Being felt up at the airport

[Andara Bledin]

Here's a link to the Gizmodo article about their releasing 100 low-res, edited body scans that they acquired by filing a simple Freedom Of Information Act request:
One Hundred Naked Citizens: One Hundred Leaked Body Scans

Over at The Mail Online, is one of the more in-depth reports out there regarding the continued TSA pat-down of a crying 3-year-old who was too upset at having her teddy bear go through the x-ray machine to not set off the "metal detector."
Fury as airport security staff are caught on camera searching a crying three-year-old girl

An article at The People's Voice regarding New Jersey's push to ban both the scanners and the invasive and sexually abusive pat-downs and the US Senate Subcommittee's Transportation Security Administration Oversight hearing that was to start at 10:00 am EST this morning.
New Jersey moves to ban TSA scanners and sexually invasive frisks

After reading these and many other articles about the same things, I have to ask:

Just who is terrorizing whom?

^-.-^

[Eisa]

This is making Bin Laden's panties wet.

blas, I think I just threw up a little in my mouth reading that sentence...

But looking at Andara's post...yeah. There comes a point when what you're doing to everyone else far outweighs the possible risks of "terrorists." They're not stupid. Whatever you do, they will come up with a way to counter-balance it. Going overboard ridiculous on security measures, making 3-year-olds cry, and basically molesting people who just want to get on the damn plane already is not the way to do it.

...and I think this is also gonna be why I don't fly, 'cause I really don't need to go into flashbacks and PTSD startle GET AWAY mode in the middle of the airport. Then I'd probably get tackled and tasered.

[crashhelmet]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

[lordlundar]

I'm still not for lightening up on security and making it easier for them though.

Neither am I, but what's in place is a bunch of fancy gimmicks handled by barely trained and understaffed people, some of which if they had to take a flight themselves wouldn't pass muster. And throwing more ineffective gimmicks and rules is not solving the problem, it's just making more problems.

What I want is more EFFECTIVE security. Properly trained and staffed security personnel who don't need to rely on fancy gimmicks and poorly made "no think" rules and able to make more appropriate judgment calls. I want security to actually have to be smart about their jobs. If it mean removing the body scanner and the three people to run it and replacing them with a well trained security officer and security dog, then all the better.

Remember, there can be 30 security personnel at the gate, but if they act like they're sharing a brain cell between them, it's no help.

(I should at this point say that I'm aware that there might be TSA officers on these forums, and in no way am I singling anyone out. But let's be honest, you're overworked, undertrained, underpaid, and understaffed. Then when you get told of a new gimmick or new rule, it's not helping you like the politicos and executives think it is.

[Peppergirl]

It really is going too far now, I agree.

Just PLEASE don't take it out on your travel agent if you get scanned. I've already gotten screamed at a time or two.

[Greenday]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

I love when people quote people from hundreds of years ago things that have nothing to do with today's situation!

[crashhelmet]

I love when people quote people from hundreds of years ago things that have nothing to do with today's situation!

It doesn't apply? Our rights and liberties are being stripped away in the name of security. How does this quote not apply?

Our privacy is invaded at the airports. Our privacy is invaded in our phone calls, our internet use, and our bank accounts. All in the name of better security in the "War on Terror."

Franklin's full quote of this is:

The Massachusetts must suffer all the hazards and mischiefs of war, rather than admit the alteration of their charters and laws by parliament. They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

The people of Massachusetts Bay Colony had a choice. Fight for their rights or have them stripped in the name of protection. It is no different than what we are subjected to now.

[Greenday]

It was in reference to being occupied by another country. Not by our own country.

[Andara Bledin]

It was in reference to being occupied by another country. Not by our own country.

This specific quote dates back to more than a decade prior to the start of the Revolutionary War. Not only that, but more than 20 years prior he had made a similar statement.

But that's just a straw man, regardless.

It's irrelevant who it is you allow to hold the keys to your cage in exchange for the illusion of being safe.

^-.-^

[Dreamstalker]

Plus the real terrorists will find a way to get round it, cuz they always do.

We keep tipping our hands with each "enhancement" (it's all so obviously posturing that I don't think anyone was ever fooled). That's how they get around it, much like virus writers. Build a better mousetrap, the mouse will eventually figure it out especially if you're practically showing the mice a slideshow.

Monitoring behavior seems like it would give too many false positives to be useful; first-time fliers are bound to be nervous, people anxious about tight connections, and people who are just nervous around uniforms (I've seen it).

[ZedOmega]

UNLESS you're my doctor or my significant other then you will NOT touch my genital area in any way, shape, or form, all in the name of "security". That's crossing a line that never should have been crossed to begin with.

You're basically saying you'd have beef with the police if they pat-searched you after they stop you for questioning.

I understand clearly the reasons for security check points BUT to give consent to have some perfect stranger touch you in your most private areas of your body is just wrong in so many ways. Any other stranger touching someone like that would be considered sexual assault. BUT because it's TSA, then they call it "security".

Some people idiotic enough to try to hide weapons or small amounts of drugs on their person will hide it in their underwear, as strange as that sounds. It's not sexual assault, it's logic. Now, if they spend more than a second or two down there, that's harassment.

& those full body scanners aren't that much better. They can see past your clothes to see certain things on your body that should only be seen by those that you are intimate with.

I just took a look at the photo gallery in the first link Andara posted, and it doesn't even bear a remote resemblance to nudity. It's all vague digital imaging, and despite the way the anti-scanner crowd is reacting to the science involved in those, there aren't any naughty bits being shown.

What next? Parade everybody in the nude & remain that way till you get to where you are going?

An idea that perverts and nudists wouldn't have a problem with. On a more serious note, ain't gonna happen. The human rights groups would have a field day.

There has to be a better way than this. Treating everybody like a terrorist isn't what I call a good security posture.

The way things are going right now, 'security' and 'efficiency' are on opposite ends of the same slider. Ease up on one to improve the other. You can either be safer when flying or more comfortable when going through airports, not both.

[MaggieTheCat]

I just took a look at the photo gallery in the first link Andara posted, and it doesn't even bear a remote resemblance to nudity. It's all vague digital imaging, and despite the way the anti-scanner crowd is reacting to the science involved in those, there aren't any naughty bits being shown.

The pictures in that article were also taken with a device that is used in a courthouse, not an airport. It is similar to the full body scanners used at an airport, but the airport scanners are much, much more detailed and do indeed show genitals and breasts. Take a look at the picture in the article I posted for a better idea of what TSA agents see.

Edit to add: Also, most of the images on the internet that are of what kind of pictures airport full body scanners take (including the one in the article I linked), are low resolution and/or blurred to obscure genitals. What TSA agents see are high definition and not blurred.

[ZedOmega]

The pictures in that article were also taken with a device that is used in a courthouse, not an airport. It is similar to the full body scanners used at an airport, but the airport scanners are much, much more detailed and do indeed show genitals and breasts. Take a look at the picture in the article I posted for a better idea of what TSA agents see.

Edit to add: Also, most of the images on the internet that are of what kind of pictures airport full body scanners take (including the one in the article I linked), are low resolution and/or blurred to obscure genitals. What TSA agents see are high definition and not blurred.

The entire article read like a blog entry. The part about 'TSA thugs' just cinched it. Plus, the example photo might have shown nipples (I'll concede that point), but zooming in on the example picture at the top thanks to Firefox what would normally be a vagina was basically the crotch of a Barbie doll. A Google Images search for 'body scanner images' showed a lot of the same thing, some of the example pictures being males with Ken bulges instead of the actual parts.

[Andara Bledin]

I just took a look at the photo gallery in the first link Andara posted, and it doesn't even bear a remote resemblance to nudity. It's all vague digital imaging, and despite the way the anti-scanner crowd is reacting to the science involved in those, there aren't any naughty bits being shown.

That completely misses the entire point of the article. It's not about whether the images can be identified, but that they exist at all. These are images that have been claimed to be deleted and not possible to remove from the scanner, and yet the unit in question not only contained saved images, but they obviously had no difficulty at all in pulling those images off and saving them.

The scanner in question has been returned to someone for some form of maintenance with images intact, no less.

Beyond that you have the safety concerns that come with the radiation exposure. Quite a number of doctors and those in the X-Ray field are stepping forward to express their concern as well as their doubt that they are as safe as is claimed.

^-.-^

[Rageaholic]

blas, I think I just threw up a little in my mouth reading that sentence...

But looking at Andara's post...yeah. There comes a point when what you're doing to everyone else far outweighs the possible risks of "terrorists." They're not stupid. Whatever you do, they will come up with a way to counter-balance it. Going overboard ridiculous on security measures, making 3-year-olds cry, and basically molesting people who just want to get on the damn plane already is not the way to do it.

...and I think this is also gonna be why I don't fly, 'cause I really don't need to go into flashbacks and PTSD startle GET AWAY mode in the middle of the airport. Then I'd probably get tackled and tasered.

QFT

I'd be more afraid of the security checks than terrorism if I were to fly. I don't know exactly how nuts and paranoid everyone is, but since the underwear bomber, I've heard they've gotten really strict.

But even though I do think they've gone overboard, most of my ire is directed towards the terrorist fuckwads who started this.