<p>But is it really only a choice between no screening and ‘looking down your pants search’ ? :(</p>
<p>I think what a lot of people feel is yes, there is a reasonable level of search they are willing to put up with * and* the recent addition of radiation exposure and enhanced pat-downs is not reasonable. For many people, the cost outweighs the supposed benefit. </p>
<p>I suspect if you had two planes - one for those who were willing to put up with a reasonable level of search and one for those who were A-Okay with having their booty touched…the first plane would be full and the second would, well, let’s just say you would probably have a whole aisle to yourself. On second thought, that might just make it worth. :)</p>
<p>19 yo daughter went through busy airport security early this afternoon, no big deal…They do have scanners there, but she wasn’t asked to go through them.</p>
<p>She had bag check for whatever reason, but when they saw it was her teddy bear and nail polish, they just laughed and waved her through.</p>
<p>This is one of the big, busy airports…So, just thought I’d share a positive anecdote to go with the horrible ones we are reading. She said everything was moving the same as usual and nobody seemed all that extra tense. YMMV</p>
<p>Wasn’t there some incident with some explosive or something hidden in a stuffed animal a few years back (and no I am not kidding). It might have been overseas-- like a grenade in a teddy bear or something like that, IIRC.</p>
<p>When my late mo. was ill and in the hospital, my family and I made many last minute one-way flights to NY. That was always a flag and we always had “sss” on our boarding pass, saying we were “selected” for extra screening. Usually involved luggage ckeck and pat downs. Not fun.</p>
<p>If they are going to have this heightened level of “touching” between TSA and passengers, I hope they do a bang-up job of screening/background checks of the TSA employees.</p>
<p>Quote:
If they are going to have this heightened level of “touching” between TSA and passengers, I hope they do a bang-up job of screening/background checks of the TSA employees. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t count on it. </p>
<p>I don’t understand why Americans are putting up with this jettisoning of the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable searches.</p>
<p>I also don’t understand the bloggers (not necessarily on CC) who blame all this on the terrible unions and liberals. I’m as liberal as they come in most issues, plus I am one of those terrible unionized teachers with tenure–I am outraged by this invasion of privacy and denial of our constitutional rights. I LOVE to travel, especially to Europe, but I will not fly until this policy stops. </p>
<p>In England, they exempt those under 18 from these scans because they are against their child pornography laws. What about here? We label 17 yr. olds as sex offenders if they receive a naked photo from their willing gf on their phone, but it’s okay if strangers stare at our children’s bodies at the airport.</p>
<p>Can’t wait to hear my DD’s report at Thanksgiving.</p>
<p>jym, as I said, it wasn’t on CC. My point is that sane people from many different political views find this policy objectionable (obscene, actually), and there is no need to make it political–my opinion is that EVERYONE should object to this denial of our rights. And please don’t tell me, that’s okay, you don’t have to fly…</p>
<p>Can’t really link to blogs here, but have a look at the comments sections after just about every news story referring to “Passenger Refuses Groin Check, Full Body Scan” or similar titles–on CBS or any well-known news source. It’s quite eye-opening to read. You’ll see many people blaming liberals and the TSA union, also encouraging everybody to vote Republican in order to stop the policy. It would be funny if it weren’t all so disturbing.</p>
<p>The arguments that some here have made pointing out that the TSA agents are just doing their jobs…well, I think we should make their lives (the TSA workers) miserable. The head of TSA was on the am talk shows stating that they will not be changing the policy. He also refused to say what would be going too far–cavity searches? He did not say one way or another.</p>
<p>So, we really have to force these TSA agents to walk off their jobs in protest, by making their work lives as unpleasant as possible. Those who won’t quit have no integrity, or they are enjoying themselves as they watch the public squirm. Don’t tell me they are feeding their families…</p>
<p>If they want to feed their families by sexually exploiting others, there are plenty of ways to do that more effectively and profitably.</p>
<p>I’m reminded of the saying: Don’t pxxs on my leg and tell me it’s raining.</p>
<p>Sopranomom, I saw the interview. What a ball of slime! Of course, he does not want his cushy, well-paid position, disappear.</p>
<p>A friend of mine says he will do the following: he plans on electing a patdown, then making comments about how he is enjoying the process while asking for some extra rubbing here and there Which got me thinking: if I take off my clothes completely when pulled aside for a patdown, will they arrest me for indicent exposure or will they commend me for being extremely cooperative ;)?</p>
<p>I have no intention of doing that. I am all for putting pressure on our elected officials who make and implement policy. I am pretty sure that if I try to “make a TSA agent’s life miserable,” I’ll very soon find myself feeling a whole lot worse than I could ever make her feel.</p>
<p>Exactly. Fake an orgasm. Say, ooh, baby, can I have your phone number? I’d love to see you after work. Don’t like that approach? Then cry, tell them it reminds you of when your priest/boy scout leader/icky uncle used to come over. Where will I send my psychiatrist bill, to you or your supervisor at TSA? etc etc. Some have suggested the men take viagra shortly before, and show up fully ready…for something. </p>
<p>We have to fight this somehow. We seem to have few options other that to cause delays and make TSA agents squirm.</p>
<p>I have contacted my elected officials. I hope everyone does the same.</p>
<p>Travelers who set off metal detectors at airport security are asked to undergo extra screening. If they refuse to go through an enhanced visual device that shows the body through clothing, they are required to submit to the thorough pat-down in order to fly.</p>
<p>So apparently it’s only if you set off the detector. If you don’t set it off, there is no scanning and no expanded pat down.</p>
<p>Making the agents lives a living h ll isn’t going to solve anything. I’m sure 99 percent of them are decent human beings who are trying to put food on the table for their family. The other 1 percent might be jerks. Show me any company that is different. I’m one of the nicest people I know at work… (not trying to toot my own horn, but I have the patience of a saint…) and I have customers who cuss at me because they hate our procedures which I have to enforce, customers who call me and tell me to mail them things but refuse to give their name or address, people who tell me to stop mailing them things but again refuse to tell me who they are, etc. You may think you are making a point by withholding information (or by attempting to be a jerk) but all that will result in is you not getting what you want. In this case, you are not getting to your destination. In my work case, you don’t give me your address, I don’t mail you the information. You don’t tell me who you are, I don’t remove you from our mailing list. You can scream and yell at me as much as you want, it’s literally just not possible. Sure, you may cause some people may quit because they can’t stand the customers and their antics, but you aren’t going to scare too many people away… and the company isn’t going to change anything… Not overnight, at least. Unfortunately, being treated like crap is part of the job description in jobs that require direct contact with customers. Even if you do cause some to quit, you are still going to have certain employees that are jerks and most people that are not. We constantly have customers treat me the way sopranomom is referring. Someone I know named Mary once had a male customer call and ask her “how her garden grows”. She hung up on him.</p>
<p>Fendergirl, it’s not true that only those who set off metal detectors have to have extra screening. In airports where the xray machines are in place, you have a choice: go through the x-rated scan or receive an enhanced pat down, that includes open hand touching of the breasts and genitals. For your children, you have no good choices: expose them to the unknown radiation or have them touched in their private areas by an adult. And if a person can’t walk on their own without crutches or can’t stay still enough for the scan, that person HAS to be groped.</p>
<p>Decent people do not feel people up for a living. Sorry, I don’t buy it. They should stand up for their own rights, instead of mindlessly following orders. As others have pointed out, this is precisely how eventually 8 million Jews were killed by nice people who were just trying to stay out of trouble themselves. Yes, I do think what I just said is overly dramatic, but where exactly do we draw the line? These machines and this fondling will not find the material easily placed in the anus or vagina. This is all for show, these screenings will not stop terrorists. </p>
<p>The plan is for every airport to have these scans by the end of 2011. There is no easy solution here, but quiet acquiescence on the part of TSA agents and the public is not acceptable to me.</p>
<p>It also means that my husband will always get a pat down due to having knee replacement surgery. Our last trip (2 weeks ago) from LV was very invasive for him. While he knew he would get “wanded”, as in the past. he totally wasn’t prepared to have his groin area touched. This was the first time it happened.</p>
<p>I wonder if there is any knowledge about what harm might be done to an embryo or fetus when women go through these radiation machines while pregnant? Some women won’t know that they are pregnant, some won’t think to avoid them while pregnant, and some women won’t even know that they are exposing themselves to radiation.</p>
<p>Are members of the House and Senate subjected to this? They fly a lot. Or are they exempt? I bet this would be resolved more quickly if someone like the Senate Majority Leader had to endure this treatment.</p>
<p>Oh puhleeze. That you would equate screening people before allowing them to voluntarily board an airplane with the execution of 6 million people in cold blood is… ludicrous.</p>
<p>Are we to give up on screening because it’s not perfect? Yes, a really determined terrorist could put something explosive in their anus. Does that mean we shouldn’t bother to check anywhere else? These people look for an easy way to get us. Boarding a plane with a weapon or explosive is no longer easy. They’ve already shown that they’re willing to move on… now it’s cargo. (Which was an obvious hole all along). When that gets fixed, they’ll go to smaller but more frequent attacks on soft targets like subways. Sorry to be depressing. We can’t stop them everywhere, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to stop them SOMEWHERE! </p>
<p>And as someone who lives in the flight path of a major airport, I’m kinda glad they’re screening people for explosives. A flaming plane coming down in my hometown isn’t something I’d like to think about.</p>
<p>Recent polls show that 72% to 80% of Americans believe screening (including full body scattergrams and pat-downs) is fine. </p>
<p>I will say I’m glad I’m not traveling with small children though. The effects of radiation (no matter how small) on children are worse, and explaining a pat-down… I just wouldn’t want to have to point out to my kids that anyone around them in an airport might want to kill us all. :(</p>
<p>My son worked for a stadium the past 2 summers. His job involved, among other things, patting down men coming in to the stadium, to look for alcohol or weapons. How dare you imply that he is “indecent.” He did a job. Not blindly - like a Nazi - he did a job with a legitimate purpose. He didn’t like it - “patting down fat drunk guys for 8 hours should pay more than this” was the exact quote. My son is a good, kind, INTELLIGENT young man who would never hurt another person. I am extremely offended by your comment.</p>
<p>“Are we to give up on screening because it’s not perfect?”</p>
<p>Wrong question … the right question is “Are we going to improve screening because what we have today is not perfect?” I would expect the answer is “Yes.” That begs the question “Does that mean rougher and more intrusive screening? … or do we go in a different direction to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of screening?”</p>
Which got me thinking: if I take off my clothes completely when pulled aside for a patdown, will they arrest me for indicent exposure or will they commend me for being extremely cooperative ;)?</p>