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

[CanvasShoes]

@kaylasdad99

It seems to me AGAIN that the validity of thishinges on being able to establish DEFINITIVELY (as opposed to “so to speak”) the validity of thisWould you care to do the honors?

Good point, one I think I corrected in a later post of mine, saying something to the effect of “it’s possible this lady had never ever flown before and didn’t know the status quo”.

If not, I will reiterate that now. I do realize it’s possible that she hadn’t flown and didn’t know all this as the rest of the American flying public does. Or anyone who watches the news, or posts on message boards…etc

Sorry, that’s slightly sarcastic. In all honesty? I willingly concede that she had no idea. I still think her actions highly melodramatic and pwincessy.

But I was thinking about this today, you think it is annoying and/or intrusive to have the “frisk” done to you??? Imagine the poor Aunt Janie who works for minimum wage and has to FRISK dozens of unwilling, cranky, travel worn (and possibly travel smelly) strangers a day.

Can you imagine her first day of work? “I gotta search WHUUUUUT”??? :eek:

[CanvasShoes]

@kaylasdad99

It seems to me AGAIN that the validity of thishinges on being able to establish DEFINITIVELY (as opposed to “so to speak”) the validity of thisWould you care to do the honors?

Ooops, sorry, I didn’t reply to your whole post. Anyway, her actions during and after the fact, the crying and sobbing and so on, are described in the article linked to in the OP.

But, I was making the assumption that she was acting that melodramatic over the request for the search, I admit that she could have been upset by the snottiness of the agents, or ther things as well. As I remember, they didn’t really explain that part well enough in the article.

[sleeping]

[QUOTE=CanvasShoes]

After all, WE don’t frisk our customers, and WE are subsidized by the government.

Who’s “we”?

The government would have required this from the airlines after 9/11 whether or not they’d helped bail the airlines out.

Probably. But the subsidies do matter: I should not have to fund companies; they can make enough money by doing what businesses are supposed to do. Legitimate ones, anyway.

And the airlines aren’t currently violating our civil liberties, have they gone into our houses without permission? Have they gone ANYWHERE without our permission? Nope. You declare that you “know what the laws are”, but you are NOT required to fly, just to comply with the requirements of flying. And when you buy the ticket, and step up to the security line, you are giving your permission.

I contend that they are violating my rights because they are not purely private entities. No, I’m not required to fly, but then there is a myriad of things I’m not required to do, which the government can’t take away (even under current law) without a good reason.

And once again, the above does NOT equal I think this is all fine and dandy. I just don’t see it as the horrifying slide into 1984ism that so many others do.

The body searches, not so much. But the TSA in general? Hell, yeah. Read the earlier threads on CAPPS II.

[DarkPrince]

Clicky, just 'cuz. :dubious:

[CanvasShoes]

QUOTE=CanvasShoes]
Quote:
After all, WE don’t frisk our customers, and WE are subsidized by the government.

Who’s “we”?

Sorry, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the company I work for, that is contracted to the government, the military no less. They pay us, but we don’t "mind’ them, other than the general rules for contractor conduct on a military base, within our own company. IANA corporate procedures consultant, but I’d wager that neither do the airlines.

Quote:
The government would have required this from the airlines after 9/11 whether or not they’d helped bail the airlines out.

Probably. But the subsidies do matter: I should not have to fund companies; they can make enough money by doing what businesses are supposed to do. Legitimate ones, anyway.

The “subsidies” from what I understand, are assistance to assist the airlines with the financial fallout that was caused BY the apres’ 9/11 air shut down. From what I understood, it was intended to assist the airlines that were affected by this, to get back on their feet, and was not intended as some “tit for tat” agreement by which the government has an ongoing policy of subsidies (such as with the corn industry) as long as the airlines do what they want, such as force stupid security nonsense on the public.

Quote:
And the airlines aren’t currently violating our civil liberties, have they gone into our houses without permission? Have they gone ANYWHERE without our permission? Nope. You declare that you “know what the laws are”, but you are NOT required to fly, just to comply with the requirements of flying. And when you buy the ticket, and step up to the security line, you are giving your permission.

I contend that they are violating my rights because they are not purely private entities. No, I’m not required to fly, but then there is a myriad of things I’m not required to do, which the government can’t take away (even under current law) without a good reason.

So, if they were a COMPLETELY private company, such as a bar, where they AlSO pat down random customers, it would be okay to have a pat down, but since they’re getting “dirty” government money your rights are being violated? Despite the fact that in both cases you entered into an agreement to allow a search, having purchased their product?

(the bar “product”, entrance into their establishment and entertainment, the airline “product” travel from point A to point B). Sorry, but this makes no sense, other than I “get” that for you it’s the principle of the thing.

[quote]
quote:

And once again, the above does NOT equal I think this is all fine and dandy. I just don’t see it as the horrifying slide into 1984ism that so many others do.
[/quote}

The body searches, not so much. But the TSA in general? Hell, yeah. Read the earlier threads on CAPPS II.

Hadn’t heard of those…'that"? Would appreciate a link though.

At any rate, even if there are “horrifying” rights violations written down somewhere, or proposed, etc. We aren’t seeing them happen out in real life. The TSA is a pain, but Americans as a whole can only be pushed so far. What’s going on now is annoying, but if it started approaching 1984 status, you’d see a buncha BIG ole American style protests and so on.

[Mycroft_Holmes]

@CanvasShoes

Well, I guess my answer to that is “what WOULD you people have the airlines do to make things as safe and comfortable as possible for ALL passengers”?

Well, I’m kind of partial to the old statisticians trick. If the odds of one bomb being on the plane are one in a million, the odds of two bombs being on the plane should be one in 1 000 000 000 000, so the best thing to do is to bring your own bomb, or have the airlines themselves place a bomb on every plane. You’ll be a lot safer that way!

[CanvasShoes]

@Mycroft Holmes

Well, I’m kind of partial to the old statisticians trick. If the odds of one bomb being on the plane are one in a million, the odds of two bombs being on the plane should be one in 1 000 000 000 000, so the best thing to do is to bring your own bomb, or have the airlines themselves place a bomb on every plane. You’ll be a lot safer that way!

Arghhhh, you’ve got me there. But then my version of hell iswhen I go up to the pearly gates and St Peter says “well, you’re all ready to go in, but first, just answer this question…If a train leaves Los Angelos at 1:00…”

[Broomstick]

@CanvasShoes

So, if they were a COMPLETELY private company, such as a bar, where they AlSO pat down random customers, it would be okay to have a pat down, but since they’re getting “dirty” government money your rights are being violated? Despite the fact that in both cases you entered into an agreement to allow a search, having purchased their product?

I don’t patronize bars that require a frisk before entry.

And really, the situation is more like every bar requiring a frisk, not just some.

Nor is anyone required to patronize a bar as part of another, not-bar related business such as is common among business travelers who travel as part of their job, even though their job has nothing to do with aviation.

To say flying is “voluntary” is a bit simplistic - there IS coercion at many points along the way. If your job requires travel it’s usually either fly and submit to a frisk or lose your employement. I suppose you could argue “get another job”, but that’s not so easy to do these days.

I suppose you could argue the lady in the OP should have taken Greyhound if she didn’t want to be frisked. That will work - until the TSA puts through that you need the same sort of secuity search to board a bus or train as an airplane. And the “slippery slope” part of the argument is part of what people are objecting to. If we OK to this thing, what will they ask for next?

I also think the randomness aspects galls. If frisking random passengers is so important, why not frisk ALL passengers? Why IS granny being searched so extra careful, but not the young man over there? And why does cargo get a free pass? That makes no sense.

[Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup]

It’s not the AIRLINES that enforce the pat-downs.

It’s the GOVERNMENT.

A bit of clarification: There’s the Transportation Security ACT. It is a law which includes the creation of the Transportation Security Administration to adminster and enforce the Act.

The TSAdmin is a government entity. And, in order for the airlines to do business here in the US, they have to follow the law of the land (the TSAct), which is to have a certain level of searches, which searches include, but are not limited to, patdowns.

The airlines are free to add more stringent security measures, but must have in place the TSAct-mandated minimum. And TSAdmin personnel (agents of the government) are carrying it out.
So, if you’re railing against a certain thing done to you, find out under whose auspices it was done and then examine your options.

And for those who are just bitching, I respect your right to vent, don’t get me wrong. However, it’s a personally-held belief that if there is something you don’t like, either do something about it or learn to live with it, because just bitching about it is damn annoying.

[kaylasdad99]

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

And for those who are just bitching, I respect your right to vent, don’t get me wrong. However, it’s a personally-held belief that if there is something you don’t like, either do something about it or learn to live with it, because just bitching about it is damn annoying.

This is a bit difficult to wrap my head around. You’re hanging out in a forum that is devoted, to a significant degree, to the practice of impotent pissing and moaning; and you find all the bitching “damn annoying?” That’s kind of like hanging out at the laundromat and complaining about all the racket from the washers and dryers.

[Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup]

Well, I jumped into this thread in order to just give a nice metaphorical pint of STFU to the woman who was bitching.

The annoying thing is the “I want to bitch but I don’t want to do anything about it” factor.

But your right to bitch is endorsed by yours truly, make no mistake about that. However, while it is not incumbent upon you to work to change what upsets you, it’s my belief that you ought to.

And I like hanging out here because there’s lots of funny stuff goes on here.

[World_Eater]

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

Well, I jumped into this thread in order to just give a nice metaphorical pint of STFU to the woman who was bitching.

The annoying thing is the “I want to bitch but I don’t want to do anything about it” factor.

But your right to bitch is endorsed by yours truly, make no mistake about that. However, while it is not incumbent upon you to work to change what upsets you, it’s my belief that you ought to.

And I like hanging out here because there’s lots of funny stuff goes on here.

Kind of depressing that one needs to lobby for common sense.

[sleeping]

@CanvasShoes

QUOTE=CanvasShoes]
Sorry, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the company I work for, that is contracted to the government, the military no less. They pay us, but we don’t "mind’ them, other than the general rules for contractor conduct on a military base, within our own company. IANA corporate procedures consultant, but I’d wager that neither do the airlines.

Thanks for clarifying.

The “subsidies” from what I understand, are assistance to assist the airlines with the financial fallout that was caused BY the apres’ 9/11 air shut down. From what I understood, it was intended to assist the airlines that were affected by this, to get back on their feet, and was not intended as some “tit for tat” agreement by which the government has an ongoing policy of subsidies (such as with the corn industry) as long as the airlines do what they want, such as force stupid security nonsense on the public.

Not quite.

So, if they were a COMPLETELY private company, such as a bar, where they AlSO pat down random customers, it would be okay to have a pat down, but since they’re getting “dirty” government money your rights are being violated? Despite the fact that in both cases you entered into an agreement to allow a search, having purchased their product?

(the bar “product”, entrance into their establishment and entertainment, the airline “product” travel from point A to point B). Sorry, but this makes no sense, other than I “get” that for you it’s the principle of the thing.

Essentially, I’m saying that, aside from the financial aspect of it, a business that benefits from government subsidies is not (or should not be) free to institute whatever policies it wants and that I believe the airline rules do intrude on people’s privacy to an extent that is unconstitutional.

Hadn’t heard of those…'that"? Would appreciate a link though.

Apologies. I think I posted to another thread on CAPPS II but I can’t find it now.

[danceswithcats]

Just scanned the posts from my last visit-in case the point spoken here was already stated, apologies in advance.

The problem I had with the situation described in the OP was that this woman is not a target threat.

Militant members of La Leche League have never bombed or hijacked an airliner.

Militant employees of Hooters have never bombed or hijacked an airliner.

Militant members of other organizations have done both. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach to airline security, which we all seem to agree doesn’t do jack, I advocate use of the P-word, decried by civil libertarians: profiling.

My uncle was a NJ State Trooper, and freely admitted to stopping cars that didn’t fit in a neighborhood. Hey-your taillight is out-thump the fender-ah, it’s back on, now-you need to get that checked. Since you’re stopped-you folks seem to be lost-let me see your cards, OK? Drugs, guns, outstanding warrants, all tagged via cop sense and gut instinct.

White kids in expensive SUVs cruising the badlands of Philadelphia at 0330 are not doing field research for their sociology homework. They are buying drugs.

The gentlemen walking the streets of the Philadelphia badlands at 0330 are not members of Insomniacs Anonymous. They are selling drugs.

Put the money into intelligence, profiling, and cargo scanning. Check carry-on, metal detector walk through/wand, but get off the nail-clipper wielding grampa. He ain’t a threat.

Final salvo-shut the goddam media up about what is being scanned, how it is done, and so forth. When every security measure is being blatted by Susie Talking-Head on the 11 o’clock news, we’ve kinda shot outselves in the foot, no?

[World_Eater]

@danceswithcats

Just scanned the posts from my last visit-in case the point spoken here was already stated, apologies in advance.

The problem I had with the situation described in the OP was that this woman is not a target threat.

Militant members of La Leche League have never bombed or hijacked an airliner.

Militant employees of Hooters have never bombed or hijacked an airliner.

Militant members of other organizations have done both. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach to airline security, which we all seem to agree doesn’t do jack, I advocate use of the P-word, decried by civil libertarians: profiling.

My uncle was a NJ State Trooper, and freely admitted to stopping cars that didn’t fit in a neighborhood. Hey-your taillight is out-thump the fender-ah, it’s back on, now-you need to get that checked. Since you’re stopped-you folks seem to be lost-let me see your cards, OK? Drugs, guns, outstanding warrants, all tagged via cop sense and gut instinct.

White kids in expensive SUVs cruising the badlands of Philadelphia at 0330 are not doing field research for their sociology homework. They are buying drugs.

The gentlemen walking the streets of the Philadelphia badlands at 0330 are not members of Insomniacs Anonymous. They are selling drugs.

Put the money into intelligence, profiling, and cargo scanning. Check carry-on, metal detector walk through/wand, but get off the nail-clipper wielding grampa. He ain’t a threat.

Final salvo-shut the goddam media up about what is being scanned, how it is done, and so forth. When every security measure is being blatted by Susie Talking-Head on the 11 o’clock news, we’ve kinda shot outselves in the foot, no?

Well said.

[CanvasShoes]

An aside, and not an argument for or against TSA etc, but I find it kind of interesting that some of the posters that are in this thread stringently defending our nation’s sacred boobies from the horror of the frisk (which it isn’t a “horror” at all, see a couple of descriptions from those of us with enormous boobs who’ve actually had the procedure), are the same ones that were “tsk tsking” laughing at, and calling Americans melodramatic and overreacting for being upset at forced boobwatching re:Super Bowl boobgate.

Just an interesting observation that’s all.

[CanvasShoes]

PS, those who quoted me? HSPS answered your points to me in a more informed way than I could have. Just didn’t want you to think that I was ignoring you,

[Sublight]

@CanvasShoes

Just an interesting observation that’s all.

How so?

[CanvasShoes]

@Sublight

How so?

Hmm, let’s see if I can line this out intelligently. Forgive me ahead of time if I don’t make it make sense well enough, I’m fighting some sort of darn cold.

Okay, first thing, at least to me, is that the enforced boob watching violated people’s privacy and personal wishes and desires regarding their bodies (in that case our eyes, our EYES were so horribly assaulted and voilated :D). And the government is involved in all the “what can we watch, what can’t we watch as well” little ole government watchdogs on what are supposedly companies owned and held themselves, that is, networks and studios. Though as far as I know there is no government subsidies to the studios.

At any rate, the privacy of our homes was violated. Although we all watch TV, and most of us have been watching it long enough to know that we are sometimes going to be offended, THIS particular type of offense wasn’t spelled out, NOR was it invited etc etc mumble mumble (I’m describing the horror of some of the other folks, not endorsing and overreaction regarding the Janet incident).

Some of the posters here had a HAY DAY making fun of those who were ofended by the sight of a mere boob, totally discounting the “against express permission” part of that viewing, but incongruously, here they’re on the other side, that of “OUR SACRED BODIES” kind of attitude.

It just seems silly and somewhat hypocritical to me and therefore “kinda interesting”.

NOW, once again, this was JUST an aside observation and was NOT intended in support or denouncement of the TSA.

Again, please forgive me for any unclear descrptions… my head is stuffed with cotton and three times it’s normal size.

[Siege]

Excuse me. Things have been busy the past couple of days, and not in a good way.

I’m afraid I’m going to stand by my original position. I have a shy and reserved streak in me, and I don’t like being touched by someone I don’t know. This is one reason I don’t like crowds. I am willing to put up with necessary indignities if I must and if I know they’re coming, but I’m still not convinced the search as it was described was necessary. It sounded more like a routine patdown search to me, and I think I’ve endured one.

Look, the reason things have been busy is I had to go to court yesterday to testify about a car accident I saw a year and a bit ago. To get into the courthouse, I had to go through a metal detector. Now, I freely admit I had animosity towards the defendant; he was high on cocaine, valium, and alcohol when he crossed the center line of a stretch of two-lane blacktop at over 40 mph and ran into a minivan carrying a family, resulting in severe injuries to them, not him. I wound up sitting less than 5 feet from him in the courtroom. I was wearing a high-necked, long-sleeved blouse, a longish skirt, stockings and a jacket. I could have hidden a great deal under there.

Hmmm. As I’ve been writing this, an interesting question has occurred to me. Did the metal detector go off when the woman went through it and, if it did, how would have it effected the situation? I think I still would not have wanted someone to examine my breasts as thoroughly as described. I would, instead, have offered to take off not just my top and bra, but everything else, if need be and be rescanned, but I do not want strangers touching me.

My body belongs to me; not the airline, not the national government, not national security screeners. I do not sign over the rights to it when I buy an airline ticket. I’ve also got some severe doubts about the efficacy, and a reasonable experiment has occured to me. As I mentioned back on page 1, I knit. As such, I have a few cable needles. They’re straight metal, less than 1/4" in diameter with a curve in the middle, a bit like this:
------v------
The longest one I have is 5" long. It could easily be used as a weapon. Since Bosda’s not available ;), tonight or tomorrow, if a gentleman I know and trust is willing to cooperate, I’ll try concealing it in my bra and seeing if he can detect it with a routine patdown, something which I repeat I don’t object to simply because it’s not worth it. If it he can’t, we’ll try a search the way the OP described it. If that still doesn’t work, we’ll see what it takes to find it, a la Mythbusters, although I don’t think they’d be able to use this for an episode.

Basically, if someone can convince me that the measures TSA wanted to take are likely to detect something a routine patdown wouldn’t, I’ll probably change my mind. I’m pretty sceptical, though. Among other things, an elaborate hairstyle could easily hide a weapon or two amongst the bobby pins, although I might raise an eyebrow at a woman who was subjecting elaborately coiffured hair to the rigors of flying.

CJ