TSA checking of breasts legit seems a bit over the top-no pun intended

The BBQ Pit
101

Heh, well, I’m glad the doors are nice and strong. So that when the terrorists get into the cockpit they can lock the door to prevent anyone from attacking them :smiley:
I think what TeaElle is talking about is that, at this point, we have not caught a terrorist with a bomb strapped to them. We haven’t stopped a single person from bringing a bomb onto the plane who planned on using it.

The Y2K thing was over blown by the media. Sure, some systems would have trouble if stuff wasn’t fixed but there was no need to ignite mass hysteria over it.

That’s really the problem. Aircraft terrorism is really rare (even in countires plagued with it) yet you wouldn’t believe that by watching the news. More people die by DUI and many other vehicle related crimes yet that doesn’t get as much “hype” than a plane blowing up.

102

TeaElle, you might want to change your password. Chicken Little is posting from your account.

I can put up with some mild touching because I don’t consider it invasive enough to warrant change.

You and badmana both seem to think that, because you don’t like it, it should be eliminated. That is not how it works.

And before you jump down my throat again, there’s no use flaming me just because the level of security is within my tolerance. I’m not the problem here. The problem is either your tolerance level or the security levels. Since you seem disinclined to change the former, perhaps you should read the main point of all my posts and work to change the latter.

And no, we really can’t stop unforseen or innovative terror strikes. That’s why they’re unforseen and innovative. But if we quit trying to prevent ANY, then they ALL will work. And Richard Reid did get stopped. Yes, mostly because of his own incompetence, but also because the September 11th attacks changed the fundamental rules of passenger involvement.

You are both exactly right. **So go make a stink about it in the appropriate forum ** and work for change. Hint: snarking at me about how much I might enjoy “invasive” searches is not the appropriate forum. Because until there is that turning point in the resistance, things will stay the way they are. And most people who fly or are “forced” to fly accept it as the price of doing business. I freely do. So do most others. Who cares if the government unilaterally imposed it? I don’t, and neither do enough people that makes it an issue for the government to have to address.

Well, sure they’re necessary for everyone. But that’s not expedient. Arresting every lawbreaker all the time is necessary. Maybe you can start a Pit thread on how the assholes who want to dupe you into thinking you’re safe on the roads are lying to you because they don’t pull over every speeder and because there aren’t DUI checkpoints at every toll booth and traffic light.

Cite?
The laws and rules won’t change until enough fliers see to it that they do change. I don’t care, TeaElle is enjoying the moral high ground as she drives cross-country, and **badmana ** is Canadian and doesn’t fly in the US.

So right now, there are no real voices for change in this thread.

Until you’re willing to work for change, your cries about the circumstances are pretty lame.

103

I guess my complaint is, that TSA is, itself, window dressing. They stand in front of the crowd, showing us what sacrifices we must make to stay safe, when outside, all those un-inspected, un-x-rayed un-sniffed bags are being loaded directlyonto the aircraft, to ride 6 inches under ours asses.
I believe we are no safer today, than we were 4 years ago. We’re just more aware of possibilities.
In medicine, when a patient starts a down hill slide, we often refer to the situation as, “circling the drain.”
There are two ways to handle it. The smart team, quickly assesses crisis, then plugs the drain, and all is well. The not-so-quick group needs time to think and study the problem so, they just starts filling up the sink. The patient’s still circling the drain, just not as fast.
Well, the situation surounding our safety is akin to circling the drain. TSA is nothing more than a bucket of water. “See, we’re not spinning so fast, must be safe!”
We’ve been told how necessary to our safety these inconveniences are. I’m not so pampered that I can’t tolerate a bit of inconveniece, but damn, the inconveniences get more inconvenient, but the threat doesn’t get any smaller, or move any father away. The bad guys are still out there … somewhere…
So we carry our shoes in our left hand, while some TSA dolt, fondles our right breast, and the baggage guys load 3000 pounds of, maybe, our innocent clothes, or 2998 pounds of clothes and 2 pounds of undetected explosive.
I don’t know the right answer, but this stuff doesn’t feel like it.

104

Oh, my, so much to bitch about…

Boobby-patting: You know, I was born and raised here in the States, and my background isn’t “conservative religious” at all. However, I do not like to be touched by anyone (husband excepted). Not men, not other women. Not even friends. Much less a complete stranger of either gender. I would find it intrusive and humilitating and undignified, and if I did “consent” (hah!) to it I would, yes, feel violated and ashamed of myself. I would feel used and dirty. My body is private (or supposed to be).

As a compromise, I would be willing to entirely disrobe to prove I am carrying nothing. The truth is, I would rather be naked in front of a stranger than to be touched by a stranger… even through clothing.

Fortunately, I don’t have to fly the airlines. When I fly, I park and I’m airborne, oh, 20-30 minutes later without a search, grope, or other intrusion upon my privacy and human dignity. At least for now.

Airport security: The world is safe from exploding tits :rolleyes: but most cargo goes into the hold completely unsearched. The ONLY real improvement in aviation security since 9/11/01 is the reinforced cockpit door (which is about 30 years overdue) and that won’t save you from a bomb in baggage.

I could name a couple other big, gaping security holes except I don’t feel a public forum is the place to start describing such things. They’re there. Strip-searching passengers won’t patch them.

There really is too much focus on aviation and not enough in other places - just this week someone(s) sabotaged two 50 foot towers in Wisconsin and cut off the train traffic between Milwaukee and Chicago… and why didn’t that get more press? Our the cargo coming into our ports isn’t thoroughly searched either.

Like I said - I really do have the option to avoid the airlines, unlike most of my fellow citizens. Regretably, it seems the TSA is doing their best to make obtaining the same privilege more difficult. Even if the intrusion is something you can tolerate, consider where the trends are leading - when ARE you going to draw a line in the sand? Or will you let your freedoms and dignity be whittled away until the only safety you have is that of chattel?

Our freedom to move about really is under threat. In addition to the bullshit people are subjected to at the airline (along with actual security procedures), there are proposals on the table to require the same level of security to board a train or a bus in the US - which will eliminate alternatives. And Og forbid you’re on a no-fly list! There are hundreds of innocent people on those lists - including members of Congress! - with no way to take their names off or prove their innocence. If the TSA has its way those folks will not be able to board a plane, train, or bus anywhere in the US - indefinitely. They will, essentially, but under a form of arrest without trial, without appeal, and without having committed a crime.

Is THAT the sort of country you want to live in?

105

Umm, maybe you don’t understand what we’re discussing here. Of course none of us has the ability to change what the TSA is doing (not even a “majority rule” would do that immediately). And your point about “the proper forum” is incorrect. This is the proper forum in both aspects. Regular private citizens don’t have any say in what the TSA does so we bitch about it online. And the place to bitch about it is in the BBQ pit.
I’m certainly not directing my ire at you. This isn’t a personal attack.

What I like to do is discuss things, since, you know, this is a message board and all.
It’s cool and all that you don’t mind strangers groping you. We all have, like you said, our personal limits on stuff like that. But it’s also interesting to note that all the security checks in the world don’t increase security unless you’re willing to go ALL THE WAY. I’m talking, right up to the elbow in terms of BCS :smiley:

Right now we’re groping women (and men) and forcing women to drink their breast milk. It’s rather mild, I agree, so when does the American people speak up? When they’re really doing BCS? When all “arabs” are banned from flying? When “security checks” mean complete strip searches for everyone entering a plane? Where’s the line? We cross over several lines before (including racial profiling that DOES NOT WORK).
And Reid wasn’t stopped because of 9/11. He was unlucky. That’s all that stood between life and the death of 300? people…luck.

Terrorists will always have the initiative which is how it’s always been. Making up “security measures” does nothing to prevent a terrorist attack. I just hope the general american public realizes this before more of our (US AND Canada’s) rights are taken away “for security”.

106

Damn you posters! :smiley:

The above was a reply to Happy.

107

Hey boomstick, so how much would a flight by you cost me for, oh, Toronto to Jamacia for 2 weeks plus return? :smiley:

I might even consent to a strip search…by you, not the hubby! :smiley:
He he.

108

Here’s the fact that no one wants to accept: These people are suicidal. Eventually someone probably will get a bomb implanted in his body, knowing he’ll die within 24 hours or so. Then he’ll get on a plane and do his thing.

In the meanwhile, we have a couple of choices:

A. Tortue everyone who’s flying, spending megabucks and megatime even though the really determined bombers are going get through anyway.

B. Do reasonable checks and confiscate reasonable (NOT little nail scissors from old ladies), so that bombers and hijackers who put only minimal effort into their plots won’t succeed. All the while accepting the fact that we’re going to lose a plane now and then.

But the almighty US can’t accept the fact that it can’t stop the bombers completely. We can’t accept we’re mortal. We can’t accept that they might win now and then.

By all means, spend money on security and scanners and whatnot to prevent bad things from happening. I’m not saying give up. But fiddling with peoples nail files and boobies is nothing more than magic: If we’re putting forth thus much effort, then they don’t deserve to win!

109

Lessee, this is the Pit right? Good. Bite me.

Fine, that’s your right. I find that a stranger touching between my breasts is not “mild” and certain is invasive and unnecessary unless there is some specific reason to suspect that I am hiding something in that area.

Don’t put words in my mouth.

Why are you assuming that I haven’t been?

By other passengers and flight attendants, not by any security agent. Now everybody has their shoes screened. It’s not a hit or miss, ooh, his shoes look weird make him take his off thing. It’s uniform. It’s meaningful.

That is perhaps one of the scariest things I’ve ever read on the Dope, and if you can’t understand why, I’m more worried about you than I am about being blown up in a plane. Oh, wait, I was more worried about you than that before I read it.

Mmm, apples and oranges. My favorite bad analogy comparison flavors. I’m not even going to bother.

I wouldn’t be willing to disrobe entirely, but I’d expose enough of myself to show that nothing’s been strapped anywhere if it meant that some TSA goon wasn’t going to touch me. Fortunately, I have no current need to fly. Should something happen to my family down in Mississippi, I’d be in for a 20 hour drive. Ah well.

110

Over $2,000 for your half - still interested? That’s just for the airplane. Room and board extra.

I can’t buy fuel in bulk like the airlines, more’s the pity.

111

Okay, airport security is over the top. In my travels I have been lucky to have screeners who applied both humor and common sense, even when I was pitching a red-headed fit (this was about having to take my boots off in Oct. 2001, which I had never had to do before, wasn’t prepared, and was wearing the boots that required either a boot-remover or the assistance of another person to get off, neither of which was an option at the airport).

But I have to take issue with this idea that the woman who refused to have her breasts patted down signed something or somehow gave implicit consent to the search. When you buy the ticket there is consent that you will follow the airline’s rules and the airport’s rules, but being frisked is not spelled out. Removing your shoes is not spelled out. Being screened by a device that renders you naked is not spelled out. There is a list of prohibited items and dimensions for carry-on luggage and it’s all in very, very fine print.

In 1997 I sent my kid off to college, and his bags were taken apart by the airline. I threw such a fit because of that (he was going off to college, after all, and those bags represented hours of packing and repacking to get everything in) that the security person told me why: Out of 5 profiling red flags he hit four. (1) Male, age 18–I think the range was up to 28. (2) One-way ticket, and it didn’t help that he was going to Cleveland via Washington DC (that was United’s idea, not mine or his) (3) Ticket purchased two days before (4) Ticket purchased with cash. She added that she wasn’t supposed to tell me but #5 would have been of middle eastern descent, either in looks or in the sound of the name. But that didn’t matter, because hitting 4/5 was a security hit, hitting 3/5 was a likely security hit, and even hitting 1-2/5 would have caused an evaluation of the security risk.

Obviously, this was designed to catch a certain kind of person, and not a college-bound kid whose mother was a little slow to realize it wasn’t practical to pack him into the station wagon and drive him.

Note that I said “in 1997.” Apparently this kind of profiling went out of vogue, at least at some airports (I hope not in any part because of my maternal meltdown). Now it’s back, with a vengeance and minus the “profiling” part.

112

It seems that the main argument of TSA’s (and the airlines’ policies) proponents is that, by purchasing a ticket, a customer is implicitly agreeing to abide by the airline’s safety procedures; in other words, the transaction indicates a contractual agreement between the two parties. I would fully support this view if the airline companies were truly private. However, this is not the case. When the airlines stop taking government money and using government resources, they will be entitled to set their own rules and enforce them as they deem necessary–provided, of course, that they pay for it with their assets. But, as it stands now, the government shores up the airline industry and exchanges data on individuals with companies in order to determine their “risk score” (we’ve had GD threads on CAPPS II before). And what would happen if people boycotted the airlines in numbers large enough to impact their profits? Why, the government would raise their taxes and hand the extra money over to the very companies from whom the citizens were trying to withhold their patronage. And if there’s another terrorist attack? We’ll have to pay more to have even more of our rights violated.

113

Exactly. I’ve had this done before, several times. Generally, if you buy your tickets with little or no notice, you get pulled aside for random searches. And as part of our work for our clients, we frequently do have to fly on little or no notice.

All they do is take the heel of their hand and place it between your breasts to make sure the bra goes all the way to the breast bone, and no odd things, other than underwires can be felt. They then do the heel of the hand thing on either side of your breasts, more under your arm than actual breast material.

And a final time they ask you to lift your breasts (well, if it’s necessary to lift them) and they check the underwire and area below your breasts with the heel of their hand.

Now…I have enormous breasts, and other than it being a hold up and as annoying as all of the other silly 9/11 stuff, it wasn’t in any way “feeling me up”, or physically or sexually invasive. Despite my size, there really wasn’t any contact with my actual breast.

It’s not like they make a claw and squeeze the charmin! Sheesh.

114

CanvasShoes, you crack me up! :stuck_out_tongue: I’m surprised that there are some women totally fine with it. I was pretty convinced every woman out there would be skeeved out by this. I’m really on the fence about the whole issue.

The concern I see about protests in the name of privacy is the fact that a terrorist will make every effort possible to see if his/her plan comes through. That means if they are aware of some vacuum in security, they will exploit it. Sure people are scoffing at the idea of exploding boobies, but if the whole thing lead to screeners never touching/inspecting that part of a woman, you can bet that sooner or later there will be a terrorist that tries to smuggle something dangerous on the plane.

It is true that terrorist attacks on planes are overall rare. The fact is, I could not remember the last time a US airline plane was hijacked before 9/11. Chicken little or not, I think that even the alarmists here are not willing to take the chance that one subject might slip through the cracks.

I am honestly extremely torn about security vs privacy. I understand the points on both sides, but at the same time I know that terrorists are interested in this too. I’m sure they are very supportive of people’s rights to privacy, to be able to keep certain things hidden from prying eyes, because it lets them carry on unmolested. I also understand there’s more to catching bad guys with bombs strapped to themselves than groping every Tom, Dick, and Jane that walks through the gate. So it is a very complex issue, and I can’t say for sure one way or the other :confused:

So in summary: Sorry, I got nuthin! :wink:

115

Haven’t gotten any response in support of the assertion that she specifically agreed to the search, so I’ll just repeat my request for a cite of some sort.

So far, I’ve only seen Cicada2003 appearing to debunk the notion.

Anybody? Bueller?

116

Exacrly EXACTLY.

There are two issues at stake here in this thread. Seperate ones. One is do we all believe in and support the ridiculousness of some of the so-called security measures and/or do we think they are actually effective in preventing any future problems.

IMHO, I think most of we Americans are in varying degrees of disagreement with the home security thing and it’s supposed effectiveness.

But that’s not the issue here. HappyScrappy has it nailed. We are at complete liberty to think it’s stupid and useless, but “we lays down our money and we takes our chances”.

Even if there WERE no “home security” garbage. Airlines ARE private industries. They’re selling us a product. They have mulitibillion dollars of inventory and if they put on their “contract” that we agree to submit to their security checks, we have no right to complain once we’ve agreed to them (by purchasing the ticket) by throwing a hissy fit at the gate.

Fly, or don’t fly, the rules that currently exist ARE what we have to deal with NOW.

As HSHP says, either follow what we have now, or lobby to change it.

117

Like I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, the russian terrorists never went through security because they bribed one of the security officers. Sometimes it is that easy.

I was listening to the radio here yesterday and they had an interview with an American airline pilot. He said the increased security is basically just window dressing. There is no way it will prevent an actual attack. His main concerns were two:

1.: The fact that luggage is basically placed on the airplane without being examined. This is how Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up above Lockerbie, Scotland

2.: An inside job. He says the people working in security and baggage handling are not screened sufficiently, and there is nothing to prevent them from placing something in luggage or on a plane. Also, they can be bribed as already seen.

118

All that’s being done is wasting buckets of money on the illusion of safety. You are no safer then before 9/11. If you believe otherwise you’re a fool.

119

See my post above. This is not a good argument.

120

sleeping: Actually, it is your argument that is not the good one.

Your argument would be the good one if the government placed any restrictions on how the airlines spent the money they were given. But they have not. That’s why the execs get the bonuses and the machinists take pay and pension cuts.

But, like George Carlin says, “‘You pays your money and you takes your choice’ is also stupid. You should know by now that you pays your money and you takes what they goddamn well feel like giving you.”

But if you don’t like it, call your Congressman. Tell him you want TSA reform. Tell him you want accountability provisions or spending conditions in airline subsidies. Tell him you want the security workers to be allowed to form unions (which they are now not permitted to do), or tell him that you (and everyone you can reasonably infuence- it helps if this is a lot of people) will vote against anyone who allows another free-and-clear airline bailout.

But for now, they are private industries. Subsidized, sure. Private? Yep. So that’s the way they work. They get to set their own policies, which are at minimum the TSA requirements, and at maximum are whatever doesn’t violate the law.

TeaElle, where should I begin not bothering with you? When you tried to make it look like I credited anyone BUT the passengers with stopping Reid (I credited them and the post-September 11-attack mentality, did I not?), when you tried to weasel out of your declaration of an absoulute by then trying to exclude my argument? Nah, I’ll just start not bothering when you went with a simple “Bite me.”

**World Eater: ** Am I safer now than I was before the attacks? I honestly don’t know. And neither do you. But I’m willing to put up with a bit of inconvenience because I believe my government is at least TRYING. That doesn’t make me a fool.

kaylasdad99: I think we’re getting hung up on what’s TSA policy and what airline policy might be. I’m trying to find a more specfic cite- right now all I’ve got is that purchasing a ticket implies consent to be searched, but not the paramters thereof. While, to my reading, that means “a search any kind of which is not prohibited by law,” you might want that spelled out, and I’m honestly trying to find it.

Cicada: I have no problem with your son getting searched. In fact, I’m glad he did. Scoring that high demands testing. I got the whole search at Heathrow for less than that and didn’t mind a bit and was glad that the screeners there were doing their jobs. Was I inconvenienced? Sure I was. Damn near missed my flight. But, a little planning on my part would have taken care of that, and a little planning on your part would have reduced your son’s score to zero and allowed him to walk right on the plane. Now, I understand that perhaps that was the only way you could get him to school on time. But security doesn’t know that.

And for the last time: A search is not groping. I’ve been searched by lots of people, from private security to the NYPD to airport screeners to a “guy who worked for a guy who knew a guy who owed a guy some money.” I’ve never felt violated or embarassed by it.

Maybe that means I have a higher tolerance for such things, or maybe it just means that I’m not a weepy, overhysterical, “look-at-me-I’m-a-victim” types. Your rights don’t trump those of the rest of the country. We live in a republic, people. Obligation to your fellow countrymen trumps personal privilege.

To review: You don’t like the restrictions on flying, don’t fly or work to have them changed. And sure they don’t change overnight- and they shouldn’t. There are millions of people who have rights, and you’re only one of them. You have no constitutional right to fly, but you do have a constitutional obligation to accede to the will of the majority. And since the majority has been shown to will that such things not change, they haven’t changed.