Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/15/10 09:34 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/15/10 09:01 PM, LardLord wrote: Do you have any ideas about what system could be put in place that accounts for security while at the same time keeping the rights of citizens intact? I'm not so sure there's a satisfying solution.

How about we start by hiring TSA agents who have enough common sense to realize that a 6'1" Brown Haired WHITE MAN traveling to SOUTH DAKOTA is probably really low on the list of people likely to blow up an airplane, hm?

Now, who was that guy who blew up a bomb in Oklahoma City?

Oh, a 6'3'' white man, with short brown hair

Various images

lol that his bio is on imbd....

Anyway, on topic.

The airplanes are run by private companies. Airplanes transport citizens over other citizen's property. If something goes wrong with a plane, due to mechanics or terrorism, some other citizen takes property damage from the plane crashing, beyond just those on the plane. So, as far as I'm concerned the government has every right to try to ensure people getting on planes aren't trying to blow them up or high jack them. And when you try to get on those planes, you agree to be bound by those rules and submit to searches.

Now, should you decide you want to leave and not take the flight I think they should be obligated to let you go if they don't have proof of wrong doing so far, such as finding weapons on you or something else.

I've done the full body scan once, and while I don't appreciate the extra radiation, I'm comfortable enough with myself that I don't mind having the image taken. One which is supposed to be destroyed immediately, anyhow.

Pat downs are generally done in a random fashion and the guy was probably selected at random.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

But seriously, stop being such a racist Proteus. I know, you're not racist, except when you're protecting white people who are all "innocent," obviously. :)

Cause, you know, here's one white boy who bucks your "common sense":

LOL @ John, he wanted to make a scene and got one. You can hear him in the beginning of the video "what's the deal with the shoes? We still taking them off?"

That right there proves to me he went fishing.
Apparently he already checked out the security habits of the TSA before he went to the airport, so he should have known (or observed everyone else taking their shoes off) that removing your shoes were required.

Everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame, John got his now get on with your lives.

I also have to take a bit of issue with the insinuated racism in Proteas' posts. Not all terrorists are brown or are named Achmed, McVeigh is one of many, many examples otherwise. To single out Muslim-looking people because the only terrorist acts you remember were done by them is naive and dangerous.

That said, TSA regs are over the top. For a slightly more famous (and amusing) perspective, this from 2002, our resident minarchist magician Penn Gillete wrote this:

http://files.neilgaiman.com/mirror/10111 6211742/www.pennandteller.com/03/coolstu ff/penniphile/roadpennfederalvip.html

You know what, I think people are way over-protective of their junk.
Yeah, big deal, some guy patted your crotch for 0.5 seconds. BOO FUCKING HOO, GET BACK IN LINE.

I'd be way more wary of the scanner since they can store those pictures forever and then leak them on the internet. Now that could actually do some damage if you're, say, a celebrity, or some deformed person with weird genitals.

Though that does make the job of TSA agent way more appealing because it means you might get to grope Claire Danes or Gwyneth Paltrow when they inevitably opt out of the scanner option after enough of those have been leaked.

I wish I could start a small private jet company. My selling point would be. "Fly with us without the hassle" If I had the money I would put it on the fact people dont really care one way or the other. I know I would rather just be able to get on a plane and skip all the security. If it gets hijacked or blown up I couldn't care less to be honest.

Its a risk I would be willing to take... I dont have to go through all this to get on a bus. Granted its not entirly the same but its still a form of public transport.

Is this by chance the same guy who has the audio of "Don't touch my junk or I'll have you arrested"? I doubt it's a coincidence. Seriously, people should have seen this coming from a mile away and it was inevitable to happen. I am sure there are lots of people like these who want to get rid of these. I have never been through a patdown or even a body scan and I believe the standard practice of taking off shoes and everything should be, well, standard.

Those of you who believe the airport security can treat you like dirt, deserve to be treated like that !

I agree with this guy saying keep your hands off my dick & balls.

IF EVERY SINGLE PERSON was subject to exactly the same proceedure & that proceedure was spelled out to you before you buy a ticket, I would say the guy didn't do the right thing.
BUT
Everyone ISN'T treated the same. some are patted down some are not. What's up with that ?

Isn't it a form of discrimination ?
Or in this case power tripping by the authorities ?
I know in the Airport here in Nova Scotia, you have the right to refuse being searched. If you go to security & they tell you they want you to get felt up you can tell them no fucking way. THey won't let you fly, but they won't stop you from leaving.
IF (unless your laws have completely changed) you haven't been arrested for a crime NO ONE ,absolutely NO ONE has the right to detain you. They do not have the right to search you, without your consent, & if you become uncomfortable you have to right to say NO.

They won't allow you to fly, but by their own admission the airport security people treat some people different from others & IMO that should not be allowed, the same proccedure should apply to everyone...or it shouldn't be allowed . If anything is obvious is that common sense doesn't exist anywhere in that airport.

You guy's don't start standing up for your rights, soon you won't have any left !

At 11/17/10 08:16 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Now, who was that guy who blew up a bomb in Oklahoma City?

(1) He used a Ryder truck, not a plane. There are no invasive security measures to ensure you don't hijack a Ryder Truck. There are no Watch Lists with half a million names on them of people who can't rent Ryder Trucks. There are no stupid TSA Agents there to search what you put on Ryder Trucks, either.

(2) He used far more explosives than he could fit on or in his person or that he could pack in a carry-on bag. That's why he rented a RYDER TRUCK.

(3) McVeigh acted of his own accord, not on the wishes of a clandestine terrorist organization.

And with that, it makes you bringing him up pointless and off-topic.

I've done the full body scan once, and while I don't appreciate the extra radiation, I'm comfortable enough with myself that I don't mind having the image taken. One which is supposed to be destroyed immediately, anyhow.

You ever wonder how the news media got a hold of those grayed images of people who went through those machines?

Oh, that's right, they got them from the TSA... who didn't delete the images.

Deleted automatically my ass.

But seriously, stop being such a racist Proteus. I know, you're not racist, except when you're protecting white people who are all "innocent," obviously. :)

I will not be cowed into silence on this one by accusations of racism, so you can blow it out your politically correct ass.

At 11/17/10 10:05 AM, Ravariel wrote: I also have to take a bit of issue with the insinuated racism in Proteas' posts. Not all terrorists are brown or are named Achmed, McVeigh is one of many, many examples otherwise. To single out Muslim-looking people because the only terrorist acts you remember were done by them is naive and dangerous.

If they're the ones most likely to be hijacking our planes, sending us bombers, or sending us bombs in the mail, why would it be illogical or racist to be extra suspicious of these individuals?

Lets frame this differently. Lets say that instead of 19 Arab hijackers on 9/11, they were all white guys with red hair named Grady or MacDougal, and they were all members of the IRA, and every bombing attempt since then was made by men of similar physical appearance and geographical background. Are you going to tell me that I would STILL be a racist for sitting here being mad that it's politically incorrect to not profile and be extra cautious/suspicious of guys like this while 80 year old grandmothers, children, and computer nerds are getting felt up by power-drunk people stuck in dead end jobs?

That said, TSA regs are over the top.

No shit? Seriously?

At 11/17/10 08:44 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/17/10 08:16 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Now, who was that guy who blew up a bomb in Oklahoma City?

(1) He used a Ryder truck, not a plane. There are no invasive security measures to ensure you don't hijack a Ryder Truck.

We could implant GPS devices & chemical sniffers, but only for white men who are tall and have short hair mind you; because Muslims don't blow up buildings with a Ryder truck.

There are no Watch Lists with half a million names on them of people who can't rent Ryder Trucks. There are no stupid TSA Agents there to search what you put on Ryder Trucks, either.

Maybe there should be, but again only for white men.

(2) He used far more explosives than he could fit on or in his person or that he could pack in a carry-on bag. That's why he rented a RYDER TRUCK.

(3) McVeigh acted of his own accord, not on the wishes of a clandestine terrorist organization.

And that makes it any better? I'm sorry, I'm being an idiot above and being sarcastic, but this man obviously was malicious enough to blow up and kill innocent civilians. It doesn't matter how he did it, he chose the most opportune means available to him to fit his target. There's nothing to say some future angry white man won't do the same to a plane. It was an angry white man scientist who was sending anthrax around as well, right after 9/11. There are plenty of angry white people and it doesn't matter if they are associated to terrorist organizations if they plan on doing harm to innocents.

Its an idiotic argument to make. Oh, just ignore the white guy. He's probably safe.

And with that, it makes you bringing him up pointless and off-topic.

lol, in your eyes.

You ever wonder how the news media got a hold of those grayed images of people who went through those machines?

Some of them were actually test subjects that were released to show what was actually visible, in an attempt to try to alleviate the fear surrounding them. I believe one of the pictures was actually of one of the directors involved.

Show me an image, though, that wasn't meant to be released before you just make accusations.

I will not be cowed into silence on this one by accusations of racism, so you can blow it out your politically correct ass.

Fine, I meant bigot anyway. We all know you simply don't like Muslims. And it is bigotry, even if you find yourself above that. You never did answer my question in that other thread because you said it would make you look like a racist, to which I responded there was probably a reason it would make you look like a racist beyond the question. And this is just more of the same.

It has nothing to do with being politically correct. You assumed that because the man was white he should have been given a pass. I presented evidence that not all white people (even meeting your description) were incapable of violent crime, and you just brushed it off because he chose a different vehicle for his destruction. You're choosing to be blind and to be this way, even if it isn't conscious.

At 11/17/10 09:29 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: We could implant GPS devices & chemical sniffers, but only for white men who are tall and have short hair mind you; because Muslims don't blow up buildings with a Ryder truck.

Yeah, we could. And the last time someone was a threat to our country with a bomb in a Ryder Truck was... oh, that's right, about 14 years ago. Nobody's focusing on them anymore. NEXT.

Maybe there should be, but again only for white men.

And 4 year old kids who share the same name as someone whom the government considers a threat to the country. NEXT.

And that makes it any better?

He acted alone, there weren't more of them coming after him if he failed in his mission. He was it, end of story. NEXT.

It was an angry white man scientist who was sending anthrax around as well, right after 9/11.

Yeah, and he was the only one doing it, making him as much of a fluke and a statistical anomaly as McVeigh. FUCKING NEXT.

lol, in your eyes.

Yeah, BECAUSE I'M RIGHT.

Show me an image, though, that wasn't meant to be released before you just make accusations.

Google Image Search, ain't it grand?

We all know you simply don't like Muslims.

I have no problem with Muslims, I have problems with people like you who blind themselves to the facts that are in front of them in the interest of being fair and not trying to make people feel uncomfortable. You go after everybody else at the airports and let guys like Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab harassed and look where it gets you.

You never did answer my question in that other thread because you said it would make you look like a racist, to which I responded there was probably a reason it would make you look like a racist beyond the question.

Yeah, you accused me of being racist for suggesting they build the Mosque a few miles away from Ground Zero. I might as well be a Grand Wizard in the KKK holding a can of gasoline and a blow-torch outside a Black Church for saying that.

I realized that there are crackpots in this country who just might take offense to the Mosque being where it is and they might just react violently over it, so I thought they should move it outside of easy walking distance from Ground Zero, you and everybody else ignored me and wrote me off as a crackpot. My idea was well thought, well reasoned, well written, and you accused me of being a racist for it. I lost my nerve and decided not to get myself involved any further than that.

Not happening this time.

It has nothing to do with being politically correct. You assumed that because the man was white he should have been given a pass.

It could have been SNOOP DOGGY DOG standing there going "Hey mah-nizzle, you touch my junk and I'm calling the cops" and I would have stood up and said "BRAVO!!!" I don't give a shit, and he's a fucking felon and life-long member of the Crips! I'm just glad somebody is bringing attention to the fact that the TSA are going to far in the name of securing our personal freedoms.

You know, people on here bitched and carried on for days and weeks on end about how the Patriot Act was a violation of our personal freedoms, and they posted that Ben Franklin quote about "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither freedom or Security" to the point that I could have projectile vomited blood, but you're all perfectly fine with be treated like criminals and being groped and prodded at the airport in the name of Security? That's funny.

I presented evidence that not all white people (even meeting your description) were incapable of violent crime, and you just brushed it off because he chose a different vehicle for his destruction. You're choosing to be blind and to be this way, even if it isn't conscious.

And you're choosing to be blind to the fact that McVeigh was an anomaly which has not been repeated in this country and is not likely to ever happen again.

At 11/17/10 10:13 PM, Proteas wrote: Google Image Search, ain't it grand?

Ah... images that weren't meant to be released. Gumonshoe was trying to throw me off during my own rant.

Good one, man.

Although the patdown can be considered a violation of privacy rights, there isn't much the guy could do against the TSA. The vast majority of the time, simply removing your shoes and belt and go through the metal detector was more than enough to get into any plane, this is considered a rather isolated case of a patdown that got out of hand quickly.

Let's face it, no one likes to be the one to receive a pat down, especially if you have nothing to hide on your person, but there is always the chance some terrorist wannabe is carrying a plastic shank on him/her and can't wait to create chaos on that plane. This is a rather difficult subject, only because your trying to weigh the rights between privacy and the security standards of the airlines and the TSA.

At 11/17/10 11:41 PM, orangebomb wrote: This is a rather difficult subject, only because your trying to weigh the rights between privacy and the security standards of the airlines and the TSA.

while i can't say letting everyone on with anything is particularly desirable, the fact such measures have been seemingly ineffective is pretty disappointing.

I think the government is making these new rules to support high-speed rail in this country.

Why else would they be doing this.

At 11/15/10 09:01 PM, LardLord wrote:

Now, who was that guy who blew up a bomb in Oklahoma City?

Oh, a 6'3'' white man, with short brown hair

A CIA patsy.

At 11/18/10 01:40 AM, ToddM wrote: I think the government is making these new rules to support high-speed rail in this country.

Why else would they be doing this.

Martial law experimentation.

At 11/17/10 10:13 PM, Proteas wrote: Yeah, we could. And the last time someone was a threat to our country with a bomb in a Ryder Truck was... oh, that's right, about 14 years ago. Nobody's focusing on them anymore. NEXT.

I'm not exactly arguing that if a white man is going to blow up something its going to be a Ryder truck. I think that's idiotic, which is why below I said I was being an idiot. I'm trying to show you that white people can be just as violent if not more so than Muslims and have demonstrated equally a need to be watched. And I'd pass that on to every other person as well, not just white people & muslims. But you singled out White People & Muslims originally and I didn't feel a need to drag anyone else into it, though I'm sure there's plenty of evidence to do so.

He acted alone, there weren't more of them coming after him if he failed in his mission. He was it, end of story. NEXT.

There are white terrorist groups too. Yeah, this guy was a solo act. Oh well.

I'm not saying there isn't an organized group of extremist Muslims out there, but their existence doesn't make everyone else safe. Especially as lately Americans citizens who have gone over seas have come back from terrorist training camps. They're starting to recruit our own, which is only more reason to check everyone.

Especially the guy who is being stand offish and trying to make a point & draw attention. He would seem to me to be the kind of person who might be unhinged enough to do something. He probably brought it upon himself by fishing.

But again, I said I thought that there had been a bit of an over reaction. If he had said he wanted to leave and they hadn't found anything on his person, he should have been allowed to leave, imo.

Yeah, and he was the only one doing it, making him as much of a fluke and a statistical anomaly as McVeigh. FUCKING NEXT.

Exactly how many muslims are terrorists out of all of them? Muslim terrorists are pretty flukey too.

Google Image Search, ain't it grand?

I think from your post below you're well aware the blue images are photo shops and the others were the ones released by the company & government from agreeing sources.

I have no problem with Muslims, I have problems with people like you who blind themselves to the facts that are in front of them in the interest of being fair and not trying to make people feel uncomfortable. You go after everybody else at the airports and let guys like Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab harassed and look where it gets you.

I know plenty of people with funny sound names. Most of them have stopped flying or complain of being pulled to the side every single time for a pat down because of their last name or the way they look. They do it agreeably, and they understand, but there's plenty of racial profiling going on right now. I really only took exception to your statement because you said the guy shouldn't be looked at because he was white, a certain hight, and going to South Dakota, none of which is mutually exclusive to wanting to blow up a plane.

I realized that there are crackpots in this country who just might take offense to the Mosque being where it is and they might just react violently over it, so I thought they should move it outside of easy walking distance from Ground Zero, you and everybody else ignored me and wrote me off as a crackpot. My idea was well thought, well reasoned, well written, and you accused me of being a racist for it. I lost my nerve and decided not to get myself involved any further than that.

That Ben Franklin quote which really isn't what he said sounds mighty appropriate here. If Muslims gave up their right to build a mosque where they wanted for the sake of safety....

You know, people on here bitched and carried on for days and weeks on end about how the Patriot Act was a violation of our personal freedoms, and they posted that Ben Franklin quote about "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither freedom or Security" to the point that I could have projectile vomited blood, but you're all perfectly fine with be treated like criminals and being groped and prodded at the airport in the name of Security? That's funny.

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Not exactly, what he meant...

But I understand what you're getting at. As I said, I find some of the policies disagreeable, but I don't believe this guy deserves the pass he thinks he does.

And you're choosing to be blind to the fact that McVeigh was an anomaly which has not been repeated in this country and is not likely to ever happen again.

Guy Fawkes, I know its British. Its still an angry white man who tried to blow something up.

Look, I want everyone checked. None of this, focus on Muslims because they've done it in the past. If you agree to get on a privately owned plane which flies over territory you don't own and people whose lives might depend on your actions, you agree to get checked too.

That's the way it is.

At 11/17/10 10:24 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/17/10 10:13 PM, Proteas wrote: Google Image Search, ain't it grand?

Ah... images that weren't meant to be released. Gumonshoe was trying to throw me off during my own rant.

Good one, man.

Considering there are only 3-4 different people there, I'm going to guess that they signed release waivers on pictures THAT WERE MEANT TO BE RELEASED.

At 11/18/10 08:47 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Considering there are only 3-4 different people there, I'm going to guess that they signed release waivers on pictures THAT WERE MEANT TO BE RELEASED.

Like these 100 people?
http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the -first-100-leaked-body-scans

At 11/18/10 06:35 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I'm not exactly arguing that if a white man is going to blow up something its going to be a Ryder truck. I think that's idiotic, which is why below I said I was being an idiot. I'm trying to show you that white people can be just as violent if not more so than Muslims and have demonstrated equally a need to be watched.

I'm aware of what you were trying to get at, I was trying to show you that in the grand scheme of things, there hasn't really been a substantial attack on American soil by a white terrorist or terrorist group since the Ohklahoma city bombing. I was also trying to show you that the method by which the attack was carried out really didn't apply to this situation because we're talking about airports and airplane security measures, for which there are no similar comparable measures in place for moving trucks. You can't pack 6500 pounds worth explosives onto a plane as your carry on in 13 50-gallon barrels as your carry-on, somebody will notice.

They're starting to recruit our own, which is only more reason to check everyone.

Perhaps, but at what point should the TSA start exercising a bit of common sense on this matter? The guy didn't want to go through the backscatter x-ray, he didn't want some touchy-feely TSA twerp feelin' on him, and they surround this guy and threaten him with a $10k fine if he leaves the airport AFTER they escort him to a ticket counter and refund his money? They could have just kicked his ass out and alerted other airports that he was out there trying to board an airplane and not wanting to go through the "normal" security procedures to get on the plane. Problem solved.

Exactly how many muslims are terrorists out of all of them? Muslim terrorists are pretty flukey too.

I'm aware of that, I'm also aware that all the people we've caught since 9/11 trying to blow up our planes and send us explosives through the mail are brown Muslim people. Statistically speaking, it doesn't make any sense to ignore this fact. Should there be tight screening procedures at airports? HELL YES, but only if they are paired with a fair bit of common sense on the matter. If you want to pick on old ladies, children, and computer nerds, FINE, but don't tell me it's not right to pick on the ethnic Muslims when it's their extremists that are the the ones out to get us.

That Ben Franklin quote which really isn't what he said sounds mighty appropriate here. If Muslims gave up their right to build a mosque where they wanted for the sake of safety....

In my home state of Tennessee, somebody set fire to the equipment that was being used to break ground on a new Mosque. They hadn't even built the damn thing yet, they've barely broken ground on it, and somebody went and destroyed and damaged hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of construction equipment. And what's more? The TBI (Tennessee Bureau of Investigation) STILL doesn't know who did it! They're still out there! Click.

This isn't getting your phone tapped or getting your library checkout records seized by Big Brother, there are people out there who are militantly violent towards Muslims and they are willing to act on their beliefs. And in a city where 19 extremist muslims crashed planes into buildings, killing 3000 people and sending the U.S. econonmic system into a nose-dive for years to come, and you're telling me that the people who are building the mosque should stand up for their right to build it within WALKING DISTANCE from Ground Zero? And you think I'M THE CRAZY ONE?

Guy Fawkes, I know its British. Its still an angry white man who tried to blow something up.

Uh, yeah. 400 years ago. You're really grasping at straws to try and prove a point.

At 11/16/10 01:27 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

What does harassing them accomplish?

If the TSA is truly there to stiffen security to a very high level, letting ANYBODY behind security without being checked is a major breach. A very motivated terrorist could easily do what is needed to look like a pilot, and thus under your system bypass security. I am no conspiracy theorist, but if the goal is security, let's do it right.

Ok then devise a way to make sure the person in the pilot's uniform is THE actual pilot and not an imposter (this would seem like an obvious thing to do even if there weren't terrorists).

A pat down and screening will not help determine that. So explain why it's necessary to scan pilots?

At 11/17/10 08:29 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: More, I think that's why Napolitano and the TSA are so shocked: people are saying no for once. From your comment about searching, I take it Canada has a similar system of airport security?

;;;
Yes RydiaLockheart , we have a similar system. Actually the United States opened a Customs Screening area in the Halifax Stanfeild International Airport, I live about 15 minutes away from it.
Before that we had to fly to the US through another Canadian Gateway to clear American customs.
This has simplified it & in the last 2 years I have gone through it 4 times. I have never been patted down , I have had to go through the standard metal detector each time & once I was asked, asked not told, if I would consent to having my computer swabbed & one other time I was asked to turn my digital camera on & show them it actually would take a picture.
I have never had to remove my shoes in Canada. I have had to remove my shoes in Florida & LA. I wasn't asked to remove them in Chicago, nor was I asked to remove them in New York.
As a matter of fact I had injured my right leg in 2007 ( I posted pics here) I was still having trouble walking in 2008 & in Florida I had a steel cane in the huge lineup. A security person asked me if I would like to go to the air crew security & then I could sit & wait for the rest of my party to clear security.
I'm not stupid...I said yes.

They x-rayed my carry on bag, checked to see my camera worked, asked me to remove my shoes (allowed me to sit to do so.) Then they gave me back my stuff & I sat & watched hundreds of people go through security untl my friends cleared...no one checked my cane. They never tried to open the end, never did anything except send a hollow metal cane through the x-ray with all my other stuff.

My understanding of these low level x-ray machines is they cannot see through metal.
I certainly wasn't patted down, unless you count that 'wand' that some of them use to do a closer metal check of you.

related

At 11/16/10 01:27 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

I am pretty sure that consent nullifies any 4th Amendment issues. The act of choosing to buy tickets and choosing to fly, and choosing to go to the airport seems pretty close to consent to me. Some pretty intelligent legal scholars agree with me (rather I agree with them, as I heard this point from one of them.)

Can you extend this logic further? Would it be consentual for the government to invade private homes without a warrant because by buying a home you have consented to have that home searched? PROVIDED that a law was written which established the rule as such.

Now I'm no fool, I don't argue against the TSA on the grounds that it violates some quaint conception of rights, but the whereas security scandals on airports are devestating on consumer confidence, the TSA stands to receive increases in budget, personel, and power every time their is a crisis; and so there is a direct conflict of interest between what the TSA wants and what the public wants.

In my own view the government has the legitimate authority to do whatever it pleases short of self-destruction by violent revolution. Which includes barging into your home and executing you without rhyme or reason. In the face of an armed robber, you wouldn't wave a vague contract which neither you nor your attacker signed, in full knowledge your attacker, in his narrow and short run interests, has no reason nor desire to uphold such a contract.

But it's still laudable for people to record police encounters, audio is good and video is better, it eats away at the fantasy of some cosmic paternalism that leads people to think that the TSA is somehow 'looking out for them'

At 11/18/10 12:50 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 11/17/10 11:41 PM, orangebomb wrote: This is a rather difficult subject, only because your trying to weigh the rights between privacy and the security standards of the airlines and the TSA.

while i can't say letting everyone on with anything is particularly desirable, the fact such measures have been seemingly ineffective is pretty disappointing.

That's pretty much what I was thinking, although there hasn't been a major disaster due to terrorism since 9/11 in America, if that's what your implying. Don't forget the security before 9/11 was largely a joke, so something like hiding knives or something else that shouldn't be was commonplace.

At 11/18/10 10:32 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Can you extend this logic further? Would it be consentual for the government to invade private homes without a warrant because by buying a home you have consented to have that home searched? PROVIDED that a law was written which established the rule as such.

No. Consent stems from three things when it comes to the airport. First, the airlines are private. They are a private company that has the right to subject to most of whatever they wish if you wish to use their services. Second, it is common knowledge that part of buying a ticket is the high possibility of being searched with varying, and possibly very high, degrees of invasiveness. Finall, flying is an option, not a need. You can go anywhere domestically via other transortation methods and almost anywhere internationally by other methods. Just because you want convenience doesn't exempt you from searches that you know may be used on you.

It is quite established that the 4th Amendment does not apply when the person willingly subjects themselves to a search. This can be through verbal and implied consent.

Now I'm no fool, I don't argue against the TSA on the grounds that it violates some quaint conception of rights, but the whereas security scandals on airports are devestating on consumer confidence, the TSA stands to receive increases in budget, personel, and power every time their is a crisis; and so there is a direct conflict of interest between what the TSA wants and what the public wants.

No, there's a direct conflict bewteen what a fringe group wants and what the TSA wants. Most Americans, myself included, don't care what TSA does. We accept bumps like these as part of life and spend our efforts elsewhere. it is only those who have absolutely nothing beter to do that create a mountain out of the TSA molehill.

In my own view the government has the legitimate authority to do whatever it pleases short of self-destruction by violent revolution. Which includes barging into your home and executing you without rhyme or reason. In the face of an armed robber, you wouldn't wave a vague contract which neither you nor your attacker signed, in full knowledge your attacker, in his narrow and short run interests, has no reason nor desire to uphold such a contract.

I don't get the armed robber reference here.

But it's still laudable for people to record police encounters, audio is good and video is better, it eats away at the fantasy of some cosmic paternalism that leads people to think that the TSA is somehow 'looking out for them'

Yeah, but recording one's own negative encounter prior to the encounter sends up huge red flags. This sends the message that this conflict is not as 'real' or 'innocent' as it seems. This guy was looknig for a fight, and a fight he got. I go through security a lot and do not mind. He fights and gets sent around the country for interviews. This guy wanted attention. End of story.

At 11/18/10 09:08 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/18/10 08:47 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Considering there are only 3-4 different people there, I'm going to guess that they signed release waivers on pictures THAT WERE MEANT TO BE RELEASED.

Like these 100 people?
http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the -first-100-leaked-body-scans

Wow, those Sheriffs should have their pee-pees slapped. Good thing you can't make heads or tails from those images. So now it comes down to "do you trust your fellow Americans?" Well that's an obvious and loud NO!
It's not the machine or the technology that's a real problem, it's your fellow countrymen that is the problem.

At 11/19/10 02:29 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Yeah, but recording one's own negative encounter prior to the encounter sends up huge red flags. This sends the message that this conflict is not as 'real' or 'innocent' as it seems. This guy was looknig for a fight, and a fight he got. I go through security a lot and do not mind. He fights and gets sent around the country for interviews. This guy wanted attention. End of story.

:::
Actually IMO he was protecting his ass !
Whether he intentionally went there to provoke the authorities there, or wanted to start controversy in something he is really upset about...has nothing to do with the FACT in your country & Canada as well.
IF you are going to take on the authorities & you could end up in court, you need proof you didn't do what the authorities accuse you of. Your word alone won't hold a candles chance of burning outside in a hurricane against the authorities 'word'.
You have to be able to PROVE you didn't do what they accuse you of. His tape is proof he was against the invasive way they were trying to "check him" It was Proof that he told them they could not continue with an invasive search . It was also proof that other passengers were not being subjected to a pat down !

Just because go through security all the time & have no problem setting all your rights aside, others do not.
Your personal preferences shouldn't automatically mean everyone else has to abide by them.
Nor should you have to be subject to the preferences of others if you strongly disagree.

For those of you who don't travel as much as others.
I have on more than 1 occassion traveled on 'private aircraft. When you charter an aircraft & you go to that terminal, no one takes you apart here in Canada. The last time I and 20+ other co-workers took a charter to Newfoundland (we landed in Gander...I had a multi tool on my belt. THat's right a tool with knife blades, screwdrivers, a saw etc. No one x-rayed us, if my bags were x-rayed i never seen it & my carry on wasn't x-rayed...so there are aircraft in the sky's every day that have UNSEARCHED PErsons & packages aboard ---GASP---- the HORROR !

At 11/19/10 10:50 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Actually IMO he was protecting his ass !

Protecting his ass by being an even bigger ass? very yes.

At 11/19/10 02:29 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

First, the airlines are private. They are a private company that has the right to subject to most of whatever they wish if you wish to use their services.

It doesn't really work that way.

There are limits to how legally binding a contract can be and to how much control a private business can exert. For instance, you can't sign yourself into slavery for 10000$. And you can't tell someone that you have to sodomize them or else they can't board the train. No dice.