PDA

View Full Version : When Bureaucrats Have 'The Power'



Kathianne
07-24-2008, 07:24 AM
interesting how the left argues government can 'take care of us'...


http://cbs2chicago.com/investigations/xrated.security.screenings.2.777423.html


Fliers Complain About X-Rated Security Screenings
TSA Agents Forced Woman To Remove Nipple Rings, Pulled Pants Off Disabled Man
Reporting
Pam Zekman
When travelers go to the airport, they know what kind of security to expect: luggage searches, metal detectors and shoe inspections.

It's all part of our post 9-11 reality enforced by the Transportation Security Adminstration. But as CBS 2 Investigator Pam Zekman reports, thousands of travelers have complained that some of these screenings can become abusive and even x-rated.

For arguing with a TSA agent, Robin Kassner wound up being slammed to the floor. She's filed a lawsuit.

"I kept begging them over and over again get off of me ... and they wouldn't stop," Kassner said....

...At that point, Perry was standing in his underwear in public view. He asked to see a supervisor. That made things worse.

"She was yelling 'I have power, I have power, I have power," Perry said. The power to stop him from flying to Florida with his wife that day to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary.

"It makes you feel like you have no rights," Perry said....

5stringJeff
07-24-2008, 08:29 AM
TSA = Gestapo. It is a plain and simple violation on your Fourth Amendment rights to have to consent to a search of your person and belongings by a government agent in order to fly on a privately owned airplane. The TSA should immediately cease and desist all security checkpoint operations and allow airlines to conduct their own security operations.

KitchenKitten99
07-24-2008, 09:08 AM
TSA = Gestapo. It is a plain and simple violation on your Fourth Amendment rights to have to consent to a search of your person and belongings by a government agent in order to fly on a privately owned airplane. The TSA should immediately cease and desist all security checkpoint operations and allow airlines to conduct their own security operations.

The problem with that is, the airlines are already in bankruptcy every other year, and fuel costs aren't helping.

Airports are not owned by the airlines. Think about how airports are set up now. How on earth are the airlines going to afford scanners and x-ray machines, and all the stuff now, and where are they gonna put it all? At the gates? What if an airline needs to change gates with another airline? Do they have to move all equipment? The logistics of it all are probably not doable, financially or physically, at least in the remotely near future.

I don't agree with a lot of the TSA crap and I do agree that the x-ray machine violates the 4th Amendment.

5stringJeff
07-24-2008, 09:16 AM
The problem with that is, the airlines are already in bankruptcy every other year, and fuel costs aren't helping.

Airports are not owned by the airlines. Think about how airports are set up now. How on earth are the airlines going to afford scanners and x-ray machines, and all the stuff now, and where are they gonna put it all? At the gates? What if an airline needs to change gates with another airline? Do they have to move all equipment? The logistics of it all are probably not doable, financially or physically, at least in the remotely near future.

That's how it was done until September 2001 - airlines, in cooperation with one another, administered security at every airport. Unfortunately, Congress overreacted and federalized airport security after 9/11.


I don't agree with a lot of the TSA crap and I do agree that the x-ray machine violates the 4th Amendment.

It's really not even the x-ray machine. It's the fact that the government, as a third party, is interfering with a private business transaction between airlines and their passengers, searching people who have been accused of nothing and denying their right to travel because of inane garbage like having a nipple ring.

crin63
07-24-2008, 09:55 AM
Congress overreacted and federalized airport security after 9/11.

Pardon me for not trusting our government but I don't think it was an overreaction. I think it was an opportunity for them to seize additional power, burrow deeper into the airline industry and create an additional voting base.

Kathianne
07-24-2008, 10:00 AM
Pardon me for not trusting our government but I don't think it was an overreaction. I think it was an opportunity for them to seize additional power, burrow deeper into the airline industry and create an additional voting base.

Not being facetious, but the voting base of the stripped and humiliated? Even for those not stripped, the chance of landing on the wrong side of these idiots is scary.

I've flown maybe 7 times since 9/11. Last two times, my ticket was zzzzzz'd for additional scrutiny. It's not fun. On topic, but an aside, it makes sense that they've made an effort to hire muslims for these positions? Not forbid, but actively recruited?

KitchenKitten99
07-24-2008, 10:06 AM
That's how it was done until September 2001 - airlines, in cooperation with one another, administered security at every airport. Unfortunately, Congress overreacted and federalized airport security after 9/11.
I had never been on an airplane until 2003, but apparently the old way didn't work very well, since terrorists were able to take over the 3 planes and had to go through those same methods of security as everyone else. There have been attempts to get stuff through security, but so far, none have been successful.

Don't get me wrong, airport security right now has a LOT of things they need to improve, but I look at the past and what caused things to go to the level they are now. The American People wanted higher security efforts after 9/11, and unfortunately, the government responded the only way it knew how.

Besides, would you get on an airplane right now, with the old procedures in place, and airlines did it themselves (voluntarily), knowing what you do about how the hijackers took over the planes? Hell, airlines have issues getting your bags to the correct destination, and that is just luggage with 'things'.



It's really not even the x-ray machine. It's the fact that the government, as a third party, is interfering with a private business transaction between airlines and their passengers, searching people who have been accused of nothing and denying their right to travel because of inane garbage like having a nipple ring.

Those with multiple piercings in conspicuous places maybe should either take them out entirely, or put in a spacer until they get to their destination? Come on, anyone who willingly goes through today's security with little metal bits that are unseen on the body while clothed and then resist further questioning are asking for it!. It isn't like the whole security thing is new anymore and there is a ton of confusion. We've been doing this for HOW long? My sister went with me on my cruise in March and she has piercings in some places that can't be seen while clothed. She is not even 20 years old and she knew that some of them might cause an issue, so she took and put in plastic ones or spacers the night before our flight. She did the same thing the night before we got back into port. The last thing we needed was something to delay us getting on.

The security screeners are not mind-readers or have personal knowledge of your life. They don't know what your real intentions are. Why not just make in easier on yourself and others by just dressing plainly and not worry about how you look?

I don't agree with the security screeners doing the things they did in that particular article. What they described in the article isn't the norm for most airports. I have never had an issue, and neither has my husband, on the few times we have flown on a plane. He's only been asked once to take off his belt, and after that, he just did it beforehand and put it in the bucket through the machine.

The article even quotes "out of 2 billion passengers screened nationwide since 9-11, there have been only 110,000 abuse complaints."

That is 0.000055% in 7 or so years.

I think this article is important, but I also think it is not something to be overly worried about.

crin63
07-24-2008, 10:18 AM
Not being facetious, but the voting base of the stripped and humiliated? Even for those not stripped, the chance of landing on the wrong side of these idiots is scary.

Mea Culpa, I was in reference to the additional government employees as the voting block. Not you and me, the stripped and humiliated!

I've flown maybe 7 times since 9/11. Last two times, my ticket was zzzzzz'd for additional scrutiny. It's not fun. On topic, but an aside, it makes sense that they've made an effort to hire muslims for these positions? Not forbid, but actively recruited?

Personally, I have no problem with profiling and I wouldn't give a muslim a security job at any airport in the world. All they have to do is take their religion serious for 5 minutes and they will let someone through who they shouldn't have. Sorry but I don't trust any muslim. That said I still invite them to church every chance I get.

Kathianne
07-24-2008, 10:27 AM
Personally, I have no problem with profiling and I wouldn't give a muslim a security job at any airport in the world. All they have to do is take their religion serious for 5 minutes and they will let someone through who they shouldn't have. Sorry but I don't trust any muslim. That said I still invite them to church every chance I get.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I have no problem with not discriminating, but seems to me these are positions that call for major vetting, regardless of religion or politics.

To teach and for many jobs now, background checks are required. I was required to disclose all arrests, whether or not charges were filed. The state requires, even parochial school teachers, to have TB exams every 5 years, done by county, not private physician.

It seems to me that the security of the screeners has been extremely lax. The idea of target hiring is a dangerous idea.

Hobbit
07-24-2008, 04:24 PM
I had never been on an airplane until 2003, but apparently the old way didn't work very well, since terrorists were able to take over the 3 planes and had to go through those same methods of security as everyone else. There have been attempts to get stuff through security, but so far, none have been successful.

I guess you missed all of those investigative reports where reporters managed to sneak stuff like large knives and guns past security. The gates are wide open and the screeners just don't care.


The article even quotes "out of 2 billion passengers screened nationwide since 9-11, there have been only 110,000 abuse complaints."

That is 0.000055% in 7 or so years.

I think this article is important, but I also think it is not something to be overly worried about.

You're missing the bigger picture. Let's break this statistic down, shall we?

First off, you're math's off, that's actually .0055%. When you use the percent symbol, you first multiple the figure by 100, since the initial decimal is the number out of 1, not 100.

2 billion people is a third of the world's population, and that many unique individuals didn't pass through TSA screening. The '2 billion passengers' statistic is the number of tickets they sold for which the purchaser actually showed up and rode on the plane. This being the case, my dad accounts for a couple hundred of those passengers, and I account for about 12 or so. Since only a small number of people actually complain more than once (realizing it won't do any good), and people who are visiting from another country almost never complain, because then they're back home and stop worrying about the stupid U.S. security force. Then there's groups. When a close-knit group like a family has a bad experience, there's usually only one complaint for the whole group, and kids don't file complaints, even if they fly along. I currently can't find stats on average flights taken per year or average number of foreign tourists, but I think we can cut that 2 billion figure down to about, let's say 100 million unique, American travelers capable of complaining, not counting those who only fly with families or large groups. That's about a third of the population.

Now, for the other statistic. 'Only' 110,000 complaints doesn't translate to exactly 110,000 unhappy customers. In a retail business in which customers feel their complains may actually bring about change, 93% of all customers who stop shopping at that store due to poor service or products NEVER complain, so every 7 complaints translates to 100 unhappy customers (statistic courtesy of Publix Supermarkets' associate handbook). That makes that 110,000 complaints into about 1.6 million unhappy customers, but I'm not done yet. In a government institution, where change is seen as a slim chance, at best, congressmen equate a single letter to them as about 20 concerned voters, so we're up to 3.2 million. Since the TSA isn't up for a vote and few people think complaints actually do anything, it's probably being pretty conservative to say only 1 in 30 angry travelers complain, so that leaves us with 4.8 million angry fliers. About 95% of all travelers get shuffled through the line without a second glance or have to even get subjected to the big complaint causers, namely addition screening and its abuse. The majority of those 100 million travelers only fly for vacations or other once a year causes, and typically only go through security twice (once going and once coming), giving them a mere 10% chance to be subjected to additional screening per flight. To be generous, we'll say that half of those 100 million fly often enough to make additional screening an inevitability. We'll say the 50 million remaining fly, on average, once a year. Since 2008 statistics haven't been gathered yet and the current system wasn't fully in place until the start of 2002, we'll call that 6 years of flying. At 10% a year, that's about a 46% chance of getting additional screening at the airport over 6 years, but we'll round that up to 50% to be generous. That leaves 4.6 million travelers out of 75 million who get additionally screened as being angry enough that they'd stop flying if there was an alternative. That's 6.1%, and those are just the ones angry enough that they'd go elsewhere if there was an elsewhere to go.

Now combine with this that most passengers selected for additional screening have nothing more than a guy peek into their carry on or a simple wanding, that figure becomes more significant. Now tell me this. How many items of contraband have been collected not from the metal detectors and x-rays that have always been used, but by the TSA randomly selecting people to wand, rifle through their stuff, and be jerks to. So far, the only public case I've seen of somebody being caught because the TSA made some draconian regulation was Michael Vick, and they only caught him with pot he was trying to smuggle in a water bottle. Fat lot of good it did anybody for them to do that. Then tell me that they're doing a good job.

Remember, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, and I've taken the hardest statistics course offered to non-statistics majors, as well as countless classes in probability. I'm also a regular flier and the son of a medallion member. I also NEVER fully trust anything told to me by an agent of the federal government unless it is already in line with what I believe to be true or it can be independently verified.

5stringJeff
07-24-2008, 05:41 PM
I had never been on an airplane until 2003, but apparently the old way didn't work very well, since terrorists were able to take over the 3 planes and had to go through those same methods of security as everyone else. There have been attempts to get stuff through security, but so far, none have been successful.

Don't get me wrong, airport security right now has a LOT of things they need to improve, but I look at the past and what caused things to go to the level they are now. The American People wanted higher security efforts after 9/11, and unfortunately, the government responded the only way it knew how.

Besides, would you get on an airplane right now, with the old procedures in place, and airlines did it themselves (voluntarily), knowing what you do about how the hijackers took over the planes? Hell, airlines have issues getting your bags to the correct destination, and that is just luggage with 'things'.


First of all, the hijackers only succeeded on one day. It was certainly a catastrophic event, but it was a one-time event. And with everyone knowing what they do about potential hijackings, the airlines wouldn't let it happen again. They have just as much, if not more, to lose from bad security.


Those with multiple piercings in conspicuous places maybe should either take them out entirely, or put in a spacer until they get to their destination? Come on, anyone who willingly goes through today's security with little metal bits that are unseen on the body while clothed and then resist further questioning are asking for it!. It isn't like the whole security thing is new anymore and there is a ton of confusion. We've been doing this for HOW long? My sister went with me on my cruise in March and she has piercings in some places that can't be seen while clothed. She is not even 20 years old and she knew that some of them might cause an issue, so she took and put in plastic ones or spacers the night before our flight. She did the same thing the night before we got back into port. The last thing we needed was something to delay us getting on.

The security screeners are not mind-readers or have personal knowledge of your life. They don't know what your real intentions are. Why not just make in easier on yourself and others by just dressing plainly and not worry about how you look?

I don't agree with the security screeners doing the things they did in that particular article. What they described in the article isn't the norm for most airports. I have never had an issue, and neither has my husband, on the few times we have flown on a plane. He's only been asked once to take off his belt, and after that, he just did it beforehand and put it in the bucket through the machine.

The article even quotes "out of 2 billion passengers screened nationwide since 9-11, there have been only 110,000 abuse complaints."

That is 0.000055% in 7 or so years.

I think this article is important, but I also think it is not something to be overly worried about.

Those with multiple piercings, etc., have just as much right to fly as those without. Again, the problem is not how many complaints there are per million customers. The problem is that the US Government is conducting unconstitutional searches of millions of innocent Americans, and interfering with a private business transaction.