Arguing the effectiveness of the screenings is fine. Arguing for a better system is great! I am dubious about the effectiveness of these measures as well.
“Invasive” though? People need to get a grip. Technically, definitionally, it may be deemed “invasive” but the connotations of that word go far beyond what is happening here. I’ve had doctors do lots of things that are far more invasive than this airport screening. Unpleasant but I dealt with it. The airport screening, while not fun, is hardly something to be in a fuss about. What actual harm is being done here? How many people are going to be psychologically scarred from this experience? I am willing to wager no one will.
If you don’t want to do the screenings then don’t fly. Simple.
I get that Isreal has fewer people in their airport. However, the US has 42X the population of Isreal. Shouldn’t one be able to expect a proportionate number of inspectors in the US? Being the US, who say it has to as cost effective as what Isreal is doing anyways. We’d save tons of money by having way few TSA guys but having the rest paid a healthy salary - make being an airport screener a respectable career so that the skill level continues to increase.
Of course a given airport will need more than 2 or 3 people - I used that number as an approximation of how many ‘skilled’ people might be used to replace 30 unskilled TSA guys. And, if you took the brightest 10% (phase the rest out) of the current TSA people, gave them lots of training and a huge pay increase with it - you’d probably have enough airport screener people if
if
if
they were allowed to profile.
I’d personally feel much safer seeing competent people doing the screening work effectively than seeing burger flipper groping the pregnant women.
There is a vast difference between a trained medical professional undertaking an examination for real proximate causes - rather than some vague hysteric hypochondria - and some untrained American goon feeling me up mate.
All well and fine if you lot would keep your idiotic, ill-informed security theatre and chicken little irrationalism on your side of the bloody pond, but you impose it on other destinations (sure "only"for US flights, but oft for feeders as well, etc).
The Americans want to be slack-jawed provincial morons and be seduced by carny-show security theatre, super. Keep it to your own bloody selves.
I find neither of these arguments convincing. The first is simply a matter of political will (which gets easier to find in proportion to the number of pissed-off voters demanding that an unacceptable situation be corrected). As for the second, the number of people working for the TSA (about 48k) is an order of magnitude below the US population working in any of a number of professions requiring high skill levels (e.g. 661k physicians/surgeons, 260k civil engineers).
I’ll take it because the scarring occurred with the rapist, not the TSA.
Further, the TSA has women frisk women. Not to mention everyone stays clothed and it is in public (e.g. the woman is not alone and cornered).
Further still, even before this increase in pat downs, a pat down was always a possibility when going through security at an airport. Any woman who is still so shattered from being raped that she would be “scarred” by a pat down from another woman at a security checkpoint, that she knows full well is coming, has no business trying to go through airport security.
It would be akin to a person who is terrified of flying getting on a plane and then freaking out once in the air. If you know you have issues then avoid the thing that will cause those issues to cause you problems.
I’m far from convinced this enhanced security does much to actually make us safe to fly. It’s a political feel good (pun intended) window dressing the government, and those who pay for this, because America by and large is fucking lazy and selfish sheep. We must be willing to implement an honest security system where everyone has a role to play long before you even buy an airline ticket.
At the same time, open a third lane for certified, competent flyers, and not just frequent flyers. These are the folks who know the drill. They don’t fumble for their IDs, tickets, or failed to pack properly. They don’t carry overstuffed carryon bags. Got this? Check. Got that? Check. Bags on scanner belt please? Check. Of course that will mean fumblers, slow thinkers and travellers with kids won’t make the cut. Cold and harsh? Yes, but 9/11 has changed everything. Either get with the program or find another method of transportation. Period. Elvis has left the building. Next!
But don’t placate me with this pseudo security crap. Cuz when it will fail it will fail big time.
Whether or not it’s a right is beside the point. We’re going through absurd levels of security theater that aren’t making us safer, but are requiring us to consent to acts that, under other circumstances, would obviously be sexual assault.
It’s not crazy to step back and say “what have we created here?”
And yes, your doctor’s actions are the same thing: sexual assault under other circumstances. The difference is that your doctor carrying out those actions has a clear purpose and benefit, and you consent to those actions in the same way that you consent to a virtual strip search when flying. The difference is that the virtual strip search doesn’t make us safer, but does humiliate us when the scans they said couldn’t be kept were released in large batches under FOIA requests.
Creating an Orwellian security state and saying “don’t fly if you don’t like it” dodges the question of “do we need the Orwellian security state in the first place? Is the cost to our dignity worth paying?”
It is this kind of invective that is the problem here.
Those “jagoffs” are doing the job they are told to do. I bet if you asked them they do not like it either. The “jagoffs”, if anyone, are the people up top instituting these rules.
And yeah, when it comes to this kind of grope please tell me the functional difference between a doctor grabbing your sack and telling you to cough and these guys patting you down? Both are doing their job. That is all. Neither is likely enjoying grabbing your balls any more than you are happy to have them fondled by these guys. Don’t detail the different job descriptions. I am asking why is the doctor grabbing your balls fine by you and not a sexual assault where the TSA guy is?
You’re kidding right? Do I really have to explain this to you?
Rather trivially easy, at least in countries with proper medical systems. I don’t know your doctor, but over here medical professionals don’t pointlessly grab your private parts for non-focused screenings.
Functionally, a medical professional, besides having a professional relationship with you - has proper training and a specific and focused reason touching the privates, again at least in proper countries.
Your secuirty screeners are, in my unfortunate visits to the US - most assuredly non-discretionary - are not professionals, rather rude and clearly not trained in any particular fashion. They do not have a focused reason for touching the genitalia and generally have no particular focus other than providing a sop to the frightened chicken little masses in the USA that ten years on still seem to wet their pants over a single terror event.
There seems to be a real love for strawmen in your responses, as no one seems to be saying the screeners enjoy it at all.
And I too am not convinced these security measures actually do anything to make us safer. Indeed I am happy the TSA went here because finally Americans might pay attention and demand reasonable measures rather than feel good measures that are useless. Not holding my breath but maybe…
Americans are big ones for the freak out. After 9/11 we rolled over allowed things like the Patriot Act which stomped on our rights. FISA has been strengthened to allow spying on citizens. Where was the hue and cry then?
Sorry but I find Americans squealing because someone may touch their junk through their clothes laughable in comparison to rights we happily let slide away.
Our priorities are whacked.
Again though, I agree the new security measures are probably near useless. But if they didn’t do it and something happened heads would roll as people looked for the people who “didn’t do enough to stop it”. I’m sure you know the routine.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to object to someone putting their hands inside your clothes without a damn good reason, even if they don’t go as far as the woman Sam Stone mentioned here claims. And she’s still being threatened to force her to comply, even if the TSA uses prosecution rather than physical violence as their stick.
To what extent can your doctor force you to comply? Can he threaten you with fines and prosecution? Can he jeopardise your job if you refuse?
Both are doing their job. Their job demands it. You willingly subject yourself to it. If you do not want someone touching you “there” then don’t put yourself in the situation where that happens.
And the “strawman” fun part is to point out why you think they are doing it? Why did a poster above call them “jagoffs”? What they are doing may be worthless but do you think the screener in the airport has anything to do with it?
Uh, yeah, we agree. Jagoffs all around. Not sure why they’re employed makes them not-jagoffs.
One is a well-trained licensed professial using established medical training to look for something specific based on health history, diet, lifestyle et cetera to save your life. One is a badly-trained, unmotivated employee performing similar actions without any likely or just cause and almost zero likelihood of gaining any useful information.
And this is an argument for it?
Let’s see…
Sure looks that way, doesn’t it? “Hey, this random agent of the government is going to feel up your cleavage because the boss says it’ll keep us safe, but it’s totally cool because she’s a chick!”
Yes, actually it is, relative to actual reason and rational for going "there. " As I already highlighted.
No, I bloody well don’t. I have to fly to your benighted land of ignoramuses, it’s an obligation, not a choice. I do try to minimize and avoid it as much as possible, however.
Charming, were it actually something under my control.
I shouldn’t think so, no one seemed to be going there at all - rather about the policy.
Oh, mayhaps a simple insult to a class of people (TSA staff) that generally treat the public with which they interact with a sort of American-Soviet level of courtesy?
No, except to the degree - at least at NY and Chicago airports, their comportment adds to the general unpleasantness.
You consent to it once you get in the security line. Don’t get in the security line or don’t go to the doctor’s office. Neither will fondle you then.
I agree TSA people are typical government-king-of-their-little-hill bullies. It’s a shitty job, not terribly well paying (~$30K IIRC so not horrible either) and probably boring and tiresome. There are clearly cases where they abuse their power. Not surprising but definitely not cool either.
The wise traveler will shut the fuck up, get through it and be done. While I may agree in spirit with the person making a fuss (I don’t want to be groped by these people either but I’ll manage) I also know the person making a fuss is asking for it and shouldn’t be surprised when they make that person’s life miserable.
Want to fight the TSA on this don’t do it in the security line at the airport. The drones can’t do shit about it anyway. Call your congresscritter, write a letter to the editor…whatever.
Take a piss on their turf and they WILL ruin your day whether you deserve it or not.
You say this, yet you also blast people for “choosing” to fly, then calling TSA out on their bullshit. Yet TSA agents “chose” a job where they grope people for no reason. Why should they be respected and we just shut up and take it?