# I like the new TSA pat downs

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [November 24, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788 "2010-11-24T16:57:03Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 13

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/241 "2010-12-01T18:54:41Z")

</div>

> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#):
>
> There are large signs in every single airport security line that proclaim the “3-1-1 Rule”, and TSA agents shouting instructions (“All of your liquids and gels must fit inside a 1 quart Zip-Loc baggy!”) in every single commercial airport in the nation. You are certainly not carrying bottle of water through security, as they have a container for disposing of such and are vigorous in their enforcement of it, as every regular air traveler has seen. From your statements it is clear that you haven’t even gone through airport security in the past five years, and are completely uninformed regarding TSA security measures or procedures.
> 
> Stranger

Ah signs, yes, the indisputable conveyer of information in a democracy. If there is a sign, then you must know about it :rolleyes:

I carried a bottle of water through security. I had to drink like half of it, but I did. Tell me that’s impossible. Go on.

Maybe I just had less idiotic TSA agents than you did? This guy was obviously well trained

> [@woodstockbirdybird](#):
>
> And you accuse others of fearmongering?
> 
> Also, who gives a shit what you believe security measures are required? You’ve proven you have little-to-no understanding of the issue.

Yes, because that’s what you people are doing. Making the excuse that these pat downs are one step towards cavity searches.

The way 9/11 happened, pat downs and scanners (if we had the technology back then), would have caught the box cutters. So it is incorrect to say that I am fearmongering, when in fact what I fear has happened

> [@Morgenstern](#):
>
> Good lord dude. Some TSA goon reaching in your drawers and ringing your chimes is a small incursion? Diddling some unwilling woman’s snapper is a small incursion? Go read the events reported to the ACLU on their web site, like the report by a women who felt the “search” of her very private parts for the remainder of the day.
> 
> Then we’ll discuss “small incursion.”

Not everything is a small incursion, like I said. Did I not say I supported those women who took their cases to the ACLU? Did I not say that I hope they win if they can prove their case? Yeah, that’s what I thought

> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#):
>
> It’s not about me. It’s about privacy and dignity of law-abiding American travelers. It’s about the health of our democracy and constitutional freedoms. It’s about our economy and government waste. It’s about whether we want to accept living in a culture of fear.

It’s also about stopping terrorists. Again, there’s a line where security and liberty push up against how much people are willing to take. As I’ve said before, my line is simply further than yours. No need to assume yours is the standard or should be the standard. People who cry wolf at every single increase in security should, and often do get ignored. You’d be better off arguing that we shouldn’t go further, or that the TSA needs more training, than simply drawing a line in the sand, no matter how much you believe it, and refusing to budge.

> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#):
>
> I’m sure someone can explain this better than I can, but preventing illegal and dangerous materials from being brought onto a plane is not akin to determining how people watching Dancing With the Stars. Why? Because if your prediction of TV show viewers is not exactly accurate down to the last viewer (and it’s not necessarily expected or reported to be), it doesn’t change the conclusion. However, you miss one underwear bomb and you’ve failed to secure the plane. This is not statistical analysis. This is supposed to be practical security. As such, this randomized and, yes, arbitrary, because there is a lack of threat assessment with each application, protocol is on an illusionary security measure that only protects us from the people who are, in fact, subjected to it, NOT all potential terrorists.
> 
> I appreciate your attempt at pendantry, but it would help if you actually understood what you’re trying to explain. As to your first point, attempting to catch terrorists randomly ensures that some will necessarily get through. As to your second point, I agree with you that the random screening is an attempt to dissuade would-be terrorists from attempting to exploit the obvious security holes, but I disagree that it’s as effective a deterrent as you seem to think it is, for the same reason I don’t think the death penalty is effectively a deterrent: criminals don’t generally expect to get caught. Further, using your statistics example, we can determine that if only, say, 30% of travelers are being scanned/patted down, a terrorist has a 70% chance of getting through security. Further, if you have a network of say 100 terrorists, you can statistically assume that while some of them will be foiled by security, there’s a very good chance that a significant number of them will make it on the place and, eliminating defective equipment and overzealous passengers, a handful of them might succeed at taking over the plane. Or at the very least causing enough mayhem that makes people like you accept even more draconian procedures from a purely reactive system of security and consequently eroding more of our rights and privileges as Americans.

Perhaps, but it’s statistically impossible to catch every terrorist. Too much burden, too much time, and too much cost, like I’ve said before. You try to get the most you can get without crossing the line. That’s still sound statistical analysis. Even if you can’t prevent them all, you should try to prevent some, that’s all I’m advocating

It seems that your plan, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that the procedures (as they stand before this current increase) are good enough. You truly cannot see that some people aren’t crazy for advocating just a little more security? I’m not talking about cavity searches, as much as other people would like to put words in my mouth. Whereas you were patted down before with the back of the hand, now it’s the front of the hand. It’s not a huge increase in trouble

> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#):
>
> This is why people keep telling you that your attitude plays right into the hands of those who would very much like to see the destruction and demise of our nation and culture.

Yeah, I don’t really listen to people who think some extra security represents a huge change in our culture. It’s a small increase, and where there are problems, lawyers and courts can battle it out.

You know what is a destruction and demise of our nation and culture? More planes crashing into buildings, stopping all air traffic for a week, loss of billions of dollars in infrastructure, finances, and people in one day. A little bit more security isn’t even a blip on the radar compared to these things that actually happened. And **Stranger** up there seems to think that better doors are the answer. Unless these are sealed bank vault doors, then I’m not going to trust my life and this country’s wellbeing to a lock

> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#):
>
> Again, at the risk of repetitiveness, only if those terrorists were the lucky ones that got chosen for enhanced scrutiny AND if what they had brought on the plane were contraband. As has been pointed several times, what really would have prevented the WTC and Pentagon events is secured cockpits. That is a measure that is neither intrusive on the dignity and rights against unreasonable search and that nobody in this discussion has indicated a problem with.

Took them 4 or 5 people to do it though. And Flight 93 was missing one guy and wasn’t able to complete it’s mission. I’d say catching some of the terrorists is still worth it. As for doors, I told **Stranger** I wasn’t going to talk about it anymore but I’ll make an exception for you: I’d have to really believe these secured doors are secure before trusting my life to a few inches of metal. If we get those big sealing doors like in bank vaults, then sure, stop with the pat downs! Until then, put your arms up and think about baseball!

> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#):
>
> I completely understand how preventative deterrence works and doesn’t work. Evidently, you do not. First of all, licensing and registration is not about deterrence, it’s about collecting fees and regulating drivers and vehicles. It does not prevent (nor deter) anyone from driving illegally. It also does not assume that those subject to it are potential criminals. Traveling via privately run airlines is not a privilege in the same way driving is at all. You do not require a license to ride in an airplane.

I’m sorry, it’s my fault that I didn’t make it clear that my statement on preventative deterrence and the paragraph following are 2 different arguments. You seem to think I mixed up the two

To clarify: we do these things to deter people from comitting crimes. Whether you think they work or not is besides the point. Talk to a lawyer if you think you have a case. I’m willing to bet that human nature will make us think twice, even if we come to the same conclusion, when there is actual punishment attached to something

The second paragraph was my argument that what YOU think you deserve is irrelevent. Just because you are not going to blow up a plane doesn’t mean we should make a law catering to you. Therefore, just because you are not a criminal doesn’t mean it’s wrong for the government to pat everyone down, or randomly select people to pat down. Such a method makes sure that the sample is random, so they are not targeting you, no matter how you feel to the contrary.

> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#):
>
> Locking doors, however, is a preventative security measure, although it doesn’t necessarily deter motivated criminal from defeating the security. Obviously, this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take the appropriate precautions. But then, nobody is complaining about the locked cockpit doors, except for you. You have already pointed out that you don’t trust them. That’s fine. Just so you understand that this one piece of the security puzzle is a lot more effective as a deterrent than the arbitrary screening you seem to enjoy so much.

Why is it that your method of secured doors, which you admit is probably not 100% foolproof, is fine yet mine isn’t? Kind of a double standard there. Only because less people (not “nobody”, like you claimed. Certainly the airlines have complained about secured doors) complain?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/242 "2010-12-01T18:58:46Z")

</div>

> [@YogSosoth](#):
>
> I carried a bottle of water through security. I had to drink like half of it, but I did. Tell me that’s impossible. Go on.
> 
> Maybe I just had less idiotic TSA agents than you did? This guy was obviously well trained

Jesus, it’s like everything you say is actually the opposite of reality. The 3-1-1 rule is an absolute. Anything over 3 oz is forbidden. For. Bid. Den. It’s a stupid rule, but it’s in place nonetheless. The fact that you got through security with half a bottle of water means they weren’t paying attention, i.e. **not doing their job**. And these are the people you’re trusting.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/243 "2010-12-01T19:06:03Z")

</div>

> [@YogSosoth](#):
>
> Yes, because that’s what you people are doing. Making the excuse that these pat downs are one step towards cavity searches.
> 
> The way 9/11 happened, pat downs and scanners (if we had the technology back then), would have caught the box cutters. So it is incorrect to say that I am fearmongering, when in fact what I fear has happened

I’m not claiming they’re one step away from cavity searches. I’m claiming _they’re invasive enough as is_, without need of a slippery slope argument.

And, as has been pointed out to you, boxcutters would have been allowed on 9/11 even if they had been detected. So such security measures wouldn’t have prevented anything. And now, boxcutters would be caught with standard metal detectors anyway, so I don’t see the need for x-rays and patdowns, if that’s your concern.

Anyway, it is correct to say that you’re fearmongering. Like conservative pussies all over this country, you’re willing to give up freedoms based on your fear and misunderstanding of the level of the actual threat. This is how we got the Patriot Act, and why there’s such hysteria among parents about pedophiles and kidnappers, to the point that they won’t let the precious flowers walk home from school (which I did every day from kindergarten until I got a car). You’re scared of the boogeyman, and it affects your ability to think rationally.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/244 "2010-12-01T19:06:41Z")

</div>

> [@Steve\_MB](#):
>
> Disregarding the opinions of someone who is unfamiliar with the rules for carrying liquids in carry-on luggage in a discussion about airport security is no more “arbitrary” than disregarding the opinions of someone who believes that the earth is six thousand years old in a discussion about geology.

Oh, I’m sorry you believe the earth is only 6000 years old. :rolleyes: Certainly someone who knows nothing of airline security and doesn’t realize you can carry bottled water onto a plane has no business arguing about it. Good thing I have carried bottle water onto a plane!

> [@Steve\_MB](#):
>
> Your examples are irrelevant, as none of them involve terrorists attempting to personally carry destructive devices onto a plane, only to be thwarted by the TSA’s Security Kabuki Theater performances at the check-in gate. The score for those threats remains Citizen Vigilance 3, Government Do-Somethingism 0.

Narrow the sample down enough and you’re sure to get the answer you want!

Fact: Current security measures would have prevented 9/11.

> [@Steve\_MB](#):
>
> Unless you have the ability to communicate over thousands of miles, you cannot know exactly how some other country does things more effectively without resort to fondling and pornscanning… oh, wait…

Effectiveness has already been suggested and refuted. If you’re talking about Israel’s airlines, the fact is we simply don’t have the resources to implement what they do. Too many people fly and our population is not nearly as homogenous.

Better get to working on that time machine!

> [@Steve\_MB](#):
>
> Again, what you “believe” doesn’t impress anybody, unless you can back up your beliefs with facts. For instance, if you have a YouTube video of somebody crashing through a door of the type now used in cockpits, preferably under realistic conditions (i.e. in a narrow corridor surrounded on both sides by people trying to trip, strike, and otherwise obstruct you), by all means post a link. (Points off if the process involves turning green while growing big enough to shred the shirt while leaving the pants intact. Not everybody can do that.)

What’s stupid is someone’s completely confident assertion that some futuristic magic door will be a panacea for all terrorist related hijackings. You don’t want to see them first? You don’t want to maybe test it out before you buy them? You must be the world’s worst shopper. :rolleyes: What I’m simply advocating is: show us the doors, test them in planes, have data backing up the fact that they are 99% unforceable and cannot be opened from the inside.

> [@Steve\_MB](#):
>
> Be careful not to pull something with that whiplash between setting the bar so high a moment ago and setting it so low now.

So you don’t want to have better training for them? Or are you so deep in snark mode because you disagree with me that you can’t extricate your head from your ass?

I’ll remember this in the future: Steve MB doesn’t believe TSA agents should have more training. He thinks they are fine just the way they are :rolleyes:

> [@Steve\_MB](#):
>
> You’ve already been informed on this very thread that the TSA actions you defend are applied less than universally. You thus don’t get to criticize any other security protocol on that ground while continuing to defend the TSA gate procedures.

Yes I do get to criticize, and I’m doing it! 😃

All the more reason to have the procedures applied universally, right?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/245 "2010-12-01T19:17:29Z")

</div>

> [@YogSosoth](#):
>
> And Flight 93 was missing one guy and wasn’t able to complete it’s mission.

Are you trying to outdo yourself in terms of sheer irrelevance?

Obviously, the reason the terrorists of Flight 93 failed was that the paradigm had shifted from “hijacker” = “clown wanting a soapbox and a free trip to Cuba” to “hijacker” = “mass murderer attempting to use plane as missile”. American citizens were able to adjust to the new reality in minutes. The American government has continued to flail around in every direction, from attacking the wrong country to imposing increasingly absurd Security Kabuki Theater, for a decade.

> [@YogSosoth](#):
>
> The way 9/11 happened, pat downs and scanners (if we had the technology back then), would have caught the box cutters.

Here you pack two irrelevancies into one statement. How very efficient of you.

First, there was nothing to “catch” – carrying box cutters on a plane was perfectly legal at the time. Second, even if security had been looking for them, existing metal detectors were more than sufficient to the task.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/246 "2010-12-01T19:18:07Z")

</div>

> [@Bosstone](#):
>
> Jesus, it’s like everything you say is actually the opposite of reality. The 3-1-1 rule is an absolute. Anything over 3 oz is forbidden. For. Bid. Den. It’s a stupid rule, but it’s in place nonetheless. The fact that you got through security with half a bottle of water means they weren’t paying attention, i.e. **not doing their job**. And these are the people you’re trusting.

Obviously the guys I had were smarter or incompetent. I got to keep my water though, so nyah! 😛

And no, it means those are stupid rules. Or I have a nice face 🆒

Anyways, I drank like half of it, like I said, that probably convinced them.

> [@woodstockbirdybird](#):
>
> I’m not claiming they’re one step away from cavity searches. I’m claiming _they’re invasive enough as is_, without need of a slippery slope argument.

Well I simply disagree. No need for anyone to get snippy over it.

> [@woodstockbirdybird](#):
>
> And, as has been pointed out to you, boxcutters would have been allowed on 9/11 even if they had been detected. So such security measures wouldn’t have prevented anything. And now, boxcutters would be caught with standard metal detectors anyway, so I don’t see the need for x-rays and patdowns, if that’s your concern.

Which is why I’ve been continuously advocating that the restrictions aren’t too much, they are in fact too little. Also, I’ve never said that we should stop changing our tactics because everything’s fine with the crotch grabs and naked cams. I kept saying that the TSA probably needs more training, and that those who feel the searches are illegal should take their case to court. Have I not said that? Have I not said that I’d welcome challenges to the procedures because they would spur changes? Besides, you can dial up and down the sensitivity of the metal detectors, so it’s not a sure thing that they would have been found.

> [@woodstockbirdybird](#):
>
> Anyway, it is correct to say that you’re fearmongering. Like conservative pussies all over this country, you’re willing to give up freedoms based on your fear and misunderstanding of the level of the actual threat. This is how we got the Patriot Act, and why there’s such hysteria among parents about pedophiles and kidnappers, to the point that they won’t let the precious flowers walk home from school (which I did every day from kindergarten until I got a car).

No, don’t confuse one instance of increased security as a trend. You’re mistaken if you think, again going back to the cavity searches, that some increase in security in one area assumes I love for us to have no freedoms. Read the first post again. All I said was that I don’t personally object to these new measures and that I don’t consider them a slipperly slope towards anything except a happy ending 😉

> [@woodstockbirdybird](#):
>
> You’re scared of the boogeyman, and it affects your ability to think rationally.

No, I’m scared of another 9/11 happening, not a mythical, non-existent boogeyman. I’m afraid that all you people think a fucking door’s gonna stop them once they get on board armed with knives. Place your trust in a god damn door, but don’t cry when it gets opened somehow

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/247 "2010-12-01T19:20:47Z")

</div>

> [@Steve\_MB](#):
>
> Are you trying to outdo yourself in terms of sheer irrelevance?
> 
> Obviously, the reason the terrorists of Flight 93 failed was that the paradigm had shifted from “hijacker” = “clown wanting a soapbox and a free trip to Cuba” to “hijacker” = “mass murderer attempting to use plane as missile”. American citizens were able to adjust to the new reality in minutes. The American government has continued to flail around in every direction, from attacking the wrong country to imposing increasingly absurd Security Kabuki Theater, for a decade.

And one less terrorist on the plane had nothing to do with it, right? :rolleyes:

Hey, you can masturbate to those heroics all you want, and the truth is probably a combination, but it doesn’t change the fact that the terrorists were missing another body to help secure the passengers.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/248 "2010-12-01T19:28:40Z")

</div>

> [@YogSosoth](#):
>
> And one less terrorist on the plane had nothing to do with it, right? :rolleyes:

Obviously not – given how quickly the plane went down after the final cell phone calls were received, the fight (once it started) was clearly too unequal to have been affected by one warm body more or less.

In any case, the relevant threat (now that taking over the plane is no longer a viable option) is a one-man job (smuggling a bomb or similar destructive device onto the plane). Given that there seems to be no shortage of idiots who think that Allah will give them seventy-two virgins (and don’t even wonder why the glory of martyrdom doesn’t rate seventy-two wenches who know what the hell they’re doing in the sack), a scatter-shot strategy of unfocused searching isn’t going to get the job done.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/249 "2010-12-01T19:41:46Z")

</div>

> [@YogSosoth](#):
>
> No, I’m scared of another 9/11 happening, not a mythical, non-existent boogeyman. I’m afraid that all you people think a fucking door’s gonna stop them once they get on board armed with knives. Place your trust in a god damn door, but don’t cry when it gets opened somehow

Look, here it is nice and simple. There will be other attacks. There is nothing short of requiring passengers to travel in sterile containers, unconscious and on life support that will prevent the next airborne attack. 9/11 type attacks will happen again. The fed building at Oklahoma City is an example of possible attacks. Your fear is a feather in the cap of terrorism.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/250 "2010-12-01T20:02:12Z")

</div>

> [@YogSosoth](#):
>
> The way 9/11 happened, pat downs and scanners (if we had the technology back then), would have caught the box cutters. So it is incorrect to say that I am fearmongering, when in fact what I fear has happened

Once again, ONLY if the terrorists had been subjected to the scanners and/or enhanced pat-down. But you cannot say with any certainty at all that they would have because…wait for it…those measures are applied RANDOMLY.

> [@](#):
>
> It’s also about stopping terrorists. Again, there’s a line where security and liberty push up against how much people are willing to take. As I’ve said before, my line is simply further than yours. No need to assume yours is the standard or should be the standard. People who cry wolf at every single increase in security should, and often do get ignored. You’d be better off arguing that we shouldn’t go further, or that the TSA needs more training, than simply drawing a line in the sand, no matter how much you believe it, and refusing to budge.

Nobody here is “crying wolf at every single increase in security.” Just those that don’t effectively increase security, but rather create the illusion of increased security at the cost of millions in taxpayer dollars as well as the threat to civil liberties and the dignity and health of innocent travelers, which notably include children and the disabled.

> [@](#):
>
> Perhaps, but it’s statistically impossible to catch every terrorist. Too much burden, too much time, and too much cost, like I’ve said before. You try to get the most you can get without crossing the line. That’s still sound statistical analysis. Even if you can’t prevent them all, you should try to prevent some, that’s all I’m advocating

And all we are saying is that the line has been crossed wrt backscatter scanners and enhanced patdowns already and has not been measurably demonstrated to prevent any terroristic activities. Rather, enhanced patdowns have been demonstrated to hurt and embarrass travelers who have no recourse to avoid such unnecessary tactics.

> [@](#):
>
> It seems that your plan, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that the procedures (as they stand before this current increase) are good enough. You truly cannot see that some people aren’t crazy for advocating just a little more security? I’m not talking about cavity searches, as much as other people would like to put words in my mouth. Whereas you were patted down before with the back of the hand, now it’s the front of the hand. It’s not a huge increase in trouble

You are wrong. I never suggested the security protocol that existed prior to 9/11 was enough. Clearly, it was not. As noted again, securing the cockpit doors is a reasonable security measure that was recommended prior to 9/11, that could have made those terrorists’ goals (i.e., gaining access to the cockpit to use the aircraft as a weapon) significantly more difficult to achieve if not impossible, AND does not present an unreasonable imposition on law-abiding travelers.

Additionally, experts in security have noted that a more comprehensive analysis of threat and better response threat identification and suspicious activity would go a lot farther in actually securing air travel akin to the methods that Israel employs. It wouldn’t hurt to profile travelers by race and origin/destination, but also by demeanor and other metrics that law enforcement tends to use (caveat: IANALEO). That, of course, is not perfect either, but it’s a huge logical step up from frisking random children and all of the physically disabled.

Would it cost more than what you advocate? Probably not since your enhanced security procedures target ALL travelers, but only screen a random portion, whereas my preferred security procedures target only those travelers that appear suspicious using a protocol of intelligence and threat analysis. Maybe someone knows and can compare what Israel spends on securing air travel relative to their GDP or whatever to what the US spends.

> [@](#):
>
> Yeah, I don’t really listen to people who think some extra security represents a huge change in our culture. It’s a small increase, and where there are problems, lawyers and courts can battle it out.

Clearly. It’s not a small increase. But you started this thread to complain about those who disagree with you, right? Why are our opinions any less valid than yours? On the contrary, it seems that others have given this topic far more critical thought and consideration than you have.

> [@](#):
>
> You know what is a destruction and demise of our nation and culture? More planes crashing into buildings, stopping all air traffic for a week, loss of billions of dollars in infrastructure, finances, and people in one day.

Only insofar as it creates a fear-inspired juggernaut of massive government spending that creates reactionary and unintelligent security protocols that threatens the civil liberties, health, and dignity of law-abiding American citizens.

> [@](#):
>
> I’d say catching some of the terrorists is still worth it.

How many would-be terrorists has backscatter x-rays and enhanced pat-downs caught? Can you demonstrate the effectiveness of the randomized, intrusive procedures you advocate as sound and effective?

> [@](#):
>
> To clarify: we do these things to deter people from comitting crimes. Whether you think they work or not is besides the point. Talk to a lawyer if you think you have a case. I’m willing to bet that human nature will make us think twice, even if we come to the same conclusion, when there is actual punishment attached to something

But if they don’t deter people from committing crimes, how do they work? They were doing metal detector screening and patdowns before the underwear bomber, but it didn’t deter him. It didn’t deter the 9/11 terrorists either. There always have been security protocols, just as there have always been laws that do not prevent crime. There are always going to be loopholes. The issue is whether the security provided is worth the cost in terms of money, resources, and threat to our way of life. I contend that backscatter imaging and randomized enhanced patdowns are not. I further contend that those methods make us \*less \*safe because they funnel resources and money from methods that are based on intelligence and logical threat assessment.

> [@](#):
>
> The second paragraph was my argument that what YOU think you deserve is irrelevent. Just because you are not going to blow up a plane doesn’t mean we should make a law catering to you. Therefore, just because you are not a criminal doesn’t mean it’s wrong for the government to pat everyone down, or randomly select people to pat down. Such a method makes sure that the sample is random, so they are not targeting you, no matter how you feel to the contrary.

It seems to have been lost on you that under the current security protocol, I would have made it onto the plane in Miami whether I was a terrorist because I, along with the rest of the travelers in the priority pass line, because we were not targeted for enhanced scrutiny. To add to this, I flouted the 3-1-1 rule and brought sunscreen on the plane in contraband amounts and TWO baggies of gels and liquids and was not scrutinized further. Is there any way to tell what I got through security was actually sunscreen and shampoo, not explosive chemicals in cream and gel form? This makes you feel safe? It didn’t make me feel safe, nor do I expect it to.

> [@](#):
>
> Why is it that your method of secured doors, which you admit is probably not 100% foolproof, is fine yet mine isn’t? Kind of a double standard there. Only because less people (not “nobody”, like you claimed. Certainly the airlines have complained about secured doors) complain?

_sigh_ Because there IS no “100% foolproof” and the method of securing doors doesn’t trample on the dignity, health and, more importantly, civil liberties of innocent American citizens the way backscatter x-rays and enhanced pat-downs demonstrably do.

Clear, yet?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/251 "2010-12-01T20:10:39Z")

</div>

> [@Morgenstern](#):
>
> 9/11 type attacks will happen again.

Actually, that specific mode of attack is no longer a viable option, and even if it were it could be thwarted easily enough by non-intrusive measures (sealing the cockpits, arming the pilots, and using preexisting metal-detector equipment).

The current threat of explosives ought to be addressable by far less intrusive measures such as chemical sniffing. Pity Michael Chertoff didn’t pick that for his post-Cabinet source of income.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/252 "2010-12-01T20:19:22Z")

</div>

> [@YogSosoth](#):
>
> No, I’m scared of another 9/11 happening, not a mythical, non-existent boogeyman. I’m afraid that all you people think a fucking door’s gonna stop them once they get on board armed with knives. Place your trust in a god damn door, but don’t cry when it gets opened somehow

Wait, just a minute. You do realize that you are arguing against the effectiveness of a security protocol that restricts ALL passengers while simultaneously arguing for the effectiveness of a protocol that only screens SOME of those same passengers?

Dude, in simple terms, if the terrorists don’t get picked for pornoscans or groping, which isn’t all that likely anyway, you’d better hope the secured cockpit door works.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/253 "2010-12-02T16:13:28Z")

</div>

Well, I guess we’re done here?

I wonder when they are going to start using these security protocols in arenas and other crowded venues. Surely, a guy could do some damage at the Super Bowl, eh?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/254 "2010-12-02T18:05:46Z")

</div>

> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#):
>
> Well, I guess we’re done here?
> 
> I wonder when they are going to start using these security protocols in arenas and other crowded venues. Surely, a guy could do some damage at the Super Bowl, eh?

It seems to me, anecdotally, that security is steadily increasing at all areas, and not just transport hubs but at sports events, businesses, etc. As I play road warrior and visit companies all over the US and Europe, I’ve noticed a steady and persistent ramp-up of security. Companies where I used to just walk in the door, check in, and then head to a meeting room now scan my driver’s license, take photos, and sometimes even fingerprint me. And I’m seeing more and more metal detectors at utility offices, which causes untold hell and long lines for folks just wanting to get into work.

One company in North Carolina I go to has a main office where they advise employees to show up 15 minutes early so they can make it through security and get to their cubicle by 8:00. One day I showed up for a visit and the metal detector (their single one) was on the blink…so the hired security banned ALL employees from entering the building for several hours until it was fixed. Thankfully, I had the option of returning to my comfy hotel, ordering a few gallons of coffee, and doing my work via phone and net; all the employees stood outside in the cold and waited, or went back home. Mind you, this isn’t any top-secret installation or anything, or any more or less sensitive than any other utility office. They just came to the conclusion that “9-11 CHANGED EVERYTHING!” I was told they didn’t fix the detector until that afternoon, and more than 1,000 employees sat.

To return to your point, I can easily see a time within 10 years where to get into the Superbowl you need to pass through metal detectors, and send all bags, beernoculars, contraband bratwursts, etc. through an X-Ray. “Please arrive 5-8 hours early for check-in at the convenient TSA-manned Superbowl Super Security Pavilion!” As the cost of scanners decrease and their speed increases, they may within 10 years simply have everyone herd into stadiums under a passive scanning X-Ray, with armed rent-a-cops waiting and twirling their batons to whallop anyone who’s carrying a Leatherman tool, or bringing into the stadium more than 3.4 ounces of liquid. Shoot, they might not even tell anyone about it, I mean, how would you know? Most folks don’t have a dosimeter of any sort.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/255 "2010-12-02T19:43:19Z")

</div>

> [@Una\_Persson](#):
>
> Most folks don’t have a dosimeter of any sort.

Hm, is it illegal to own and wear a dosimeter through the damned scanner? Hubby and I actually have our own. Wonder if we could request a statement of exposure for our med files. I keep track of my total lifetime exposure =)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/256 "2010-12-02T22:45:51Z")

</div>

> [@aruvqan](#):
>
> Hm, is it illegal to own and wear a dosimeter through the damned scanner? Hubby and I actually have our own. Wonder if we could request a statement of exposure for our med files. I keep track of my total lifetime exposure =)

It is not illegal to wear a dosimeter (provided they don’t grab it and stick it on the belt). However, I reckon if you ask for a statement of exposure, one of the following would happen:

A) They would give you the same look that a cat gives you when you tell it to play a five-stringed banjo.

B) They would say “you need to go to our website. I’m sure it’s on there somewhere.”

C) They would subject you to a series of aggressive, brutal, _brutal_ pat-downs and gropings until you decided that you really didn’t want a statement of exposure any more, or you proposed to the TSA worker.

D) A bag goes over your head, and 3 days later you wake up under a Cuban sky. “Welcome to Camp X-Ray! Here’s your prayer mat, your food bowl, and your waste bowl. Do not, repeat, do not mix any of these items up!”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\
**Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/257 "2010-12-03T00:45:30Z")

</div>

Ah, levity. I can certainly appreciate that. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\
**Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/258 "2010-12-03T03:02:43Z")

</div>

> [@Una\_Persson](#):
>
> C) They would subject you to a series of aggressive, brutal, _brutal_ pat-downs and gropings until you decided that you really didn’t want a statement of exposure any more, or you proposed to the TSA worker.
> 
> D) A bag goes over your head, and 3 days later you wake up under a Cuban sky. “Welcome to Camp X-Ray! Here’s your prayer mat, your food bowl, and your waste bowl. Do not, repeat, do not mix any of these items up!”

C- damn, I am already married, and I bet mrAru makes more than they do … unless we can convince the government to let me have 2 husbands, or an extra wife …

D - but I am agnostic … can I trade the prayer rug for a hammock?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\
**Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/259 "2010-12-03T04:10:41Z")

</div>

> [@aruvqan](#):
>
> D - but I am agnostic … can I trade the prayer rug for a hammock?

Sounds like terrorist talk to me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\
**Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788/260 "2010-12-03T04:42:18Z")

</div>

> [@Walmarticus](#):
>
> Then I’ll have to do without my junk for the whole vacation. I’d prefer the ‘take a penny/leave a penny’ procedure. And if some people leave a quarter, I could upgrade.

This is like the gas station.

" Spare some junk? Leave some junk. Need some junk? Take some junk. "

Boy, but I’d stop whining about $ 3.05 a gallon if this were the case. 😃

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788.md?page=12)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-like-the-new-tsa-pat-downs/561788.md?page=14)