Well, the obvious answer to this is to NOT allow opt outs, or... to allow passenger boarding without any security checks. We then have to say, that we're willing to accept the risk of being blown up because our privacy is more important than our safety or our lives. Alternatively, we can allow common carriers to turn away people; that is, a customer is refused and cannot board. Those denied service can either submit to security, or else leave and be at liberty to walk to where they need to go. There is no law that requires any carrier to take a customer. They can easily do this in their Terms of Service when they sell you a ticket. Of course, the issue is obviously a lawyer's wet dream, as litigation would probably go on for years.
I feel like this is an attempt to put the sex offenders back to work doing what they love to do - molest young children and groping women.
saw a bunch of tsa things and its crazy i heard these agents get crazy amount of salary..makes me not want to fly to usa anymore...obama neesd to do somthing
The pay for TSA agents can vary according to level and region. While some senior or high level officers can make a lot, the regular line personnel (ie. the bulk of them) are probably lower ranged and comparable to the average city cop.
It's a concern but you know what, I rather breeze through the system than lining up for a pat down .. waste of time .. also .. rather be safe traveling than worry about the guy next to me carrying a BOMB .. so fuck privacy.
I disagree; 1) it's about your rights in the 4th Amendments. The government has no right to unreasonable search and seizures. 2) i don't freaking like radiation. I don't even do the dental xray yearly where I'm supposed to. 3) absolutely oppose strangers grabbing my privates. If it's illegal for those sex offenders and child molesters why should it be okay for the government? What's next? so what if the terrorists hide the bombs in their rectum? Give everyone a cavity search?
[youtube]XSQTz1bccL4[/youtube] that's right boy ... strip for this stranger and let him touch you inappropriately. source: http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/tsa-re...ges-underwear-search-happen/story?id=12208932 Guess if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not going to be gropped, I would not either. And considering TSA says to ask for a supervisor at the airport, I think I should request for one as well.
The flip side of this argument is, I wonder how many of these "opt outers" who are railing on about the "government" and "personal privacy" would be willing to sign a waiver (before flying) that, if their aircraft if brought down by a terrorist, that they would hold the government and airlines blameless for their deaths? Perhaps what the government and carriers needs to do, is to have dual flights; one flight with their serious, privacy invasive screening, and another flight with no screening at all. Those that want to fly without their privacy invaded (pilots and passengers alike) can take the less stringently screened aircraft; that would be putting your money where your privacy mouth is. Then we'll see how many opt outers are really that concerned about privacy over concerns of safety. Granted, it's an imperfect system, but given the sophistication of terrorist devices, the system is an effective means of detection and hence improves public safety, which is its purpose. In my opinion, I think a lot of these opt outers secretly want the security checks, but only if for the inconvenience of others and not of themselves. Another issue rarely talked about is, by flying through the high altitude air (according to government research), you're already exposing yourself to natural radiation at much greater levels than a TSA scanner would ever generate. It would be like saying you're willing to take 1000 XRays of your right arm, then turn around and say that you refuse to take one XRay of your left arm because of the "excessive" radiation; because "...even a little bit is too much." Bullocks. Anyone who advocates that is full of it. http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-Emitti...tsandProcedures/SecuritySystems/ucm231857.htm Given the amount of shrill negative press and the number of people who feel that they have the "right" to pile it on against the TSA (which is doing an already very tough and thankless job; do you think some TSA guy really wants to squeeze your nuts?), I wonder what would happen if the TSA does scale back their screening, and another plane is blown up? Will the people who are speaking up so loudly now against the TSA take some measure of personal responsibility? I doubt that. To the people who have their prosthetics searched (like the man with the urostomy bag or the woman with cancer and the false breast), you can blame Bin Laden for your emotional discomfort, not the TSA. All of these people who now willfully and covertly film planned confrontational TSA encounters at airports (often for no other purpose than their own face book or blog notoriety), are doing the flying public a huge disservice. Frankly, what the TSA needs to do, is arrest and prosecute (I mean hitting with significant jail time) all those "passengers" who secretly record and videotape TSA procedures as attempted security breaches. These clandestine recordings reveal how the TSA search and their procedures, allowing terrorist to gain deep insight into how boarding passengers will be processed, thereby allowing would be bombers to plan around TSA probes. Start throwing a few of these secret video people in jail on federal terrorism charges, and I bet the "opt outer" count will quickly drop to zero. The bottom line is, an exploding bomb doesn't care about your privacy as its blast wave penetrates and shreds your body tissues apart into a million pieces. That is my biggest privacy concern. As for fourth amendment concerns, the legal hinge is on the word unreasonable in regards to search and seizure. Given the proven threat of people trying to get on planes with bombs, the search is reasonable in order to screen for potential bombers and keep them off planes. As for the sentiment expressed in the argument: "that's right boy ... strip for this stranger and let him touch you inappropriately." one has to realize that for the purpose at hand, the TSA touching is entirely appropriate. Much like when you bring your child to the doctor and he or she has to assess the child for a hernia (or some other clinical malady) that requires close manipulative physical contact with the child's genitals, the touch is entirely appropriate and accepted as a necessary step to ensure the child's continued well being. By taking and expressing these privacy views with the TSA but not doing so at the doctors office (against touch and radiation) bespeaks of the inherent hypocrisy with the opt outer argument. "If it's illegal for those sex offenders and child molesters why should it be okay for the government?" Because it is all in the matter of intent; the former is for personal criminal sexual gratification, but the other is for collective public safety. Equating the former as being inherently the same as the latter is a viewpoint that is being blindly ignorant. It would be likened to saying that a parent wiping shit off his child's ass or taking a rectal temperature was sexually abusing the child. Any sane person can clearly see the ridiculousness of that point of view. It is a rather disingenuous claim that falsely sensationalizes the issue; seeking to color public opinion by equating TSA actions as being criminally harmful as those of child molesters. Well, if that's the case, then start arresting the parents and doctors too.
The search on anyone and everyone is unreasonable. A cop you see on the street has no reason to search your car unless you give them one - ie high out of your mind; showing crazy behavior etc. TSA searching anyone and everyone is essentially saying the TSA has reasons to believe everyone and anyone is carrying a bomb, even if you are not acting weird beyond reasonable doubt. I for one takes whatever the government tells me with a grain of salt. How many times have the government comes out and claims that something is absolutely safe to later claim they were "wrong" and it is in fact more harmful than first thought?? At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorists, people believing whole-heartedly to the government should search and read more about Georgia Guidestone and the Bilderberg group, for starters. Then read up on how the swine flu epidemic got started, how and why the Spanish nuns refused the flu shots. Back to the subject of TSA, what's more interesting is CAIR. How many bombs can they put in their head and neck? And they are not subject to the enhanced and advanced search where the TSA strips your kids and gropes your wife? Not to subject all Muslims as terrorists, but, all terrorists are Muslim. If anyone is to be subjected to a detail groping, it's them. And they are allowed to pat themselves down whilst the rest of us are required to have a groping by TSA agents? How ludicrous!!! [youtube]0d8B3d5gnbY[/youtube]
For those of you that enjoyed the groping ... http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/02/04/2824781/routine-items-not-allowed-at-cowboys.html
no one enjoys groping or being scan on. But this is reality and the US is at war, in fact,this has became a global war on terrorism. It's better to sacrifice privacy then sacrificing your life just to travel. No one should complain about the securities here in the US when its at war on terrorism. No one want other planes to hit any major cities and lives to be taken. The old system that the US was complacent. Complacency is what destroyed US, letting those terrorists aboard those planes and succeeded with their plot. And thanks to that, "civilians" lives were taken, and thanks to that, i've seen those towers blown and collapsed with my own eyes.
The above is not only an example of lack of knowledge, but dangerous in its assumptions and complacency. [video=youtube;HO8TmcP-ITw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO8TmcP-ITw"[/video] [video=youtube;bd3LQXOLrOw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd3LQXOLrOw"[/video] http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/07/113_41097.html [video=youtube;XYr3n7Yta5Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYr3n7Yta5Q"[/video] [video=youtube;q9OVhcjNaBY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9OVhcjNaBY"[/video]
yea, that's definitely not true. However, the war that US is at (afghanistan), is against muslims. 9/11 started because according to bin laden, the west or, should i say the US, is threatening their securities.
