Bio
I'm 26, a mother of a six year old, a wife of a man approaching 30, and a boring little accountant. I also enjoy eating foods that are really bad for...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

New TSA Screening Nude-O-Scope and Pat Downs- Who really hates it?

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 6
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Other than myself hating the new TSA scanning and pat downs, I didn't know who really hated the new screening process. The last two days, I set out to find out. Initially I wrote a blog post that likely was too angry and totally irrational and I wasn't ready to speak up about why I was truly against this. As a frequent flyer (more than 10 flights per year), I am worried about my next flight. My last flight, about a month ago, was out of Dulles International Airport. The last DC area airport that doesn't use the body scanners. I'll be honest, as a recovering molestation and rape victim who suffered as a child, this hits me on so many levels. When I saw the nearly viral video of the pink clad toddler girl screaming "stop touching me", I was swallowing my vomit and sobbing.

The news has this idea that most Americans are fine with the changes. BUT... Most Americans don't fly every year. Most Americans aren't faced with this in the next month or two. Only a small percentage of Thanksgiving travel (less than 10%) is via airplane. Over 90% of Thanksgiving travel is by automobile. I tried out my point of view (that this really does go too far) on a comment board of a news article. I got slammed by several people who said this is necessary for security! Really? Is it? Because the shoe bomber and underwear bomber were missed by the TSA, who already have the technology and clearance to swab your hands for explosive residue. Which might have stopped one or both from boarding. Frequent fliers know that they are safer in the air than driving, terrorist threats or not. However, most frequent fliers I'm reading about or know personally seem to hate this with a passion.

You know what's really eerie about this? Two extremist points of view POLAR OPPOSITE of each other agree that this new screening has literally gone too far. Ann Coulter (who's name I shudder at) and the ACLU (who brings bile to my mouth) agree this screening is going too far and violating regular, law abiding citizens rights. And I agree completely. I don't want to show my body even for 3 seconds. It makes me sick. I don't want to show my son's body either. The alternative, the groin and breast grope would likely send me into a panic attack. In advance of a planned trip during Christmas I cancelled my flight and rented a car. But my work travel is a different animal. I'm hoping and praying that this will change because I've got Orlando, Chicago, and a few other destinations it will be hard to drive to coming up very fast after the New Year. And I love my job and the work I am doing.

I don't think telling people who oppose this "just don't fly" or "you give up your rights when you purchase your ticket" really helps the issue. First of all, some people have to fly for work reasons or when a family member is gravely ill. Second of all, telling people not to fly will only damage the airline economy and raise already skyrocketing ticker prices (and fees). Third of all, (and most importantly) the TSA is a federal agency and NO ONE should ever have to "give up their rights" when they purchase anything. If this doesn't violate the 4 amendment, it certainly toes that line. This system still doesn't detect ALL powder based or plastic C-4 explosives and it simply forces people to endure humiliation for the appearance of safety. This is America, we're still free and our rights apply in an airport, a train station, at concerts, and everywhere. What more are people going to give up in the name of "safety"? What happens when they bring these scanners into other places because the terrorists start going for other targets?

We could have stopped the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber if we did a simple background check. Is that profiling? Nope. Simply determine whether people can purchase tickets based on their risk factors (like having open warrants, possible Al Quaeda ties, or a one way flight with no luggage...) and stop the sale right then and there. The metal detectors, x-rays, and swabs for residue will work fine if we're stopping the red flags before they even approach the TSA.

  • 6
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
randamace 5 pts

Also, I learned that the screening procedures mean absolutely nothing for inbound flights from other countries. In which case, it's simply the TSA putting innocent Americans through invasive screenings.

falnfenix 5 pts

Elsewhere I've mentioned Ben Gurion airport as an excellent example of the proper use of profiling.

They don't use age, or sex, or religion, or skin tone. They use behavior. One must go through various levels of screening, from entering the airport to gaining access to the gate...and in each case, the profiling is quick, discreet, and effective.

The problem with their methods, however, involves the people employed to use those methods. They are still human, and therefore (here in the US) still prone to abusing their power.

Kirk Strong 5 pts

Perhaps 2 or 3 flights per year, but I am, with you, opposed to these new procedures. Until the TSA stops doing them, I will either be driving, taking Amtrak, or -- perish the thought -- taking a bus.

I wouldn't mind so much if the procedures were actually effective, but it's already clear that a determined suicide bomber can pass either the scanner or the pat down with relative ease.

Stopping this ridiculous stupidity seems to be becoming a common cause of both the left and the right.

Kirk Strong 5 pts

I'm asking this question seriously and hope for serious answers.

If we had a 100 acre parcel of land with a swamp in one corner of it and our task was to find an alligator, would we search all 100 acres? Or would we focus our energies on the swamp?

Would not the same logic apply to the search for bomb-laden terrorists trying to board airplanes?

Would it not make sense to develop profiles which would allow us to focus our attention on just those individuals most likely to try to bomb an airplane?

Certainly age, gender and ethnicity would be part of the profiles. But they would be just three of many factors, and perhaps not even the most important.

We could also develop profiles of those who could with reasonable safety be excluded -- frequent fliers, airline crews, the very old and the very young, for example.

If there are any moral or ethical grounds that would make this wrong, I confess I cannot think what they might be.

Can the rest of you think of any?

falnfenix 5 pts

for those who believe the TSA is doing something "right" i have a new link to share: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/24/menstruating-...

this. is. DISGUSTING.

randamace 5 pts

Opinions on this from all sides. Even non-frequent fliers. I typically fly 10-15 times per year during the 1st 3 quarters for work and the fourth quarter is personal travel. I think I am going to eliminate my personal flying altogether. I don't know if the "screener in the private room" has sexual or lewd thoughts about these detailed naked bodies... And I just don't feel comfortable at all with the new screening procedures.