TSA pat-down poll

[Alceste]

LOL... only Greece is above yellow rating?

Yep. There is a detailed report that goes along with the image that explains their criteria, but it takes into account things like the predominance of CCTV, the use of biometric data (i.e. DNA databases), wholesale spying on the public (i.e. warrantless wiretapping, the UK's proposed database of every electronic communication transaction in the country, etc.) OTOH, all the grey countries are areas which were not included in the study, I think due to lack of information. It's likely many of those would be green simply due to lack of funds for the technological and staffing requirements for a decent Big Brother society like the US, China or the UK.

 

[Alceste]

They can & will do both. I didn't opt out. I went thru the scanner. Then I had the fondling, which was entirely baseless for security reasons. I'd also been selected for pat-downs multiple times in years past, but they really ramped up the intimacy of it. So I choose to never fly again.

Note: Many scanners were roped off & not in use for Opt Out Day. If they're so necessary, then why do something so dangerous just to avoid a protest?
Newark airport controversial scanners are barely used on busiest travel day | NJ.com

I'll keep flying, just not into or out of the US. I don't think I'll even fly with stopovers in the US. I once stopped in Hawaii on the way to Australia for refueling and they got everybody out of the plane to be sniffed by dogs. We weren't even leaving the airport FFS! That was before 9-11.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll keep flying, just not into or out of the US. I don't think I'll even fly with stopovers in the US. I once stopped in Hawaii on the way to Australia for refueling and they got everybody out of the plane to be sniffed by dogs. We weren't even leaving the airport FFS! That was before 9-11.

I kinda like dog sniffing. No, not my sniffing them!
I have problems with US authorities at the Canadian border. Since I haul tools & machinery,
I'm the guy you see standing there with my arms out & a rifle pointed at me while they search
my truck for who knows what. It must be the Hawaiian shirts, cuz my passengers never get
such special treatment. It makes for good stories though, & I have witnesses that my paranoia
is somewhat justified.

 

[Alceste]

I kinda like dog sniffing. No, not my sniffing them!
I have problems with US authorities at the Canadian border. Since I haul tools & machinery,
I'm the guy you see standing there with my arms out & a rifle pointed at me while they search
my truck for who knows what. It must be the Hawaiian shirts, cuz my passengers never get
such special treatment. It makes for good stories though, & I have witnesses that my paranoia
is somewhat justified.

Actually, that might be the Canadian border guards. I've heard horror stories about them too. They're porn obsessed, for example. They will steal your laptop to see if you've got any, then never, ever give it back.

I dislike dog sniffing because I live in BC, so I probably smell like pot even though I would never dream of trying to bring any into the US.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, that might be the Canadian border guards. I've heard horror stories about them too. They're porn obsessed, for example. They will steal your laptop to see if you've got any, then never, ever give it back.

If they do give it back, you need to wipe it down with disinfectant.
My problems are with the American side. But I know Canucks who have trouble with both sides.

 

[Smoke]

By the way, just to add some boring fact rather than hype and hysteria to the picture - everyone's not scanned or patted down. 20 percent of passengers are selected for scanning, and if they don't want the scan, they are patted down. So it's not a matter of "If I fly I will certainly be scanned or patted down." You've got a 1 in 5 chance.

But what does that tell you?

If, in fact, these invasive measures are necessary or are effective at intercepting terrorists, the terrorists still have an 80% chance of getting through. That seems a very negligible "protection" in exchange for being violated by the TSA's goon squad.

 

[Kathryn]

But what does that tell you?

If, in fact, these invasive measures are necessary or are effective at intercepting terrorists, the terrorists still have an 80% chance of getting through. That seems a very negligible "protection" in exchange for being violated by the TSA's goon squad.

Well, for the record, I never said it was a smart way to screen people, or spend money. Au contraire.

All I'm saying is that it's not particularly bothersome to me, and that it won't stop me from flying.

I've been patted down several times (didn't bother me), and had my carry on bags completely gone through and stuff confiscated (very irritating). I am unimpressed with the calibre of worker that TSA hires, that's for sure. I think the money would have been better invested if used for hiring, training, and better pay in order to attract better workers.

But - this is a government agency we're talking about. Never the paragon of management skills.

 

[Revoltingest]

It just bothers some of us more than others.
Sanitary Towel Prompts TSA To Grope Sexual Assault Victim

Then too, there's the potential health risk of being selected for their special attentions.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=232457

In light of the above article, try to avoid traveling with those sybaritic Alaskans.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/26/104330/gonorrhea-outbreak-puts-alaska.html

 

[tumbleweed41]

It just bothers some of us more than others.
Sanitary Towel Prompts TSA To Grope Sexual Assault Victim

What I found interesting was that a quick search found a couple of different versions of the same E-mail from the above story...
Sanitary Towel Prompts TSA To Grope Sexual Assault Victim
And
BBCW


Which casts a little doubt on the accuracy of the tale.

 

[Revoltingest]

What I found interesting was that a quick search found a couple of different versions of the same E-mail from the above story...
Sanitary Towel Prompts TSA To Grope Sexual Assault Victim
And
BBCW
Which casts a little doubt on the accuracy of the tale.

Anecdotal evidence is always sketchy.
But of course, it's absolutely true if I like it....right?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

According to Privacy International - an NGO that studies such things, the US was already an "endemic surveillance" state before the airport groping and ogling requirements kicked in. You (and the UK) are on par with China and Russia. The good news is your rating can't get worse.

We're as bad as the Russians and the Chinese. Nice.

As for all the nations in red, how many terrorist attacks have they all suffered in the last decade?

I followed the URL in that graphic, and I eventually found this report. The "worst records" chart at the top of page 2 is particularly intriguing.

By the way, just to add some boring fact rather than hype and hysteria to the picture - everyone's not scanned or patted down. 20 percent of passengers are selected for scanning, and if they don't want the scan, they are patted down. So it's not a matter of "If I fly I will certainly be scanned or patted down." You've got a 1 in 5 chance. Now - if it really freaks you out, those aren't good odds, but if you're worried simply about the minute amts of radiation, you're not in much, if any, danger.

This all boils down to CHOICE. If you choose to fly, you have a 1 in 5 chance of being screened via the scanner. Or you can choose a pat down instead. I realize that some people are pretty much forced to fly due to work demands, but as far as those who fly as an option - if it bugs you too much, choose another option. I support your right to choose!

As for the images and weirdo sexual predators, come on. Have you actually seen these images? They are about as far from sexy as anything can be.

I was one of those randomly selected about a year ago to be screened. Now, I'm a white, single, adult male, and as a result I frankly don't have a whole lot to lose by having an x-ray or millimeter wave image of my body. But seriously, not everyone can say the same, nor should they be required to. And that's not even addressing the pat-downs.

100,000 people dying of disease is something we just accept....it doesn't ever lead the 7pm news.
A plane crash does. But public policy & spending are controlled by nervous politicians, not actuaries.

This, and the fact that the human mind shows notoriously poor judgment of perceived vs. actual dangers.

 

[Smoke]

I've been patted down several times (didn't bother me)

Apparently, they've moved beyond pat downs to rubbing all over your body.

 

[Girl Named Tennessee]

Personally I think it is a bit awkward to be looked at through machines like this, but I have a greater fear of being on board with a terrorist. There have been a lot of attempted attacks on airplanes, including 9/11, and in my opinion this kind of thing is needed. I don't think it's all that invasive, it's better to be safe than sorry. I'd rather go through this kind of screening than be killed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Personally I think it is a bit awkward to be looked at through machines like this, but I have a greater fear of being on board with a terrorist. There have been a lot of attempted attacks on airplanes, including 9/11, and in my opinion this kind of thing is needed. I don't think it's all that invasive, it's better to be safe than sorry. I'd rather go through this kind of screening than be killed.

Fortunately, it isn't an either-or choice. I think it's quite doable to have good security without distressing travelers.
These x-ray scanners are of dubious value, particularly since they only aim to screen 20% of travelers with them.

Btw, welcome aboard, Michigander!

 

[Bismillah]

I'm so screwed.

 

[Smoke]

Personally I think it is a bit awkward to be looked at through machines like this, but I have a greater fear of being on board with a terrorist. There have been a lot of attempted attacks on airplanes, including 9/11, and in my opinion this kind of thing is needed. I don't think it's all that invasive, it's better to be safe than sorry. I'd rather go through this kind of screening than be killed.

I'm much more worried about the government -- and drunken pilots -- than I am about terrorists.

 

[Alceste]

I'm much more worried about the government -- and drunken pilots -- than I am about terrorists.

Likewise. When it comes to flying, I'm primarily concerned about the cost-cutting pressure on budget airlines despite rising fuel prices causing slack aircraft maintenance policies. It doesn't take a terrorist to crash a plane.

 

[Alceste]

As for all the nations in red, how many terrorist attacks have they all suffered in the last decade?

Ah, the chicken vs. egg dilemma.

 

[Amill]

[youtube]Z5Pr31H6Wus[/youtube]
YouTube - We Need MORE Airport Security!

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm so screwed.

Procedures aren't quite that invasive yet.
You'll likely just be interrogated & fondled.