Aa
A
A
A
Close
Current Events . . . Community
42 Members
655727 tn?1283299648

TSA Rage Hitting All Age Demographics Now


It seems like pretty much everyone hates the TSA these days.
After refusing a full body scan, John Tyner in San Diego was told that he'd have to submit to a pat down. Tyner then recorded his conversation with security personnel, where he tells them, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." He was also threatened with a $10, 000 fine. The video, and the controversy over TSA practices, has received some serious attention online.

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/11/16/tsa-rage-hitting-all-age-demographics-now/#ixzz15S1eKWYW

Those who trade liberty for security have either - John Adams

What about bomb sniffing dogs or the machines that detect if you have been around explosives. Personally I'd rather a dog sniff my crouch than some perv feel me up.
19 Responses
Avatar universal
I heard a year ago that 70% of the people were on board with these practices. A year later, not so much! It will be interesting to see where this leads. Personally, I have no problem with the scanners, I dont like them! But if I choose to fly, it is something I have to do, or drive I guess. But I fly very rarely. If I flew out everyday such as on business, I probably would have more of a problem with it.
Avatar universal
Teko, I agree.  If every single passenger was subjected to the same routine, there would be no room for arguement.  That is not the case though.  
377493 tn?1356505749
I have to say, I don't understand the fuss.  I truly don't.  I hope this comment doesn't come across as offensive as I certainly don't intend it too. But maybe you folks can help me understand.

It seems to me that your gov't is fighting like crazy to keep airline passengers safe.  These terrorists are using extreme measures, so they have to as well.  It something did happen, and all available technology had not been used to try to prevent, everyone would be up in arms about that.  

It seems they can't win.  And the info is out there, so you know in advance that if you choose to fly, these are the rules.  Sorry, I just don't see what the fuss is about. The world has changed, and these terrorists are trying to kill you.  And yes, I too have to submit to it if I choose to fly to the US, which I do frequently.  We have them at my airport as well.  

Profiling and watching behaviours will not fully solve the problem either.  There are plenty of terrorists who do not fit the "profile".  In fact, there has been much talk about how Al Quada is actively recruiting those that aren't easily profiled.  So what is the solution?  How else can they keep everyone safe.  I understand people feel it's intrusive, but if it is one more step to protect these planes, then its a good thing.  Personally, I feel far more secure flying knowing they are taking every possible measure to protect me.  
Avatar universal
The problem for me is, they do not treat everyone the same way.  By randomly selecting people to search, that potentially means that any random bomb can make its way on board with me, you, and a couple hundred other unsuspecting travelers.

Random searches suck.  Somehow, these last packages got into the cargo hold of the plane before being discovered.  That proves 1 or both of 2 things.  #1.  Random luggage screening ***** and is inefficient and #2. These screeners are not doing their job.

If every single person that flies gets treated in the same fashion, I've got no problems.  But if we are going to allow the system to be and operate half baked, I have a problem.

Until the demographics with terrorists changes, I say we start looking there.  If you'vev got nothing to hide, wouldnt you do your best to clear your good name???  I certainly would.  Go ahead and check me out, and when you find nothing on me, you can apologize and print the positive press as freely as you would have the negative press.

The bottom line is, they should be checking everyone.  They're not.  I've got no problem being wanded when everyone else is..... I probably dont have a problem with a pat down if everyone else is getting them too.  But if you pull me out of line for "special" consideration, why not just run my background.  As offensive as that is for me, it should clarify any intentions for the most part.  Do a back ground search, frisk me, wand me, let a bomb dag sniff me.....then do it to everyone else behind me.  If not, its harrassment.  For some reason, you chose me.... a man with absolutey no criminal record...I dont even have a speeding ticket.... to run through the gauntlet to only find nothing.  Its a waste.  

I would feel far more safe if everyone was getting the same treatment...exactly the same. Regardless of age, race, religion...everyone gets the exact same treatment.  Differing from procedure is not acceptable.
377493 tn?1356505749
That makes sense. It shouldn't be random, it should be all.  Otherwise what is the point?  

BTW, I think they should have bomb sniffing dogs at every security checkpoint, and at luggage screening as well.  Those dogs are good, and that is one more way they can ensure everyone's safety.  It's a shame it's come to this...what a scary world this is now.
Avatar universal
Oh, absolutely have the dogs at every check and everyone going through those checks gets sniffed.  

I'm glad you got where I was coming from adgal.  Check everyone!  If they are checking everyone.... yup its going to take some time, but you wont be overlooking anybody.  By checking everybody, you'd need more TSA agents.....hmm, you just created some jobs.  I'd suggest these arent jobs just handed out without proper training and the likes.

Bottom line is, everyone gets checked and checked the exact same way.  Clears the way for any potential arguements.  Nobody is getting a different treatment unless the situation warrants it.
203342 tn?1328740807
You know what? I like the idea of the dogs. It feels a lot less intrusive than being "patted down".

These all body scanners are pretty graphic too, from my understanding. If you really don't mind someone seeing you naked or feeling your body in a way that would be extremely uncomfortable then you guys are doing better than me, lol. I think I'd still just rather drive when I can and save the flying for unavoidable times I can't drive.
1032715 tn?1315987834
I'm with adgal on this,I'd rather be patted down than blown up by a bomb,or be on a plane that is hijacked because someone got through with a hidden box cutter.  
Avatar universal
I agree with the using the dogs only, and for EVERYONE. I also agree with "those who trade liberty for security have neither" , and time will prove that.
Avatar universal
I could care less about being frisked if they are frisking everyone.  No preferential treatment..... everyone gets the same thing
377493 tn?1356505749
I can understand the frustration...but I have to wonder...what would you have as an alternative?  I don't mean that sarcastically, I am being sincere.  What are the alternatives.  I am far more comfortable flying with all the new safeguards in place, even if it means a bit of discomfort initially.  And you can always choose not to fly...it's entirely up to the individual.
Avatar universal
Half the people I see in airports would probably pay someone to grope them.
Avatar universal
I have been thinking about this. Ya know I am not concerned with the body pat down part of all this, but I do have a sincere concern for the radiation the scanners emit over time, especially for pregnant women and children. I would almost welcome the groping in those cases over the scanners. Especially for frequent flyers. With all the meds they put out and then recall after the damage has been done, Im just not sure I trust all this radiation stuff.
377493 tn?1356505749
I think that is legit, but I think it would really only apply if you are a frequent flyer or in one of the risk groups, such as pregnancy.  Currently I would ask for the pat down vs. the scan because of that little bean in my belly.  They say it's safe, but not something I am willing to risk.
203342 tn?1328740807
Hm, good point. I didn't think about the radiation risks, especially for frequent fliers. I wonder how much radiation those things give off anyway?
377493 tn?1356505749
Apparantly the manufacturer says none (at least that is my understanding), however given that the technology is similar to that of an x ray, I personally am not certain I believe that.  For the amount that I fly these days it honestly doesn't worry me too much, except that I am pregnant, so I will avoid it if I have to fly in the next several months.  No problem with the pat down though providing it is done by a female (am assuming that would be the case).
649848 tn?1534637300
I heard on my local radio station, just this morning, that the government insists that there is not enough radiation to harm even frequent fliers.  I'd have to be leery for someone who is pregnant or has other health issues, in which radiation might be contraindicated.  

I also heard that some of the photos have already hit the internet........... that's my argument with all of this.  Has anyone else heard this or seen anything?

I agree that if they are going to scan some, they should scan everyone, but how do we know the people who have access to this equipment and the finished films, are ethical enough not to show those photos to anyone.  Just thinking about these people sitting in an office someplace looking at all these pictures and laughing at people....... makes me cringe!! Or will they just pick the ones who are "pleasant" to look at?

203342 tn?1328740807
You would hope they would be professional but we know nothing of these people, what kind of background checks are done or anything, really. It's not like going to a doctor and knowing that only you and your doctor would see your medical records, I guess.

I really know nothing about airport personnel or what they have to go through to get these jobs. I only know that there have been unscrupulous baggage handlers who have stolen things out of bags and such. But I those who will be doing the body scanning, etc., I don't know what kind of training or background check they would have to have.
It's something to think about.
377493 tn?1356505749
My understanding is that the info is never (or maybe can't be?) saved.  So hopefully that is the truth and that is not happening.  Also, from the images I saw on the news, it's pretty obscure...it's not identifying in any way.  Now who knows if we are always getting the truth, but that is what I saw/read.  As for these images being on the internet?  I haven't seen that yet.  If that happens I think s*+& would hit the fan.  You would hope so anyway.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
Didn't find the answer you were looking for?
Ask a question
Popular Resources
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Here’s how your baby’s growing in your body each week.
These common ADD/ADHD myths could already be hurting your child
This article will tell you more about strength training at home, giving you some options that require little to no equipment.
In You Can Prevent a Stroke, Dr. Joshua Yamamoto and Dr. Kristin Thomas help us understand what we can do to prevent a stroke.
Smoking substitute may not provide such a healthy swap, after all.