|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Oct 30, 2011 18:45:53 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks we should stop letting government employees search our bags without a warrant? They don't have a warrant to search our bags, nor do they have "reasonable suspicion." Similarly, the airlines (who are private companies) don't have to let you on their airplanes if you haven't been searched. That's true, but then why are they using government workers and not private ones? Why do airlines get so much government aid? A few years ago we had to bail them out! IMHO, the whole TSA thing should be axed. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Oct 30, 2011 18:46:53 GMT -5
Similarly, the airlines (who are private companies) don't have to let you on their airplanes if you haven't been searched. Which is why I love Penn Jillette's Bacon and a Kiss airlines. His theory is that since the kind of fanatics who would try to hijack an airplane are generally ones with taboos against pork and/or homosexuality, you could create an airline where the screening procedure was just eating a strip of bacon and open-mouth kissing a member of the same sex for about ten seconds. Then you just walk onto your airplane. Drawbacks: Would weed out otherwise peaceful people who don't eat pork specifically or meat in general, herpes. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 30, 2011 20:10:29 GMT -5
Similarly, the airlines (who are private companies) don't have to let you on their airplanes if you haven't been searched. That's true, but then why are they using government workers and not private ones? Why do airlines get so much government aid? A few years ago we had to bail them out! IMHO, the whole TSA thing should be axed. Because they're there due to a law being passed, which means that government employees have to carry it out. Why you have something against government employees is beyond me. And airlines get a lot of gov't help because the provide an essential service. |
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Oct 30, 2011 20:17:07 GMT -5
That's true, but then why are they using government workers and not private ones? Why do airlines get so much government aid? A few years ago we had to bail them out! IMHO, the whole TSA thing should be axed. Because they're there due to a law being passed, which means that government employees have to carry it out. Why you have something against government employees is beyond me. And airlines get a lot of gov't help because the provide an essential service. The government is using its government employees to enforce a law that is against the government's own constitution to begin with. Furthermore, they're forcing it onto airline companies. I don't have anything against government workers, but I believe that the government should have as little to do with businesses as possible, except when possibly considering the safety of consumers. The TSA's actions are not only unconstitutional, but it is also doubtful whether they are actually protecting the passengers from any reasonable threat. The chances of actually being in a plane with a terrorist inside are so astronomically low that it's just not worth it to spend millions of dollars on trying to get rid of them. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 30, 2011 20:53:40 GMT -5
That's from a movie, but I can't remember what movie. Fight Club Am I the only one completely skeeved out by this without even a touch of humor? Nope. I'm totally "skeeved" too. Am I the only one who thinks we should stop letting government employees search our bags without a warrant? They don't have a warrant to search our bags, nor do they have "reasonable suspicion." Similarly, the airlines (who are private companies) don't have to let you on their airplanes if you haven't been searched. I do appreciate that... however, as I have pointed out at length elsewhere, the entire airport security charade is nothing more than an exercise in making people feel safe. There would literally be no difference in effect between the current set up, and having strongly worded signs that said "please do not hijack aircraft". So, ok, I get that you have to make the sheep feel safe, but given how utterly pointless the exercise actually is in terms of actual effectiveness, I don't see where they get off insisting on being such pricks about it. |
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Oct 31, 2011 2:32:07 GMT -5
I get the impression that TSA agents are a bit on the heavy handed groping side, but this whole randomly searching bags is just not on in my books.
I can understand that they search the luggage to be safe, but really they should do this in front of the baggage owner so that they can at least decide not to be searched (and forgo their flight) and make sure nothing gets broken or lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Oct 31, 2011 3:12:10 GMT -5
You have no clue how many bags the average person can have do you? The sheer amount of time that would take would make getting on a plane, already a hassle to begin with, just a sheer nightmare.
Take it from me, this system is broken and really needs to get streamlined but nobody in the Government wants to streamline it. Not when it allows them to provide kickbacks to certain companies and line their own pockets. Plus, and this is hard to say this, but it does create jobs. Putting those jobs in the hands of the dumbest people possible but it does create jobs.
Ironbite-system needs to be fixed but damn if I know how to fix it.
|
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 31, 2011 6:02:13 GMT -5
I get the impression that TSA agents are a bit on the heavy handed groping side, but this whole randomly searching bags is just not on in my books. You would rather it wasn't random, that they were targeting individuals instead? This has nothing to do with business: It's a security matter. How do you know? Can you give me citation that proves that terrorists will or will not attack airplanes because of the actions of the TSA? So what's your answer? Spend no money at all because apparently someone said (and I'd love to know who and what research they did) that there's no chance terrorists will attack? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 31, 2011 8:24:57 GMT -5
Does a former military EOD tech who helped develop the anti bomb measures for the Sydney Olympics count?
|
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Oct 31, 2011 12:12:16 GMT -5
I've flown on plans before and after the changes from 9/11, but not with the new body scanners. I actually felt safer when it was a quick scan of the bag and a simple step through a metal detector than I do about having to remove shoes and not being able to see people off, or greet them, at the terminal. I will admit that seeing MPs in the airport did provide it's own sense of security as it meant any problem could be quickly handled, though regular police or even security guards would work fine for that.
I've also not seen anything showing that the extra security measures are actually doing anything. While they add more steps that are also more invasive there have still been things like the shoe and underwear bombers that have been caught not by those new measures, but by passengers and other such that was around two decades ago. I really don't like that they keep trading freedom (privacy in this case) for the perception of security.
|
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 31, 2011 18:13:17 GMT -5
Does a former military EOD tech who helped develop the anti bomb measures for the Sydney Olympics count? I'd actually like to hear what you have to say, but can it be correlated as an official view? I know what you mean by it being little more than a window-dressing venture, but sometimes that's what's needed. Remember, the terrorists are looking for something that will succeed with maximum publicity, anything that denies them the oxygen of publicity is surely a good thing, no? |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 31, 2011 18:20:24 GMT -5
even security guards would work fine for that. Yes and no. Speaking as a security guard, I can tell you that there are different types of firm. For example, you could get AEGIS (ex-SAS, SASR, NZSAS and I Corps types), Blackwater (ex-SEALS, Delta Force and the odd former CIA type) and Executive Outcomes (ex-SAS, Foregn Legion [Spanish and French] and more I corps types). But then you also get the ones lower down the scale who work in areas like mine and you will, and I hate to admit this, but you will get a lot who go through the motions and keep one eye on the clock at all times. I'm not saying that wouldn't always happen with Gov't employees, but there is greater accountability with government types. |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Oct 31, 2011 19:23:55 GMT -5
even security guards would work fine for that. Yes and no. Speaking as a security guard, I can tell you that there are different types of firm. For example, you could get AEGIS (ex-SAS, SASR, NZSAS and I Corps types), Blackwater (ex-SEALS, Delta Force and the odd former CIA type) and Executive Outcomes (ex-SAS, Foregn Legion [Spanish and French] and more I corps types). But then you also get the ones lower down the scale who work in areas like mine and you will, and I hate to admit this, but you will get a lot who go through the motions and keep one eye on the clock at all times. I'm not saying that wouldn't always happen with Gov't employees, but there is greater accountability with government types. That is a good argument against regular security guards. I guess if they were to be used they'd need special training for airport security, though I admit I don't know what it would entail to make sure they can do the job properly. |
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Nov 1, 2011 1:10:30 GMT -5
I get the impression that TSA agents are a bit on the heavy handed groping side, but this whole randomly searching bags is just not on in my books. You would rather it wasn't random, that they were targeting individuals instead? I would rather that random people who I will never see and will not be in any position to stop or question snooping around in my luggage without my permission and not under my observation. I don't have anything against random spot checks, but I do have a problem with people just rummaging through my luggage. How am I to know if they rummage through it and break something, or loose something or the far more likely option of them just stealing something. Security is important, but there is a right and a wrong way to do things. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 1, 2011 1:32:27 GMT -5
Modern terrorists would target the airport itself, as in Russia, rather than the airplane. It's an easier target and kills a similar number of people.
Hell, terrorists can target anything they want. Virtually anywhere large numbers of people congregate is a target; shipping centre, cafe, railway station, railway line, workplaces, shopping centres, even streets... All of these are targets.
As Israel found out, prevention is not sufficient. Active terrorist groups need to be identified, infiltrated, surveiled and, if necessary, hunted down. Potential or inactive terrorist groups need to be kept under surveilance and infiltration. Don't even bother with prevention, it won't help. The kind of people who would do this are the threat, not the lack of protection for some geographical location.
|
|
