TSA: From Security to Stupid?

[Oddball]

As far as I am concerned we should cut off all TSA funding, the industry can pay for it's own security or not. Let the buyer beware.

I'm there, dude.

 

[jillian]

To have real security, we need something more than just having TSA agents operating scanners and patting people down. How do these measures stop someone from getting into line and setting off a bomb, like what happened in Moscow the other day?

They need to have agents mingling with the crowds, looking for anything out of place instead of just working the checkpoints.

But if something like that did happen here, TSA would probably do something silly like moving the checkpoints to the front doors. Which would kill off all of the shops that the airports have built.

nothing will stop someone under those circumstances. just like nothing will stop someone blowing up their backpack while on a subway train.

there already are agents wandering through the crowds. probably not as many as there should be, though.

i think if they could shop after they came through security, the shops would do just as well.

The shops would definitely take a hit. The airports built them landside so that they could get business from people other than air passengers, for example people waiting to meet someone coming in. Under the current rules, you can't get into line for security without a boarding pass. If those people have to wait outside, that's lost business for the shops.

And the few agents that walk around don't seem to be looking for anything. I've been in airports waiting for people, and none of them have given me a second glance, even when I've stood 20 feet away from the checkpoint watching what they are doing. For all anyone knew, I could have been trying to find a hole in their procedures.

One thing I did observe, they seem to pick a lot of young women for secondary screening. I wonder why that is?

well, i can only speak for our local airports, but most of the shops are post-screening. and whether there are any prior to screening depends on the terminal.

perhaps you don't look like someone the agents would notice. they look for specific behaviors, i'd think.

as for the last part regarding young girls, you'll forgive me, but i don't believe that's the case.

 

[Sarah G]

David Letterman’s “Top Ten Questions to Ask Yourself Before Becoming a TSA Agent”

10. “Do I need a degree in groping?”
9. “Am I only doing this for the sweet ass TSA uniform?”
8. “If I find explosive underpants, may I keep them?”
7. “Will I enjoy being cursed at 40 hours a week for minimum wage?”
6. “If I find explosive underpants, may I keep them?” That was No. 8. Who checks these things anyway?
5. “Should I practice by frisking people on the street?”
4. “In five years, whose pants do I see my hands in?”
3. “Do I really want to know what a fat guy’s thighs feel like?”
2. “May I frisk myself?”
1. “What’s the closest airport to Shakira’s house?”

 

[uscitizen]

I have a right to contract...The airline ticket is my contract between me and the airline.

And the airline has a right to protect their property.
Do any of the airline companies want to drop TSA?

Since TSA has imposed itself upon the airports, the airlines pretty much have no choice.

And how many of them actually want to get rid of TSA?

TSA is corporate welfare for the private airline industry.

How many would flyu right now if they had the security levels of 1980?

 

[Oddball]

I would.

Unlike the post-911™ pants-poopers and pandering political opportunists, I don't see a pigmented turrist behind every bush.

 

[uscitizen]

I do not think you would fly enough to keep them in business.

 

[Oddball]

A lot more people would fly a lot more often, that's for sure.

At this point, were I to go scuba diving, I'd drive to Miami to catch a flight to the Caribbean.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

nothing will stop someone under those circumstances. just like nothing will stop someone blowing up their backpack while on a subway train.

there already are agents wandering through the crowds. probably not as many as there should be, though.

i think if they could shop after they came through security, the shops would do just as well.

The shops would definitely take a hit. The airports built them landside so that they could get business from people other than air passengers, for example people waiting to meet someone coming in. Under the current rules, you can't get into line for security without a boarding pass. If those people have to wait outside, that's lost business for the shops.

And the few agents that walk around don't seem to be looking for anything. I've been in airports waiting for people, and none of them have given me a second glance, even when I've stood 20 feet away from the checkpoint watching what they are doing. For all anyone knew, I could have been trying to find a hole in their procedures.

One thing I did observe, they seem to pick a lot of young women for secondary screening. I wonder why that is?

well, i can only speak for our local airports, but most of the shops are post-screening. and whether there are any prior to screening depends on the terminal.

perhaps you don't look like someone the agents would notice. they look for specific behaviors, i'd think.

as for the last part regarding young girls, you'll forgive me, but i don't believe that's the case.

I would think that anyone standing and watching security should be a red flag. One of them should have stopped and asked what I was doing, instead of walking past.

As to the part about the young women, that's just what I've seen, and maybe that's because I was focused on them and not the rest of the travelers.

 

[uscitizen]

Actually I doubt if more would fly, Fear is a big factor in our society in recent decades.

I would fly as well, but not too many like us I think.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is true that nail clippers and cuticle scissors are now allowed on flights and I carry both. Right after 9/11, however, they were not and many of us had both confiscated. We once gave up our nail clippers at security and then were amused that they were sold at kiosks in the terminal hallways on the way to our gate.

And it is true that Factcheck says that the incident with the military could not have happened. I posted it with a disclaimer that I didn't know and did not attempt to pass it off as true. It was just a good illustration for the OP. Probably I should have skipped it.

So, if we can get away from the demonization of those who are attempting to discuss this please, could we get back on topic?

If you don't mind the pat down or scanner, well fine. I have no objection to your submitting to that all you want.

But again, do you have an objection to the kind of profiling done in Israel? If so, why?

Do you have an objection to citizens going through a thorough background check in order to get a passport or other I.D. and then be given a pass on the patdown and scanner? If so, why?

Because American citizens can be terrorists too.

And yet they let you on flights without a patdown or going through the scanner according to you.

I would feel much more secure if they subjected those most likely to be terrorists to a patdown and/or going through the scanner rather than pick on little old ladies or kids or anybody else in a group who has never been implicated in anything subversive, dangerous, or illegal. Where is our reward for being decent human beings if we are going to be treated like the criminals while criminals are allowed to walk on through because they missed the grope lottery that day?

If Timothy McVeigh had undergone a background check for a passport, he would have been closely scrutinized every time he flew. All the warning signs were there. He even included 'agribombs' in his AOL profile and talked a lot of violent nonsense in the chatrooms. A background check would also have revealed his radical paramilitary ties and other 'concerns'. Same with the Ft. Hood gunman and the Tuscon shooter. And all the patdowns and scans of old ladies with canes or elderly gentlemen or little kids in the world would not have identified a single one of those nuts.

Again Mr. Foxfyre's cpap machine has to undergo scrutiny when we fly. They check my coat and my shoes, but nobody asked me to open my computer or cellphone, much less turn them on--I had to do both in Canada. A thorough background check on both of us, however, would not reveal a single contact or activity or behavior problem suggesting a threat to anybody. To expend TSA time checking us out at the airport is not an efficient use of anybody's time.

 

[gautama]

I just read the thread's question: TSA: From Security to Stupid ?

Believe it or not, I didn't read a single one of the posts regarding this thread, preceding my post.

I didn't want to sift through the 3/4 pages of posts in order to post my query:

Somewhere on USMB, or National TV, I read/heard that Obamadinejad's prize stooge Janet Incompetano, Home Security Honcho.....you know the one that outlawed the term "War on Terror", "Islam's jihadists", "Islamofascists", etc. Yep, the one who doesn't know who our enemy, the Islamofascists are.

Janet Incompetano, the one that allowed Imam Rauf.....the now known to her....but always known to anyone interested that Rauf is a "Jihadist" or Muslim with very strong ties to Hamas, etc., to represent America on his trip to the Mid East to obviously drum up money for the Ground Zero Mosque (now replaced by another phoney) ........ hired at least 4 well known, Muslims who were, or are connected to "jihadists" to the top level posts in her Home Security Dept........and considers CAIR.....which to Obamadinejad, and to Incompetano is the "VOICE OF MODERATE MUSLIMS" the by now OBVIOUSLY KNOWN FRONT for Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.....whose founder Awad plainly declared: "I am for "jihad".......

SINCE THIS DIPSHIT INCOMPETANO APPROVES OF CAIR'S REPRESENTATIVES TO GIVE SPEECHES TO OUR MILITARY, and GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ...... SPEECHES REPRESENTING THE "VOICE OF MODERATE MUSLIMS"......AND PERMITTED THEM TO TEACH OUR TSA ON THEIR SECURITY PROTOCOL (as reported in the National Media) .......I ASK YOU:

"TSA: From Security to Stupid ?"

What is YOUR answer when you digest the above info preceding that question by me ?????

BTW, I don't have the time to provide you with the link regarding TSA taught by the front for Hamas, Hezbollah jihadists or those strongly connected to them from CAIR. This info was on the National news and I am sure someone reading this post could provide you with the link.

If you happen to be one of those Obamarrhoidal idjits that pollute USMB you would reject the info above and or the link.....even if it was provided to you anyways.

 

[syrenn]

As far as i am concerned, profiling is the way to go.

It's already being done. The TSA boondoggle is just that, as well as a means to replace the "fake" security with real security if the need ever arises.

How often do you fly? What i see is something totally different then profiling.

 

[syrenn]

To have real security, we need something more than just having TSA agents operating scanners and patting people down. How do these measures stop someone from getting into line and setting off a bomb, like what happened in Moscow the other day?

They need to have agents mingling with the crowds, looking for anything out of place instead of just working the checkpoints.

But if something like that did happen here, TSA would probably do something silly like moving the checkpoints to the front doors. Which would kill off all of the shops that the airports have built.

nothing will stop someone under those circumstances. just like nothing will stop someone blowing up their backpack while on a subway train.

there already are agents wandering through the crowds. probably not as many as there should be, though.

i think if they could shop after they came through security, the shops would do just as well.

The shops would definitely take a hit. The airports built them landside so that they could get business from people other than air passengers, for example people waiting to meet someone coming in. Under the current rules, you can't get into line for security without a boarding pass. If those people have to wait outside, that's lost business for the shops.

And the few agents that walk around don't seem to be looking for anything. I've been in airports waiting for people, and none of them have given me a second glance, even when I've stood 20 feet away from the checkpoint watching what they are doing. For all anyone knew, I could have been trying to find a hole in their procedures.

One thing I did observe, they seem to pick a lot of young women for secondary screening. I wonder why that is?

I will give you two big guesses.

 

[syrenn]

nothing will stop someone under those circumstances. just like nothing will stop someone blowing up their backpack while on a subway train.

there already are agents wandering through the crowds. probably not as many as there should be, though.

i think if they could shop after they came through security, the shops would do just as well.

The shops would definitely take a hit. The airports built them landside so that they could get business from people other than air passengers, for example people waiting to meet someone coming in. Under the current rules, you can't get into line for security without a boarding pass. If those people have to wait outside, that's lost business for the shops.

And the few agents that walk around don't seem to be looking for anything. I've been in airports waiting for people, and none of them have given me a second glance, even when I've stood 20 feet away from the checkpoint watching what they are doing. For all anyone knew, I could have been trying to find a hole in their procedures.

One thing I did observe, they seem to pick a lot of young women for secondary screening. I wonder why that is?

well, i can only speak for our local airports, but most of the shops are post-screening. and whether there are any prior to screening depends on the terminal.

perhaps you don't look like someone the agents would notice. they look for specific behaviors, i'd think.

as for the last part regarding young girls, you'll forgive me, but i don't believe that's the case.

From personal experience from all across the country, Hun, i have to disagree with you.

 

[syrenn]

The shops would definitely take a hit. The airports built them landside so that they could get business from people other than air passengers, for example people waiting to meet someone coming in. Under the current rules, you can't get into line for security without a boarding pass. If those people have to wait outside, that's lost business for the shops.

And the few agents that walk around don't seem to be looking for anything. I've been in airports waiting for people, and none of them have given me a second glance, even when I've stood 20 feet away from the checkpoint watching what they are doing. For all anyone knew, I could have been trying to find a hole in their procedures.

One thing I did observe, they seem to pick a lot of young women for secondary screening. I wonder why that is?

well, i can only speak for our local airports, but most of the shops are post-screening. and whether there are any prior to screening depends on the terminal.

perhaps you don't look like someone the agents would notice. they look for specific behaviors, i'd think.

as for the last part regarding young girls, you'll forgive me, but i don't believe that's the case.

I would think that anyone standing and watching security should be a red flag. One of them should have stopped and asked what I was doing, instead of walking past.

As to the part about the young women, that's just what I've seen, and maybe that's because I was focused on them and not the rest of the travelers.

And tell me Rat...why were YOU focused on these girls? Be honest now.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

well, i can only speak for our local airports, but most of the shops are post-screening. and whether there are any prior to screening depends on the terminal.

perhaps you don't look like someone the agents would notice. they look for specific behaviors, i'd think.

as for the last part regarding young girls, you'll forgive me, but i don't believe that's the case.

I would think that anyone standing and watching security should be a red flag. One of them should have stopped and asked what I was doing, instead of walking past.

As to the part about the young women, that's just what I've seen, and maybe that's because I was focused on them and not the rest of the travelers.

And tell me Rat...why were YOU focused on these girls? Be honest now.

Three reasons.

One, they were attractive.

I think you know the other 2 large reasons.

 

[syrenn]

I would think that anyone standing and watching security should be a red flag. One of them should have stopped and asked what I was doing, instead of walking past.

As to the part about the young women, that's just what I've seen, and maybe that's because I was focused on them and not the rest of the travelers.

And tell me Rat...why were YOU focused on these girls? Be honest now.

Three reasons.

One, they were attractive.

I think you know the other 2 large reasons.

And that is why they were screened and patted down. You were not the only one checking them out for the very same reasons.

I guess you can say they were profiled.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

And tell me Rat...why were YOU focused on these girls? Be honest now.

Three reasons.

One, they were attractive.

I think you know the other 2 large reasons.

And that is why they were screened and patted down. You were not the only one checking them out for the very same reasons.

I guess you can say they were profiled.

Especially the really pretty blonde who had to do the arms out, legs spread stance while they slowly passed the wand over her because her watch set off the metal detector.

 

[asterism]

As far as i am concerned, profiling is the way to go.

It's already being done. The TSA boondoggle is just that, as well as a means to replace the "fake" security with real security if the need ever arises.

How often do you fly? What i see is something totally different then profiling.

I fly once or twice a month.

I didn't say you could see the profiling and I didn't say the TSA was doing it.

 

[Foxfyre]

And the airline has a right to protect their property.
Do any of the airline companies want to drop TSA?

Since TSA has imposed itself upon the airports, the airlines pretty much have no choice.

And how many of them actually want to get rid of TSA?

TSA is corporate welfare for the private airline industry.

How many would flyu right now if they had the security levels of 1980?

All during the 60's, 70's, and most of the 80's, every time any of us got on a plane, we wondered if hijackers would be taking us to Cuba. And there weren't a lot of months that at least one major hijacking somewhere wasn't being covered on the evening news. But if there was any increased security, I was unaware of it.

In those days I still got my ticket, arrived at the airport 20 minutes before my flight departed, checked my bags, and often made it to the gate just before they closed the doors. It was great!!! Air travel was simple and fun then.

I hate that hateful people have taken away much of my pleasure, enjoyment, and rights and are provoking the most intimate invasion of my privacy. Most especially when there is no evidence that it is making us significantly safer.