Indeed, it shows a lack of a serious and professional attitude about what is supposed to be a very serious, life & death job. No wonder you have airport security getting outfoxed and depending on passangers to thwart bombers at the last moment.
TSA Agent Attacks CoWorker After His Small Penis Was Scanned
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
I'm opposed to this for several reasons, the main two being that:
1) The millions of dollars spent on these things is an ineffective use of funds, and should be used to improve security training and hire more guards
2) Having naked pictures taken is an unacceptable requirement for airplane travel, and does not override the constitutional right to privacy
If you want to disprove the first point, please cite reports of cases where these things have proven themselves effective. If you can do that, I might start believing that they offer some small improvement; otherwise, there's absolutely no evidence to the efficacy of these machines. Wasting our money is what the government does best, so why should I assume this is any different?
Meanwhile, there's plenty of evidence suggesting that people won't stand for this invasion of privacy - including those in a different "position" than I am. This guy is a perfect example; as more and more people are subjected to this type of harassment, it's only a matter of time until the TSA decides that these useless machines aren't worth the litigation costs.
Saying "Don't Fly" is ignoring the inherent violation of privacy involved in the policy itself, and even the TSA understands that - the fact that we can refuse the scanner is conclusive proof. Sooner or later, the courts will agree, and we'll be right back where we started - without the millions of wasted dollars.
NO, I don't believe so. I don't think C4 contains any metallic compounds to set off the metal detectors. As for detonaters they could be hidden inside a pen. All this would be caught on the new x-ray machines.
As for Tgirl's first point: No one has gotten a bomb or a gun in place since they've been put into use. That means they are 100% effective. Prove me wrong.
As for your comment about the funds: what do YOU care? It's not your money, hell it isn't even in this country so your point is useless.
Once again, and I will repeat ad naseum: if you don't like the safety measures being implemented: don't fly.
OH, and before you bring it up: if someone really wants to sneak something onto a plane, they will find away. The key is to make it as difficult as possible. Will someone sneak something on even with these machines in use? You betcha. Will it make it harder for them to do so? You betcha.
If you watched the movie "the dark knight" you will have seen a scene in the jail where a fat guy had a bomb implanted inside him. These machines will detect that where a pat down won't.
"inherent violation of privacy involved in the policy itself," I'm not 100% sure of this but I believe you give up ALL rights of privacy when you attempt to board a passenger plane. You are subject to complete search and seizure at any time due to a long list of reasons. Your right to privacy doesn't apply here as no one is forcing you to fly. It isn't a god given right, it is a privilege....
Which Nikki has already said she'd opt for......now here's the kicker:
The regulations state that a pat down would have to be performed by a same sex security person. I highly doubt that any airport TG will be flying out of will have a transgendered security guard.......So, should the guard be female or male?
Can you imagine the screen if the security guard is female when she slides her hand up the inside of TG's thigh and finds a wiener? I bet they'd be able to hear that out on the tarmac lol......
Yes, as per the TSA website they have various levels of security at various points during the check in process. The added measure of the imaging machines will catch those who have been able to get explosives past the dogs and sniffing equipment. As everything is fallible, one more hurdle to cross just makes it that much more difficult to smuggle things on board.
The thing that gets me (TG for example) is if they impliment additional security measures that WILL make flying safer, if you don't agree with those measures why should EVERYONE abide by YOUR wishes?
Here's an example: say TG gets her way and they don't install the imaging machines. Say someone is able to smuggle explosives onto a plane and it is discovered that they would have been detected with the imaging machine. Will TG pay restitution to all the passengers and crew who died? I bet not.
I used to fly for a living (not as a pilot but flew almost constantly for 2 yrs straight) and I acknowledge that the security screening is a pain in the ass. BUT, I appreciate what they're trying to do and feel safer for it. If someone like TG gets inconvenienced slightly because of this? I frankly don't give a rat's ass in the slightest.
I was in line in Seattle just after 911 and there were lineups everywhere. On the balcony overlooking the check in area were lines and lines of Guards holding M16s at port arms. The big fat amercian in front of me was bitching and moaning for about an hour about the delay. I said to him: would you just SHUT the fuck UP. All THIS is for YOUR protection. If you DON'T like it, the door is over there.....
Everytime I stood in the long lines I joked and chatted with the people around me to pass the time and I spent, not hours, BUT DAYS in the lines and frankly, I have NO patience for people who bitch about it.
I don't know if they use them in Canada.
Airport security "puffers" for bomb detection ditched by TSA
By Jeffrey Leib
The Denver Post
Posted: 05/22/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT
Want an airport "puffer" machine, officially called an explosive trace portal, for your living room?
The U.S. Transportation Security Administration is scrapping the bomb-detection technology, in part because of high maintenance costs for the 94 machines currently deployed at 37 U.S. airports. Denver International Airport has three of the walk-through screening devices, one at each of DIA's security checkpoints.
The TSA also has 113 such machines that it never deployed, said spokeswoman Carrie Harmon. The TSA's plan to junk the puffers was first reported by USA Today.
The agency spent about $30 million for the 207 machines, which also have incurred about $6 million in maintenance costs since they were introduced in 2004, Harmon said. At DIA, the machines, made by Smiths Detection, have been used for secondary screening of airline passengers.
They blow puffs of air over travelers while they stand in the portal. The device collects an air sample and analyzes it for explosive residue.
"The reason we're phasing them out is primarily because of maintenance issues and because there are more reliable and effective screening techniques," Harmon said.
At DIA, the work of one of the trace portals has been supplanted by a millimeter-wave whole-body imaging machine, she said, while two of the air-blowing portals still are being used.
"They are working and do have some security benefit," Harmon said, but they will gradually be phased out and replaced with other equipment.
You can't go to the airport without a TSA agent trying to play with your cock, you can't go into a public washroom without a closet homo Republican trying to pick you up, and you can't join a White Supremacist group without being called a racist. We're living in strange times.
just remember: for every ONE passenger that looks like that?
They'll have 500 that look like this:
Can you imagine though? TG goes through and they look at her boobs then move their eyes down her body and voila a WIENER!!!! lol......you'd better hope the screener wouldn't be sipping his coffee at the time or it'd be all over the console....
Well we all know they will be concerned with the object you keep embeded in your rectum....lol
All the so called rules are just out the window in this day and age.
It will definitely offend some people but if in the end it saves lives it is worth it.
effectiveness is impossible too judge because what would have happened cannot be measured.
It will definitely offend some people but if in the end it saves lives it is worth it.
effectiveness is impossible too judge because what would have happened cannot be measured.
There are lot of informed people who consider the searches a joke, because they do not accomplish anything. I read the Ask the Pilot column on Salon.com, he is a commercial pilot, he feels that they are entirely a feel-good exercise that do not achieve anything, he makes some good points.
in a sense, yes they are. What they DO do though is discourage the easy terrorist. Look at it this way: if you don't screen or search people, then they could simply put a knife in their pocket, board the plane, and do what they did. Will the determined terrorist do something as simple? Not with the searches going on.
Then you install metal detectors. WIll they catch everything? Probably not but without them they will deter most from trying.
Then you ban (and rightly so) liquids because there are now liquid explosives. Now if what we see in movies is only partly true, one person brings part a in a coke bottle, another brings part B in a juice bottle. Now because of the possible outcry from people lke TG, they don't ban all carry ons because "it would too much of an inconvenience". It is people like her that prevent a true secure plane.
Then you install the imaging devices. Will they catch anyone? Probably not because they know they won't be able to sneak anything past it.
So then they go through all the screening of all persons who have anything to do with anyone getting near the plane. Will they catch everyone? Probably not. But if they didn't screen? The terrorists would have easy access.
The thing is, in a free society you cannot guarantee 100% security. You cannot catch everyone. What you have to do is make it as difficult as possible.
I read somewhere that at busy ports, they are only able to actually screen 20% of all containers coming into the country and they number in the thousands per day. They figure the next big problem will come via a container. Can they screen all of them? No. It would stifle the economy and you cannot get between someone and their dollar store fridge magnet or their ikea bookcase......
I don't recall anyone getting a gun on board a plane for a long time before these scanners. as for a bomb- I guess they would detect the underwear bomb or the shoe bomb. haven't heard of any suspects being caught with these scanners yet - has there been any cases?
are you really using the "dark knight" as your source for what these airport scanners can do?
