Story and video here on the NY Daily News website.
Woman refuses body scan and films herself and another person going through the pat down security check. She questions the procedure and is obviously uncomfortable with the search protocols. She claims the agent groped her vagina. IMO, the agent acted very professionally and extended her quite a bit of courtesy (perhaps the video camera helped, but who knows?)
She’s an admitted anti-TSA activist, but I don’t understand her endgame.
Does she object because she thinks there’s some sort of sexual gratification on the part of the TSA agents?
Does she strictly think it’s an invasion of privacy?
Does she think that airport security is unnecessary?
I realize there are lot of people who find the TSA procedures objectionable, but what’s the alternative?
Airport security is necessary, but the TSA do not provide airport security, only security theater. They do a fine job at making people think “something this onerous must be effective”, but they suck when you test their ability to actually intercept contraband.
Fire all these cretins, then continue as usual? Doing something isn’t automatically better than not doing it.
Pendantic nitpick: Her clothing would have to be extremely flexible for it to be possible for someone to grope her vagina through her clothes. Her vulva, maybe, but not her vagina.
No, and neither can the TSA. Nor anyone or anything, for that matter. Better to deal with the reality of not being able to prevent all weapons from getting on board than to persist in the delusion that it’s possible.
What do you mean “deal with the reality” of weapons making their way onto airplanes? If the TSA were prohibited from frisking passengers, what do you suggest that someone be doing instead of frisking?
I just don’t see that frisking passengers is that big a deal. Especially considering that there have been two attempts to bring down airliners using underwear bombs.
Just in case you’re under the impression that he stuttered.
It’s apparent that when he says “deal with the reality of not being able to prevent all weapons from getting on board,” he means that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent 100% of weapons from boarding aircraft 100% of the time. And that it’s better to deal with the fact that it is impossible than to pretend that it is NOT impossible.
I won’t claim that this is DrCube’s response, but I suspect that it might be somewhere along the lines of “rely on metal detectors, locked cockpit doors, and passengers conditioned to resist hijackers/terrorists.”
Personally, I don’t doubt that there are going to be future incidents where bad guys blow up planes or something like that. But I think the government ought to be, (pulling number out of my rear) 97% effective in stopping that. When I hear that we simply have to get used to being insecure, and that not frisking people worth the risk of being only (pulling number out of my rear) 89% effective, I think that’s totally unacceptable.
Before you go all straw man on me, I don’t support 100% strip searches at airports. There has to be a balance between the burden of security vs. taking some risk. But frisking people isn’t a big deal. It just isn’t. It takes like 10 seconds, it’s quite rare, and it isn’t terribly invasive unless you’re predisposed to be offended by it.
Frisking makes sense, and I think it’s silly to make it harder to detect known threats to appease people who will always complain about airport security.
I don’t think future incidents on airplanes will give passengers much opportunity to resist. I’d be shocked if another 9/11 style attack happens. I think it’s much, much more likely that we a return to bombing aircraft, Lockerbie-style, than giving people the chance to organize and resist hijackings. And locked cockpit doors also do nothing about bombs, either.
And to accept that sometimes, despite all our best efforts, bad guys will occasionally succeed in their evil plans. There’s a certain amount of risk that must be tolerated, because the alternatives are even worse.
No part of the current security measures does anything about bombs, unless the bombers are really, really stupid. Most passengers carry bombs with them nowadays when they travel, and would revolt if they weren’t allowed to, and you can also make bombs from things you can buy from the shops inside the secure area.
So, it’s possible for terrorists to bomb airplanes. Big deal. It’s also possible for terrorists to bomb shopping malls, or sporting events, or security checkpoint lines. If we don’t worry about those things, why should we worry about bombing airplanes?
Please just be straight. Do you think cutting or eliminating the TSA, or substantially restricting what they are able to do in terms of searching a person, will make that risk greater, or will it stay the same? Are you saying that the TSA should not be allowed to frisk anyone? Or that they can frisk people, just not in certain places?
Because to me, it sounds like you’re suggesting we accept a greater risk in trade-off for some convenience. And that doesn’t sound like a good deal to me, because the current procedures are not all that inconvenient.
Are you saying that since someone can devise a bomb from a laptop battery, that we simply shouldn’t have security screenings at all?
Because a very small explosive can kill 300 people in an airplane, whereas a rather small explosive in a public place recently killed 3 people. As you can see, a small bomb is probably 100 times more dangerous in a different environment.
I don’t have a problem frisking people who ping the metal detector or who have suspicious bulges in their clothing. But as a matter of course for every single passenger? Overkill, and invasive.
I highly doubt that current security catches any more weapons than metal detectors, and in the case of the rape-o-scans, a metal detector would be better:
I think airport security could go back to how it was when I was a kid, and be just as effective. Metal detectors, watch for suspicious people, and stop giving a crap about toothpaste and shoes. And I ought to be able to see my wife to the gate and have a drink with her until her flight takes off.
And I’m honestly very surprised an airport security checkpoint hasn’t been bombed yet. That huge corral of people there are all just sitting ducks.
How many crowded security checkpoints contain 300 people?
Why is a bomb in a plane worse than a bomb at school, at work, at the ballgame, on a train, etc.? What makes airplanes so special that we all submit to rape-i-scans before we board them? Would you support expanding the TSA’s methods to anywhere a crowd of people might assemble?
This. And they are expanding their scope to areas other than airports. I don’t want to start a competition of scary scenarios but I did want to point out your statement was logical. The TSA is an ever increasing budget of inconvenience with an ever decreasing return on investment.
What is it that the TSA does that is so bad? In my experience, people who ping the metal detector or refuse the body scanner (as the woman in the video in the OP did) get the personal search. Otherwise you go through the metal detector or the scanner and are on your way if nothing shows up.
Are they randomly pulling people out of line to do pat downs? I haven’t seen that, but I don’t fly that often.
Now, whether or not those personal searches are effective or not, I can’t argue.
A small bomb doesn’t vaporize 300 people whether they are in an airplane or on the ground. However, trains, malls, my workplace, etc. don’t tend to plunge 30,000 feet into the ground because a modest explosive weakens the integrity of those things.
So, a bomb on a 767 will almost certainly kill 250 people. On a 777, 350 plus or so. Same size bomb in a crowded area simply will not be as deadly. Do you not understand this?