Seriously. TSA.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 11:33 pm

Okay. I give up. What the hell is the big deal here? So someone feels your tits for explosives. So what? My wife once hid a twelve inch ruler under her F cup breasts. And she's not a big girl, other than them thar fun bags! (Gawd I love boobies!)

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 11:56 pm

Probably because some of the female passangers experienced not very professional searches and didn't appreciate being groped by strangers?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 12:01 am

Then they should avoid flying.

Mjelvis · Post by **Mjelvis** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 12:02 am

Reika wrote:Probably because some of the female passangers experienced not very professional searches and didn't appreciate being groped by strangers?

But why not?

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 12:25 am

Bring on the ceramic blades taped between the boobies!

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 1:09 am

REPORTER: Mr President, some people have described your proposed new boobie-feeling laws as invasive, a violation of civil liberties and even tantamount to rape. What do you say to this?

THE PRESIDENT: Those people, they have to understand that we live in a very different world to four years ago. September 11 changed the way we look at a lot of things, and that includes boobies. In today's world, with the ever-present threat of terror hovering above us, a boobie can be a lethal weapon. What these people - the ones talking about civil liberties - have to realise, is that a boobie that has not been felt up is a danger to all of us. We are in a war against the forces of terror and evil, and we will leave no stone unturned, and no boobie untouched, until we find the terrorists and make the torsos of our womenfolk safe places once more. Thankyou, and God bless America.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 2:15 am

Funny but pointless. The fact is, and believe me at my job I get proof of this every day, bra's and womens breasts have been used to hide all sorts of contraband. Which is why any women entering a Department of Corrections Facility gets this same style search.

Now I would definitely say my view on this is slightly skewed, since I am slightly more security minded than most Americans, and I would concede that there are definitely some issues here that need addressing beyond the search.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 3:07 am

So what's the problem? Searches done wrong, and very unfriendly searchers abusing authority and being unwilling to talk about why they're allowed to do what they do.

Serious Paul wrote:Funny but pointless. The fact is, and believe me at my job I get proof of this every day, bra's and womens breasts have been used to hide all sorts of contraband. Which is why any women entering a Department of Corrections Facility gets this same style search.

Those searches are quite likely better, in many ways... What we need: Proper training, and enough female TSA officers to do the searches would be good. Also not having the searchers refuse to reveal the regulations which allow the searches would be good.

Note that it's only a few hundred complaints - make that maybe 20k real problems, with a 1:100 willing-to-complain ratio. 50 million travellers, half female, so 1 in 100 goes poorly. That's indicative of there being a need for better training at specific facilities. This isn't about the major airports, I'd imagine, where they can afford good people and make sure those people know their job and act professionally (which would also be the case at most prisons). This is about those smaller airports where they have maybe two additional guards on duty since Sept. 11 - one male, one female - and haven't bothered to train them at all beyond "Here's what we're looking for..."

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 6:36 am

Anguirel wrote:This is about those smaller airports where they have maybe two additional guards on duty since Sept. 11 - one male, one female - and haven't bothered to train them at all beyond "Here's what we're looking for..."

Exactly. I ran into something similar (thankfully they didn't insist on patting me down) when I left for my trip to JAX back in Sept. It's kind of funny now, but at the time it was pretty embarrasing to not only have your wastepouch and backpack searched several times, but having to take your sneakers off also. And these weren't sneakers that were super thick soled or anything, just el cheapo sneaks from Wally World. I think they were contemplating working up the nerve to do a more thorough search, except they couldn't really justify it since I was being cooperative. The procedure must have taken about 20-30 mins.

As I said, it's funny now, but at the time it was not a good thing, especially when the folks JAX airport just scanned my bags in less than five minutes and they didn't want to scan my sneakers. When I mentioned what happened at the airport I left from in NY, they were horrified. Now when I left NY, I did have some silver art clay with me, but it was in the original package which clearly stated non-flammable and something like 500F to harden.

The difference? The airport I left in NY may be international, but JAX is probably 3 times bigger both in size and number of flights.

So yeah, I can see women getting upset and complaining. As Ang said, not alot of them actually would make any type of formal complaint for various reasons.

I'll stop rambling now.

Selreth Drevarian · Post by **Selreth Drevarian** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 6:44 pm

What we need to do is get these screeners some sensitivity training. You see, if these screeners knew how to do their job right, people wouldn't be complaining. We need to teach them that they don't need to grope and abuse the boobies, but to fondle them lovingly so that the passengers somewhat enjoy it, this way they leave with a smile on their face, not a lawsuit in their eyes.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:14 am

Look who here exactly thinks a search is a friendly thing? I mean it isn't meant to be a hello, or hey we're friends now. A search is supposed to be a cold clincal process. While I agree fondling out of sexual gratification is a bad idea, I do think that the idea of this some how being a process we can make "appealing" is absurd.

No one likes to get searched. As a society we need to make the decision as to what we'll accept.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 4:06 am

Come on. You have to admit, it sounds like something Beavis & Butthead might come up with.

Woman at Airport: Excuse me, what do you think you're doing?
Security Dude: I need to pat you down.
Woman: Um, you just did.
Dude: Sorry ma'am. I have to check your breasts for explosives.
Woman: You have to what??
Dude: Check your breasts for explosives.
Woman: But the wand went off because of my ankle bracelet, which you have seen. It didn't go off at all anywhere else.
Dude: Yes ma'am, I know, but it's the law.
Woman: The LAW? What law?
Dude: I can't tell you. It's a secret law.
Woman: Riiiiiight.

I mean really, eight-year-olds come up with this shit all the time.

Fine, there needs to be security and all, but that was some seriously bad implementation, and it seems to me they're just adjusting how the stupid rule is being implemented. It's not like they aren't searching women's breasts at all - they're just leaving them alone unless the wand goes off in that region.

Besides, how would you like having your nutsack aggressively groped in the name of security? It's not like breasts don't have nerve endings, fer pete's sake.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 4:13 am

Besides, how would you like having your nutsack aggressively groped in the name of security? It's not like breasts don't have nerve endings, fer pete's sake.

You've never worked my job have you?

Besides having to clear a metal detector I am generally "shook down" at least once per day. Which involves hands in my crotch area, in the same fashion as breasts are searched-which is to say around the genitals not on.

I think aggressive is in the eye of the beholder too. Touch and hurt differ in my book.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 7:01 am

Serious Paul wrote:You've never worked my job have you?

Obviously. In fact, most people have not only never worked your job, but most people have never even set foot inside a prison. So for most of us, being searched at all is a pretty unusual event. Sure, we'll go through the occasional metal detector (though I understand metal detectors are pretty common in many public schools now, so I suppose that's different), and of course anti-theft scanners at stores and libraries, but patted down? That's a level of contact most of us reserve for our romantic partners and our doctors.

So, you know, there's a reason you don't see this as a big deal whereas a lot of other people might.

I think aggressive is in the eye of the beholder too. Touch and hurt differ in my book.

Absolutely. But I can't imagine the airport security people were trained nearly as well in how to perform these additional 'breast searches' as you and your coworkers have been trained. So while your pat-downs (if I'm reading you correctly) don't actually involve someone touching your genitals, it's entirely possibly some of the airport searchers weren't being as circumspect.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:02 am

That's a level of contact most of us reserve for our romantic partners and our doctors.

I forget that all the time. Sorry.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:07 am

'S cool, man.

Coasini · Post by **Coasini** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:29 pm

Well...
Personally, I find all of it to be fairly silly and moot.
Airplanes already arm all passengers with sharp pointy bits, when you ask for a coke in a can. You get the can, which can be easily torn open into a rather fashionable blade.

Not to mention that any number of electronic devices can be used to create fires, if you tinker with the insides just a bit.

But hey.... we're only worried about what has already been done, not what's possible, right?

There's no such thing as security, get over it.

Kitt · Post by **Kitt** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:18 pm

The other thing is that security is supposed to actually watch the monitor when scanning bags. Last time I was on a plane, I had a swiss army-style knife in an altoids tin. The time before that, I had a lighter in my bag. I'd forgotten about that, but they either didn't notice or just didn't pay attention. So I don't want to hear about pat-downs. They haven't done it to me yet, and if they try to without the wand going off, forget it. I'll raise all kinds of hell, sue for sexual harassment, etc. But then, I'm a psycho paranoid bitch like that.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:43 pm

Coasini wrote:Airplanes already arm all passengers with sharp pointy bits, when you ask for a coke in a can. You get the can, which can be easily torn open into a rather fashionable blade.

I imagine stabbing someone with a 2mm thick piece of aluminum isn't going to do much besides piss them off and bleed a little.

Not to mention that any number of electronic devices can be used to create fires, if you tinker with the insides just a bit.

Well, the device itself could short and burn off some insulation. I don't think it could easilly be used as an incindiary device large enough to take a plane down.

Coasini · Post by **Coasini** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:48 pm

Salvation:
Previously planes were taken complete control of via pepper spray and box cutters.

Also, you might be surprised just how easily you can make an electrical device act as an incindiary device.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:08 pm

Coasini wrote:Previously planes were taken complete control of via pepper spray and box cutters.

Neither of which are a covertly torn-apart Coke can.

Coasini wrote:Also, you might be surprised just how easily you can make an electrical device act as an incindiary device.

I certainly would be.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:37 pm

Metal detectors are pretty easily fooled. They really are. Fear of irradiating people, which has become a concern in the last few years when they realized it was possible for people to sue them for cancer they claimed came from the X rays, has made it a little easier.

Most X ray machiens aren't cranked all the way up. For a lot of reasons.

Another reason X ray machines aren't cranked is operator laziness. A lot of people just get sick of the damn things. (I worked the gates once, and believe me eight hours of making people empty their pocket change and take off their shoes is boring as hell.)

sinsual · Post by **sinsual** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:13 pm

3278 wrote:
Coasini wrote:Previously planes were taken complete control of via pepper spray and box cutters.
Neither of which are a covertly torn-apart Coke can.

Come on 3-2 I can see you tearing apart a coke can, flattening and rolling the strip of aluminum down to box cutter size.....BTW Sal, the last 3 flights I have been on you were not allowed to have the can.

Thorn the last two times through Security I got groped roughly. Both times the rod and pins in my leg set off the detector.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:21 pm

They gave me the can on both flights back from DC. Then again, I was flying first class (since our original flight got cancelled.)

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:54 pm

Reika wrote:
Anguirel wrote:This is about those smaller airports where they have maybe two additional guards on duty since Sept. 11 - one male, one female - and haven't bothered to train them at all beyond "Here's what we're looking for..."
Exactly. I ran into something similar (thankfully they didn't insist on patting me down) when I left for my trip to JAX back in Sept. It's kind of funny now, but at the time it was pretty embarrasing to not only have your wastepouch and backpack searched several times, but having to take your sneakers off also. And these weren't sneakers that were super thick soled or anything, just el cheapo sneaks from Wally World. I think they were contemplating working up the nerve to do a more thorough search, except they couldn't really justify it since I was being cooperative. The procedure must have taken about 20-30 mins.

I don't know if I'm terribly lucky or you folks are terribly unlucky, but when I went to Michigan I was wearing cargo pants - every. single. zipper. set off the metal detector. They wanded me, asked to see my belt buckle and gave me a typical patdown. No problemo.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:59 am

Weren't you flying Moncton -> Toronto, though? Security for flights within the country is usually pretty lax.

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 1:15 pm

Adam wrote:Weren't you flying Moncton -> Toronto, though? Security for flights within the country is usually pretty lax.

You know what? I completely forgot that I only flew to Toronto.

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 10:32 pm

I was flying within the country when they harassed me like that. It wasn't even a huge plane, just a little commuter to Cinci from Newburgh, NY. I've been on busses that held more people.

So it probably does depend on the airport you're flying from since as I said, JAX airport had no probs with me.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:22 pm

Szechuan wrote:
Adam wrote:Weren't you flying Moncton -> Toronto, though? Security for flights within the country is usually pretty lax.
You know what? I completely forgot that I only flew to Toronto.

Flights in Canadia are also less likely to have the complications of TSA, as that's a US Gov. organization. I think.