Post Punk Kitchen Forum

You mean Chertoff?

Well, I think I've started to form a stronger opinion now. Before, I had an "I don't really care" attitude, but now I'm actually against having the scanners or get a pat down as the only options.

If it happens to me in December, I'll opt out and get the pat down. What are my rights? Can I demand it be done in public? (Are they pulling people aside into different rooms even?). If I joke around (like moan or not wear undies) can I get in trouble? I don't think I have the guts to joke around, but can you get in trouble if you did?

Why would you do that?

Messing with the TSA probably isn't going to have any positive effects. And I would wear underwear if you desire to not have your labia touched full-on. Because I don't think that they'll know the diff.

I wouldn't. It's out of curiosity. I used "I" but I was more thinking about people who might do this (the kilt and sweaty balls idea) and I was concerned about what might happen.

I don't think that you can get in trouble for failure to wear underwear or sweating too much or even making sounds, but if you make jokes they can detain you for as long as they see fit and make you miss your flight, so I think anyone that wants to go that route should expect the worst.

I think the body scanners and the pat-down policy is because they over estimate the change that something will happen.

I think that with the right training, a person can " get things done" or kill some one with just using his or her hands.
(as far as I know the 9/11 hijackers didn't have weapons or explosives?)

I feel that the " fear mongering" and all the scanning, like the measures regarding fluids, are mostly in place to give a lot of security personel job security.

And to make passengers feel like they are safe....

The 9/11 hijackers had box cutters.

Pre 9/11 we did an initial public offering for an airline company, and it was kind of shocking what got past the security systems.

But the public keeps forgetting that the hijackers didn't sneak the box cutters past security--it was legal to take box cutters on a plane.

And the "Underwear Bomber" should have been caught long before he hit the airport--his father told the FBI his son was a terrorist, and there's some (unproven but likely) evidence that he was allowed through security without a passport. Lack of x-ray scanner isn't what got him so far.

If the public were more informed, fewer people would feel safe with these scanners...but the government and TSA focus on the word "terrorism" and "rememember the Underwear Bomber" without giving any context surrounding the situation.

last time I got the pat down I smelled like armpits and campfire since I had been camping in the New Mexico Mountains for a week...the dude seemed nice enough...and he was lucky he had gloves on cause my armpits were DRENCHED

How can the TSA even pretend this is about safety when they're still subjecting flight staff to the scans/searches? I know they're backing down on pilots but flight attendants still have to undergo these "security measures." A pilot or flight attendant knows enough to take down a plane without explosives (and of course, I don't believe anyone working as a pilot or n flight attendant is a threat)--why on earth would TSA need to scan them every time? Because they can?

Interesting article about airport security in Israel.

I don't necessarily want Israeli-style security (suffice it to say that I'm skeptical of the claim that they don't use racial profiling), but there are a lot of valid criticisms of American airport security, and a discussion of some obvious ways we could improve it.

It should say something about how seriously we take security that we pay screeners about $30k and don't require anything more than a high school diploma from them. And it's insane to have a single point of failure.

That's a great article. I especially loved this part:



Simply and clearly wraps up how inane our system is.

I searched around that same website (The Star, Toronto?) and found this column http://www.thestar.com/news/article/893 ... esque?bn=1 I really liked it, for the most part.

because at some point, not everyone who dresses like a flight attendant will be a flight attendant.

i think they should have retinal scanners in place for employees. (but then someone with the right connections or know-how could probably get their eyeballs put on file and scoot right on past.) really, nothing is completely secure.

Well, ID should suffice...if ID had been required of the underwear bomber (I posted a link above), all would have been fine. Or, are you being hyperbolic?

nope. are IDs difficult to counterfeit? seems to me retinal scans would be the safest.
however, i was talking to a pilot today, and he said that although they have the IDs, not all airports have the scanners needed to read them. (which i guess would make retinal scanners even more rare.) but maybe put the funds from pornoscanners into the ID scanners. maybe? just a suggestion.

:edit: oh, i see where you're confused, no, i'm talking about employees using the retinal scans.
the underwear bomber was a passenger, not posing as an employee.

There's also a risk of a pilot or flight attendant bringing something on their person and then having someone who is not a flight attendant or pilot steal it and use it. I think they're just trying to keep certain things out of the area.

but they still shouldn't be subjected to a virtual strip search / fondling session.

if they know they shouldn't be smuggling something in on their immediate person, then i'd hope they won't do it. they know the dangers. if it's accidentally in their luggage, the x-ray will see it.

Yeah, but flight attendants should, presumably, not be bringing aboard any prohibited items.

My point was the TSA knows it's logically useless to search pilots/flight attendants--again underscoring the fact that this isn't about actual safety.

I knew you were talking about employeess using the retinal scans. The reason I brought up the underwear bomber was that, in his case, it appears he was able to get by without even an ID. As far as I know, the TSA isn't encountering a problem with falsification of ID--and I'm pretty sure sure flight staff need multiple forms of ID and travel with other flight staff--so the mention of retinal scan seems too over-cautious, to me.

TSA admits that it's not even about safety. It's about moving large sums of cash and drugs.

http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/04/traveling-w ... -cash.html

They are if they have to be matched against a crew roster. And they do.

It's pretty ridiculous to screen the airplane crew. It's really not that hard for the pilot to take down an airplane, and screening them doesn't do anything to prevent that.

None of the ground crew and maintenance workers get screened. TSA agents don't get screened. Law enforcement doesn't get screened. In the video posted earlier, the man threatened with a $10,000 lawsuit asked whether the cop who escorted him out or the secure area would also be screened or threatened with a lawsuit. He was told that they'd "deal with him later." Yeah, sure they will.

The crew gets screened for show. Everyone has to get screened! Unless you don't see them, then we don't bother.

but if the supposed terrorist is well connected / a great hacker, couldn't the roster be altered as well?