PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

[schufflerbot]

...and to those who feel that this is a 'security show' and not effective, is that honestly your opinion??

what would you rather see as a solution?

[SQLGeek]

I'm angry because my wife was violated over a false positive due to ineffective security masquerading as security theatre.

I'm angry because privacy and common decency are progressively being eroded.

I'm angry at not just the staff, but the entire organization and the sheeple who are OK with letting it happen.

You're falsely assuming that because I detest and loathe how security is being conducted, I want lax security. That is utterly false. I want more effective security that respects the rights and privacy of the citizens of the United States. Security theatre that doesn't masquerade as the real thing. Security that doesn't result in the alarming number of incidents we've been hearing about and that now hit all too close to home.

Maybe that's just too much to ask for and I should just be OK with being stripped search. Maybe we ought to just all go through security in our underwear, being herded through like detainees.

[SQLGeek]

The terrorists don't need to bother sending anymore attacks we are terrorizing ourselves.

You've got that right.

[mamabearCali]

...and to those who feel that this is a 'security show' and not effective, is that honestly your opinion??

what would you rather see as a solution?

Sir, if a terrorist wanted to take a out a ton of people he would just detonate a bomb in the security line. If they were SO worried about the liquid why are they just throwing them in a trash can beside the security line. If they actually thought that a person had a bomb do you think that they would be handling it and manipulating a potentially explosive device with nothing but a dirty pair of gloves inbetween them and the device. That is how I KNOW this is security theater.

We already have the solution. Harden the cockpit doors. Arm the pilots. Do intelligence work. Have mild screening of passengers that may or may not include a short interview and bomb sniffing dog. Accept that life is not 100% safe, and respect the God given constitutional rights of American citizens. There now you have it a security system that does not involve groping 6 year olds, grandma's, or anyone really and certainly does not involve strip searches.

[Dave2]

sorry this happened to you, i wish we lived in a world where these screens weren't necessary.

We do. The government and a sizable chunk of the population just haven't realized it yet.

[Texas Dan Mosby]

We already have the solution. Harden the cockpit doors. Arm the pilots. Do intelligence work. Have mild screening of passengers that may or may not include a short interview and bomb sniffing dog. Accept that life is not 100% safe, and respect the God given constitutional rights of American citizens.

That's CRAZY talk!!

In Israel they don't do the crotch grabbing and nude photos, they seem to be on to something that works better.

Granted, Israel is a tiny place, so access control via civilian air travel is not the monster it is here CONUS. However, the approach they use to identify potential lunatics is far more effective, efficient, and less invasive, than the amateurish joke of a system we adopted. The Israeli's figured out a long time ago that they needed to develop an approach that prioritizes personnel screening as much as, if not more so, than equipment screening. This concept seems to be lost in our approach to security.

The Israeli's were capable of identifying common behavioral patterns of potential threats, and when used in conjunction with other factors, such as race, gender, age etc, it creates a PROFILE that can be used to identify individuals that may require additional screening through a personal interview. TRAINED individuals conduct the interview and look for behaviors usually indicative of hostile intent. The Israeli system does NOT require the ridiculous nonsense that takes place in our airports as they have enough professionalism and common sense to know the difference between a SOCCER MOM, a SENIOR CITIZEN, a CHILD, and a LEGITIMATE THREAT, and they can figure all that out without having to grope or strip search the individual.

Our system is just plain STUPID and completely UNREASONABLE. There is FAR too much emphasis on equipment screening, and not nearly enough emphasis on personnel screening. When our "security" can't tell the difference between a mother with child and a legitimate security threat without the need of invasive search techniques, our "security" is BROKEN and needs to be FIXED, or eliminated and replaced.

[suthdj]

The odd part about it is she's gone through with the stroller several times. Regardless I thought the measures were pretty draconian and humiliating.

Agree

[sjfcontrol]

Our system is just plain STUPID and completely UNREASONABLE. There is FAR too much emphasis on equipment screening, and not nearly enough emphasis on personnel screening. When our "security" can't tell the difference between a mother with child and a legitimate security threat without the need of invasive search techniques, our "security" is BROKEN and needs to be FIXED, or eliminated and replaced.

The difference is that vast amounts of money can be spent on screening equipment, and then they can be operated by trained monkeys. This is easier, and appears to the general population as effective (i.e. Security Theater). To do it the Israeli way would require serious personnel training and subsequently the use of actual thinking individuals. Furthermore, it wouldn't appear to the populous that they were doing much -- just talking to people.

[VMI77]

...and to those who feel that this is a 'security show' and not effective, is that honestly your opinion??

what would you rather see as a solution?

Just like mamabearCali I will believe it isn't theater when their actions match their words --when tests that say someone might be carrying explosives result in actions that any rational person would take if they were dealing with the possibility of an explosive device in front of them. What do the police do when they think someone left a bomb on the sidewalk in a backpack? Do they walk up and start rifling through the backpack or do they isolate the area and call in the bomb squad?

What would YOU do if you were in charge of airport security and you believed there was a real possibility of people walking into airports with bombs? Would you walk up to someone a machine told you might be carrying explosives and stick your hands down their pants? Would you set up a screening procedure that has people congregating in large tight groups? Would you leave the screeners completely exposed to a potential blast or would you install blast barriers at screening locations? Would you have just screeners armed with rubber gloves or snipers at checkpoints?

[schufflerbot]

...and to those who feel that this is a 'security show' and not effective, is that honestly your opinion??

what would you rather see as a solution?

Just like mamabearCali I will believe it isn't theater when their actions match their words --when tests that say someone might be carrying explosives result in actions that any rational person would take if they were dealing with the possibility of an explosive device in front of them. What do the police do when they think someone left a bomb on the sidewalk in a backpack? Do they walk up and start rifling through the backpack or do they isolate the area and call in the bomb squad?

What would YOU do if you were in charge of airport security and you believed there was a real possibility of people walking into airports with bombs? Would you walk up to someone a machine told you might be carrying explosives and stick your hands down their pants? Would you set up a screening procedure that has people congregating in large tight groups? Would you leave the screeners completely exposed to a potential blast or would you install blast barriers at screening locations? Would you have just screeners armed with rubber gloves or snipers at checkpoints?

honestly?...

from the perspective of the airline itself, or TSA as a whole: i would treat it as a privilege to fly on my airline, not a right. i would spend the money to go above and beyond current requirements - i would post xray machines at every single entrance and before you could ever step foot in my 'lobby' you would be separated from your baggage, scanned and verified as 100% clean. wanna throw a fit about standing there with your arms on your head so i can look through your clothes and make sure you aren't carrying a weapon, or drugs? fine! get the heck out of my facility and go take a bus. i would have at LEAST 25 sniffing dog/officer teams roaming the halls and terminals at all times, as well as two sniffing the plane; one before customers board and another after. any indication of anything remotely dangerous and you're headed to the land of strip/cavity searches in shiny bracelets. i would make sure that each and every person that passes through my airport(s) has been scanned, molested, re-scanned, ticked off and ejected if they even utter a single complaining word about security measures.

At every entrance, just below a picture of grandma in a wheelchair with 10 huge guys wearing rubber gloves behind her, there will be these simple words:

"don't like my rules? stay out of my airplane."

"how could one possibly endure such cruelty," you may ask?


simple... DON'T.

as others have said on here, folks - if you don't like the food, eat at another restaurant.

if none of the food out there suits you, cook it yourself.

everyone is up at arms and ready to boycott when a restaurant 'unconstitutionally' posts a 30.06 sign. what makes the airlines any different? what makes it different is your level of comfort. when that isn't impacted to a high enough degree, it's ok to do without when something violates your rights. however, when it creates an inconvenience that you consider to be too much, the system needs to change... not you.

[tbrown]

"don't like my rules? stay out of my airplane."

DEAL!

Now you pay back all the money you get from taxpayers because you can't run a profitable business.

[7075-T7]

i would treat it as a privilege to fly on my airline, not a right.

That about says it right there.

Get rid of the TSA and let each airline decide on the security. It would be interesting to see if the airline run by schufflerbot would survive. Or if all the other customer centered airlines would go down in flames because of rampant terrorist attacks.

[schufflerbot]

"don't like my rules? stay out of my airplane."

DEAL!

Now you pay back all the money you get from taxpayers because you can't run a profitable business.

LOL

in my perfect world, i have ALL the business!

[schufflerbot]

i would treat it as a privilege to fly on my airline, not a right.

That about says it right there.

Get rid of the TSA and let each airline decide on the security. It would be interesting to see if the airline run by schufflerbot would survive. Or if all the other customer centered airlines would go down in flames because of rampant terrorist attacks.

it honestly would!

it boils down to each individual and, again, what they're willing to put up with. those who value their privacy over their safety would probably not be flying schuffler airlines.

[XnTx]

My guess is there was some false positive for explosives.

Ammonia? An 8 month old and 87 year old both wearing diapers...this happened to my mother-in-law.