User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 24

  1. #11
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patches View Post
    ...Can I ask why/how you find pat-downs ineffective?
    Haphazard doesn't feel like he/she is properly getting off, and obviously wants to be groped more better. Dammit Patches, READ!

  2. #12
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    What do you suggest?
    Security in the airport is allowed as long as it is considered "reasonable". This is what the courts decided a while ago when they first put in magnetometers.

    If they've decided giving everyone a pat-down is reasonable, why is it unreasonable to yank down someone's pants when they find something? It's obvious that they're not being serious about threats here. That's like the police going to a house because of drug complaints and turning back when the drug dog goes crazy. If you're not going to evaluate a potential threat when you find one, you might as well not be doing anything at all.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  3. #13
    Klingon Warrior Princess Patches's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    From both your first and this post, I'm guessing you didn't even read the OP, because you obviously do not understand my complaint.
    There is a reason I quoted kelric, and not you. I was not responding to your post. I was responding to where he said: " "up the leg until I feel resistance" pat-downs? Not useful."
    “Everybody has a secret world inside of them. All of the people of the world, I mean everybody. No matter how dull and boring they are on the outside, inside
    them they've all got unimaginable, magnificent, wonderful, stupid, amazing worlds. Not just one world. Hundreds of them. Thousands maybe.” -Neil Gaiman

    ~

  4. #14
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patches View Post
    ...Can I ask why/how you find pat-downs ineffective?
    It's that there's not been any evidence to my knowledge that it's resulting in any significant improvement in safety. Security "testers" still get through with prohibited materials regularly. And yet... flying's darned safe. Is it possible that we're "safer" getting pat downs at the airport than not? Maybe. It's also possible that we would be safer having the police free to simply storm into every house in the country at a whim to search for guns, knives, sharp sticks, etc. I mean, they might find something, right? It's a question of privacy. But it's *also* a question of cost vs. benefit. How much time, effort, and resources are being dumped into expanding the role of airport security, when airports and flying is already very safe? There's no such thing as *completely* safe. And not any measure is worth any potentially detectable increase in safety.

    Something like 100 people die in car crashes every day in the US (and that's not counting serious injuries). I'm not even going to try to get into health/death issues related to pollution, poor access to health care, etc. There are better ways to make a difference if health and life are really the issue. Of course, they're almost certainly *not* the issue, but that's another topic.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  5. #15
    Epiphany
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    Lockable sturdy cockpit doors? Useful. Making me take off my shoes and ration liquid into 3-oz containers? Not useful. Chemical-detecting animals (dogs/pigs)? Useful. High-powered scanners and "up the leg until I feel resistance" pat-downs? Not useful. If we were really serious about saving lives, we'd force all cars to have breathalyzer-ignition switches. Not that I'm a proponent of such things, but the magnitude of drunk driving injuries/deaths dwarfs problems in airline safety.
    I'm not arguing that more lives aren't taken in drunk driving incidents, but the TSA's job is to protect airline passengers. Taking your shoes off is a result of Richard Reid's attempt to blow up a plane with explosives in his shoes and minimizing liquids were enforced after the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. Airport security is not infallible, but to say that these modifications to procedures are ineffective and useless is absurd. Not making any changes to the screening process after those events took place would have been irresponsible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    The point is not that she didn't get a pat down.

    If they're trying to make sure you don't have a bomb in your underpants, why don't they have the authority to make sure you don't have a bomb in your underpants?
    She was sitting in a wheel chair and they felt an anomaly between her ass and the chair. According to the link you provided. "Tammy wouldn't say what the unusual contour was, but says she's sleeping at the airport. She was told she would be allowed to board her flight home Wednesday morning." So, apparently, she refused to tell the security officers what the buldge was and then cried to the media because they wouldn't let her on the plane.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    So if she went and blew up the check-baggage lines, which are overcrowded now, and managed to kill a hundred people, that would be "not the TSA's problem", I mean, fucking seriously?

    It's not even whether they're being "too invasive" blah blah blah. Why are they even doing this if they can't verify? I mean, obviously they couldn't verify. Otherwise, they would have let her on the plane because they would have figured out she wasn't a threat, or arrested her because she had a bomb in her pants. I mean, unless they're punishing people for their false-positives for absolutely no reason, which I wouldn't put them beyond.
    No, it wouldn't be the TSA's fault if someone walks into an unguarded, non-sterile area of an airport and detonates an explosive, just as it's not their fault if a terrorist targets other public facilities such as restaurants, gas stations, etc... Are you suggesting that TSA should screen people before they enter the airport and then re-screen them prior to getting on the plane? How else could they be certain that someone isn't concealing explosives?

    It would have been irresponsible to let a passenger on a plane who didn't clear the screening process and essentially refused to cooperate with security, especially after she's been known to create unnecessary drama. They didn't determine that she WAS a threat, but they couldn't determine that she WASN'T one so they weren't able to permit her further access or remove her from the premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Security in the airport is allowed as long as it is considered "reasonable". This is what the courts decided a while ago when they first put in magnetometers.

    If they've decided giving everyone a pat-down is reasonable, why is it unreasonable to yank down someone's pants when they find something? It's obvious that they're not being serious about threats here. That's like the police going to a house because of drug complaints and turning back when the drug dog goes crazy. If you're not going to evaluate a potential threat when you find one, you might as well not be doing anything at all.
    With all of the uproar surrounding the x-ray body scanners, do you really think the courts, not to mention the highly critical public, are going to allow disrobing or cavity searches?

  6. #16
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mask Manifest View Post
    Airport security is not infallible, but to say that these modifications to precedures are ineffective and useless is absurd. Not making any changes to the screening process after those events took place would have been irresponsible.
    I don't really agree. Can I see where security experts would want to evaluate the possible risks from such things? Sure. But that doesn't mean that making changes is warranted. I mean, at what level do such things become ridiculous? Naked prison-style cavity searches? Maybe thats not good enough, and in addition we need to add a 12-hour pre-flight quarantine on a diet of laxatives, with inspectors to hunt through the chamber pots for dangerous items. I exaggerate for effect, to be sure, but you can't deny that at some point the cost in terms of time, money, privacy, and dignity isn't worth the elimination of a tiny dubious risk.

    I mean... the whole 3-oz liquid thing. Even if a say, 6-oz container of liquid had significant potential for destructiveness (which my readings at the time tended to dismiss), it caused an uproar, and all of the sudden medical supplies and baby formula were exempt. Great. So now a wannabe bomber will just bring the purported boom-liquid in a baby bottle, or disguised as medical gear. The invention of nitpicky, silly restrictions that get treated as some sort of end-of-the-world necessity that are then sometimes even loopholed out of existence (with no ill effect) that make the whole airport security thing seem more like a show of force than an actual worthwhile preventative measure. The "it's all security theater" people do have a point.

    Granted - *some* security measures are warranted -- I'm not trying to discount that. But it's getting pretty silly, profoundly annoying, and I'm not sure that the extra methods are useful. I mean, if a little old lady with a pair of nail clippers wants to make a run for my jugular (*snip*snip*), she's welcome to try.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  7. #17
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Security in the airport is allowed as long as it is considered "reasonable". This is what the courts decided a while ago when they first put in magnetometers.

    If they've decided giving everyone a pat-down is reasonable, why is it unreasonable to yank down someone's pants when they find something? It's obvious that they're not being serious about threats here. That's like the police going to a house because of drug complaints and turning back when the drug dog goes crazy. If you're not going to evaluate a potential threat when you find one, you might as well not be doing anything at all.
    Cheers for that, I wasnt sure if you where suggesting it was OTT or insufficient but I suspected you meant it was OTT because its been popular for people to take that line lately.

  8. #18
    . Blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    Ti = 19 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Te = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ne = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fi = 15 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Si = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ni = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Se = 11[][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fe = 0

    -----------------
    Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
    Man got to sit and wonder why, why, why;
    Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
    Man got to tell himself he understand

  9. #19
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    I mean... the whole 3-oz liquid thing. Even if a say, 6-oz container of liquid had significant potential for destructiveness (which my readings at the time tended to dismiss), it caused an uproar, and all of the sudden medical supplies and baby formula were exempt. Great. So now a wannabe bomber will just bring the purported boom-liquid in a baby bottle, or disguised as medical gear. The invention of nitpicky, silly restrictions that get treated as some sort of end-of-the-world necessity that are then sometimes even loopholed out of existence (with no ill effect) that make the whole airport security thing seem more like a show of force than an actual worthwhile preventative measure. The "it's all security theater" people do have a point.
    I really don't see what's stopping people from putting nearly a quart of liquid explosives in all separate opaque mini-shampoo bottles that are under 3.4 oz. each and mixing it in a big-gulp cup they buy in the terminal. Can you?

    The bombers on the Russian subway had explosives implanted as breast implants. The next step to security isn't cavity searches, it's random masectomies. Oh, your boobies aren't explosives? Sorry, it's not like we can just put them back!

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Cheers for that, I wasnt sure if you where suggesting it was OTT or insufficient but I suspected you meant it was OTT because its been popular for people to take that line lately.
    It's both over the top and insufficient at the same time. Why are they bothering with these over-the-top searches if they're not even going to follow through?
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/so
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    2,841

    Default

    As far as I'm concerned the TSA is nothing more than a joke. Their ridiculous practices are obtrusive to peoples dignity and their existence is simply to sedate the cowardly sheeple masses from extremely small threats. I can see where Haphazard is coming from with her assertion that its hypocritical that the TSA worries about maintaing the safety abord a flight when terrorists can simply cause damage within the terminal itself.

    Also the methods used by the TSA are for the most part, over the top and unnecessary. Chemical sniffing dogs are far more reliable, cheap, and better than scanners or pat downs; vigilance on part of the government to thwart any terrorist attck before it occurs is of more importance. Also the limit on how much liquid any individual might have is just plain stupid; all it does it make it inconvienent for passengers to take beverages, medicine, and cosmetics with them onto the flight, and if terrorists wanted to combine explosive liquids on the plane they still could by having them spilt the materials between several on them on the same flight.

Similar Threads

  1. Does anyone else think about Pokemon when discussing MBTI?
    By swordpath in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 11-20-2010, 09:14 AM
  2. Do you think mostly in words or something else
    By Zergling in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 02-25-2010, 06:27 PM
  3. does anyone else play guild wars?
    By Zergling in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-29-2008, 10:03 PM
  4. does anyone else make up a lot of ideas for computer games?
    By Zergling in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-27-2008, 04:46 PM
  5. Does anyone else visit this site?
    By The Ü™ in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-09-2007, 10:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO