<p>Did anyone read Penn Jillette’s blog about his experience?</p>
<p>[Penn</a> & Teller | ROAD PENN](<a href=“http://www.pennandteller.com/03/coolstuff/penniphile/roadpennfederalvip.html]Penn”>http://www.pennandteller.com/03/coolstuff/penniphile/roadpennfederalvip.html)</p>
<p>Patsmom, that is terrible. I was thinking the same thing if someone was wearing a sanitary product that could be felt. Too intrusive!</p>
<p>The terrorists have won. They don’t ever have to undertake another terrorist plot. They can just sit back in their caves and laugh at the level of chaos they’ve created.</p>
<p>How dumb do we think the terrorists are? They certainly aren’t going to do the same thing again. We’ve beefed up security at the airports. What about trains, buses, or our food system? They are all still incredibly vulnerable. Why wouldn’t the terriorst target a different area of our infrastructure? </p>
<p>The threat level will always be orange. Why would it ever go down? If it needs to go up, they won’t be broadcasting that at the airport. No one would be there to hear it. We’ll all either be dead or down in our bunkers.</p>
<p>One of the big problems with the “anything for security” mindset is the lack of critical thinking about all the security theatre. In many cases, there is very little or no correlation between these knee-jerk procedures and actual security.</p>
<p>These body scanners were implimented as a result of the “underwear bomber”, but even the GAO said that (quoting) “it remains unclear whether the advanced imaging technology would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident based on the preliminary information GAO has received.”</p>
<p>I don’t care what they scan or what they pat down. If it stops someone from bringing an exploding bomb on my plane then it’s okay by me. People are cruel and they would hide things anywhere. If you don’t like it, then don’t fly. IMO.</p>
<p>fendergirl: do you know how the Thrid Reich began?</p>
<p>No and I could care less when it comes to this discussion. We’re not nazi’s. I realize some people may be rude or take advantage of what they are doing and that things may seem obtrusive but I’d put up with any amount of security checks at an airport if it means my plane doesn’t explode. When your plane is targeted by someone, anyone, who has some explosive shoved in what appears to be their prostetic leg or whatever, you don’t think you’d have wished that they had checked that at the air port?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh indeed - so you would be fine with a cavity search every time you fly then? Or perhaps a more powerful medical-style x-ray? Those backscatter scanners only go through clothes, not skin.</p>
<p>I don’t travel for work, I travel for pleasure. I’ve flown six times in my life. That’s 3 round trips. If I was uncomfortable with what they did, I wouldn’t fly. I’d get in a car and go. Or, if it was super long, I’d get on a train and go. (With the exception of say, over seas). If it’s less then a thousand miles, generally speaking I’ll drive it. (Longest trip driven was about 1200 miles each way). I’ve driven more vacations far more often then I’ve flown them, that’s for sure. Don’t have to rent a car, don’t have to check bags, don’t have to arrive 3 hours early each way to check in, etc.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, I feel bad for the lady mentioned earlier regarding her medical condition and I don’t think they should have put her in that position where she went and removed it like that… I would have been embarassed also… but they probably wouldn’t have put her in that condition had she said “well I have this medical issue and it requires me to wear this”.</p>
<p>But fendergirl, the current procedures don’t protect against someone putting explosive material in a sanitary napkin or incontinence diaper. They don’t protect against someone putting materials inside a body cavity (oral, anal, vaginal) or swallowing materials. There are cruel people out there who wouldn’t think twice about using their young child as a way to smuggle explosives onboard. One way of screening for these dangers is to have full-body searches akin to what a prisoner goes through. To guard against the swallowing issue, you’d have to monitor potential passengers for a couple of days before allowing them on a flight. Another way of screening would be to use an Israeli-type system. Why not try that option? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seem to be at cross-purposes with yourself. :)</p>
<p>Airports aren’t even what scares me. Port security scares the living daylights out of me. A gazillion sealed containers enter the US on a regular basis. There’s no effective way to screen them looking for a dirty radiation bomb, biological weapons, or various other types of nastiness.</p>
<p>Haha, I just don’t fly. I think it’s rather expensive and I love driving and seeing the country!</p>
<p>Everything can be scary if you think about it. Heck, a couple of years ago at work they sent out a memo to watch out for white powders when opening mail from customers. That’s just what we wanted… to be doing our jobs and find something that could possibly kill us. I’m sure that’s what goes through the minds of some of the TSA agents, haha.</p>
<p>Slithey Tove,</p>
<p>Your comment about cargo is accurate and the more potentially scary threat at this point, to me as well.</p>
<p>If this procedure truly can cut down on the threat of plane hijackings and terrorism, it would be great. </p>
<p>But it’s just a diversion. </p>
<p>There are so many scary ways to take down a plane, a train, a car and other forms of domestic terrorism that have nothing to do with humans carrying it on their person. If everyone is interested in being a suicide bomber, than it would be easy. Body cavity searches as Slithey recommends. We can breathe a sigh of relief then. But it’s not the case.</p>
<p>Not everyone has flown only 6 times in their life, either. Some have to do it for their jobs, either flying planes or delivering cargo, or taking flights from one destination to do business. It’s not always possible to drive or take a train, either.</p>
<p>We all want to be safe in the air. We are slowly giving up our privacy - some of it was inevitable, but it is a slippery slope here - and eventually, we will all be flying naked.</p>
<p>The question is: will these procedures make us safer, or should we investigate a different model of safety? After reading up on what was posted earlier about security in Israeli airports, I have to say we are damn fools in the US. We should explore this type of security for our airports. </p>
<p>We are deluding ourselves with this new technology and groping that it is going to make us safer in the air. Terrorists are smart. They will just change their methods.</p>
<p>Fendergirl: Almost 10 years ago on 9/11, most people did not think we would be at this point with “enhanced” pat downs and full body scanners which may well not be safe and are definitely intrusive. Maybe in 10 more years, you won’t be able to drive or take a train as you say without first going through some intrusive invasion. Nothing, absolutely nothing is going to stop individuals hell bent on killing others. As M’sMom said, “The terrorist have won” and as BunsenBurner asked you, “Do you know how the Third Reich began”? If not read up on because you will care some day.</p>
<p>Only time will tell if procedures work and make us safer or not. But I think you guys calling this the second coming of us becoming a nazi nation are severely over reacting. I honestly don’t know what is involved in these enhanced pat downs. I don’t really follow it, as I’m not typically an air traveler. I last flew about 6 months ago. Has it changed since then? </p>
<p>Maybe if we had better security 10 years ago, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. We will never know. I remember after it happened, I was like “how could we let that happen?”</p>
<p>And who knows what will happen in the future. Maybe we’ll have hover crafts like in the jetsons. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would you allow the government to profile young Muslim men?</p>
<p>It’s been nearly 10 years since September 11th, 2001. No planes have been felled from the sky. Thankfully.</p>
<p>With all due respect, fendergirl, it’s ludicrous to say “Only time will tell” if we are safer. </p>
<p>You ask if the procedures have changed in the last 6 months. The answer is “Yes.” Resoundingly, so. Some people must walk through scanners that may or may not be a health risk. Others have a security enhanced pat down that varies according to the individual, but may not be so random in the selection process. The new scanners also have the capability of recording photographs of your body through your clothes. </p>
<p>There have been several near misses with people boarding planes. Could this new protocol have caught the underwear bomber? Sure, if he got the pat down. But it may not have been caught by the new screening machines. It wasn’t caught by the old machines.</p>
<p>The shoe bomber has caused us all to take off our shoes when travelling, only some people will tell you some airports don’t make people take their shoes off, others do. It’s inconsistent. Largely because TSA’s policy itself only specifies that certain types of shoes need to be run through the scanner. Did you know that? I have taken off footwear at every airport in the country that I have flown through in the last almost decade. </p>
<p>There is no way to prove we are safer or less safe with these security protocol.</p>
<p>We can’t prove a negative.</p>
<p>Terrorists would be absolutely cracked to try another large scale attack using passenger aircraft. The idea of us being safer from these protocols is one that isn’t proven.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that a reduction in air travel will be a consequence of the current policy. I believe that a more troubling consequence is that Americans are starting to question the behavior of their government and even its legitimacy. Chareles Krauthammer is absolutely correct that the American people are telling their government, “don’t touch my junk” and in a broader sense than just airport security. The airport security issue is symbolic of a larger mood.</p>
<p>“If I was uncomfortable with what they did, I wouldn’t fly.”</p>
<p>Not an option. In order to find out if you’re uncomfortable with it you have to fly enough to get a range of TSA searches. You may have a great experience at the airport in New Orleans (a city which relies on tourism, and one where I’ve never had an issue), and a terrible experience at some other airport. That’s kind of the OP’s point … not sure there will be an issue with TSA, but wondering what rights she had if she happens to receive “more zealous” treatment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, fendergirl. In order to get onto a plane now, you must submit to a scan which essentially takes a naked picture of you. If you refuse the scan, you will be subjected to an “enhanced” pat-down. This procedure is so disgusting that I’m not going to describe it here, but you should google the term. Suffice it to say that airport security is now empowered to touch you in places that only a lover or doctor should touch you. </p>
<p>It seems you think this is amusing. I suggest you read up on the pre-war history of Germany and discover how that very advanced country was lulled into becoming a fascist state.</p>