under President George W. Bush, had given interviews promoting the scanners while he was "getting paid" to sell them.

"[T]he populace is giving up more rights in the name of alleged security. These body scanners are a violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures ... There must be a better way to have security at airports than taking pornographic photographs of our citizens, including children, and then giving apparent kickbacks to political hacks."

Chertoff has advocated for the use of full-body scanners since he took his post at DHS in 2005.

As of January, his consulting agency, the Chertoff Group, counted among its clients one of the machines' manufacturers.

The group responded with a statement on Wednesday.

"The Chertoff Group played no role in the sale of whole body imaging technology to TSA," said spokeswoman Katy Montgomery. "Further, Secretary Michael Chertoff was in no way compensated for his public statements, in which he has consistently expressed long held beliefs in the deployment of effective technologies and techniques that eliminate security vulnerabilities such as those illustrated last year during the terrorist attempt on Christmas Day. Any statements to the contrary are false."

—This post was updated at 2:42 p.m.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/129651-gop-lawmaker-full-body-scanners-violate-fourth-amendment[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...