Frustrated with Airline Security? Try These.

[JWBear]

The whole airport security thing is a farce. Flying, even with the threat of terrorism, is still by far the safest mode of transportation. You have a greater chance of being killed just walking down the street!

Do you realize that it would take ten 9/11s per year to equal the number of deaths by auto accidents in this country?

I’d rather have my freedoms back and take my chances with flying.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Disneyphile

And it's also a violation of the constitution.

I agree with 99% of your sentiment, but unconstitutional is a tough case to argue. You are making a choice to use a private service, and the terms of that private service are that you will be searched. This is not a case of the government searching people at-whim with no warning or explanation, which is what the 4th amendment is about. "and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It's pretty well described where they'll be searching you and what they're looking for (save the odd idiot who forgets that they're no longer looking for nail clippers).

I do not disagree that it is kabuki, overkill, unnecessary, paranoid, undignified, insulting, and frankly disgusting. But unconstitutional? Not particularly.

[Disneyphile]

I understand what you're saying, GD. But, TSA is a government agency.

I think the airlines who offer the service should supply and determine their own level of security. It would allow people to choose what service they'd like to use.

Say, if United wanted to grope and xray everyone, then those who do not like it have other flight options. And, those who need to feel like they are safer, can totally fly with them. Personally, I'd fly with a company who just has the old pre-9/11 screening, plus a sky marshall or two onboard. I was fine with that level, and I wouldn't feel any less safe with it today.

Also - 9/11 taught us all something. Vigilante justice. I'm confident that anyone caught being remotely suspicious on a plane is going to be tackled and beat to a pulp by fellow passengers. I know I sure as hell wouldn't hesitate to launch myself at someone pulling a knife, match, etc. Because if I don't, I'll probably die anyway. The underwear guy last year was subdued by fellow passengers. Perfect way to deter anything.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by JWBear

I’d rather have my freedoms back and take my chances with flying.

Me, too! Sign me up!

Originally Posted by Disneyphile

I think the airlines who offer the service should supply and determine their own level of security. It would allow people to choose what service they'd like to use.
...snip...
Also - 9/11 taught us all something. Vigilante justice. I'm confident that anyone caught being remotely suspicious on a plane is going to be tackled and beat to a pulp by fellow passengers. I know I sure as hell wouldn't hesitate to launch myself at someone pulling a knife, match, etc. Because if I don't, I'll probably die anyway. The underwear guy last year was subdued by fellow passengers. Perfect way to deter anything.

Yep. We used to just let them do pretty much whatever they want, we'll sort it out later. We are no longer willing to do so, which makes me feel much safer than anything TSA has considered.

Besides, if they're truly looking for bomb materials, use dogs. Humans have not invented a machine that is as good as a dog. There is, however, less profit in using dogs than in these enormously expensive machines. Which I think explains a lot.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

Me, too! Sign me up!



There is, however, less profit in using dogs than in these enormously expensive machines. Which I think explains a lot.

Michael Chertoff - Former head of Homeland Security - Lobbyist for enormously expensive machines - Skeletor impersonator

Dogs at baggage x-ray and throughout airport, and quick interviews at all contact points, i.e., ticketing, baggage x-ray, check-in, boarding.

[Prudence]

If this isn't "too much", then what is? Where is the line? The notion that "if it saves even one life" it's worthwhile is so ridiculous, yet people keep saying it. Really? You're really okay with any policy as long as it *might* save a life? And does this only apply to air travel?

My biggest problem with the new procedures is still not being able to know what's legitimate and what isn't. How far down my pants are they allowed to stick their hands? Did that playboy model really trip the scanner or does someone just want to know whether "they" are real? Is that patdown of a six year old taking a long time because the kid is squirming or because the patter downer is a pervert? The TSA has made two things clear: they won't tell you what normal is and there are serious consequences for anyone who challenges their authority.

[Disneyphile]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

Besides, if they're truly looking for bomb materials, use dogs.

And, dogs are more reliable in detecting an explosive shoved where the sun doesn't shine.

But, dogs also don't look as "secure". It's all about the appearance of "safety".

[alphabassettgrrl]

Yes, as opposed to actual safety.

I'm not impressed by appearances. I'd rather deal with what's real.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Man With 4th Amendment on Chest Sues Over Airport Arrest

[Cadaverous Pallor]

So I'm guessing he stripped down to underwear unnecessarily to be sure that he would be detained so he could sue them. I'm sure he thinks he's some amazingly bold rights activist.