Stay Classy TSA

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by rdowns, Apr 12, 2011.

  1. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    What a joke this illusion of airport security is.


    Video shows young girl receiving full pat-down from TSA

     
  2. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
  3. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #3
    Clip has absolutely no context, so hard to tell if reasonable. Did she trip the metal detectors? Did something show on body scan? Did mom refuse body scan? Were they acting suspicious?

    I agree the current screening policies are ridiculous. I'll play devil's advocate. Drugs have been smuggled on children. Why couldn't bombs be stashed on them?
     
  4. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #4
    Incredible.

    I wonder if they followed this abomination up with a full body cavity search?

    Who the **** is in charge of the U.S. of A.? Xenophobes??
     
  5. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #5
    I don't think this is wrong if the TSA has a valid reason for suspecting that a passenger is carrying something suspicious. Also, it should be policy that if you fail the screening test, a passenger should be allowed to go through a 2nd time, but perhaps with their arms in a different position (or something). They shouldn't be allowed to pat-down someone unless there's a reason, and all other measures have been taken.
     
  6. leomac08 macrumors 68020

    leomac08

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #6
    Whatta Fu**!????????????????????????? :eek:

    Who is the background voice, is it another sibling or the girl saying I don't want to get pat down?
     
  7. darkplanets macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #7
    Yeah, the TSA is pretty absurd. The airport I use just got body scanners-- now when I fly I make sure to shake my junk around for the world to see.

    Coming soon to the Internet near you.
     
  8. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #8
    Without context .... who knows? The story has been updated to state that the TSA does not do drug tests.... which makes sense. If there is another test, then it's possible that it's an explosive test.

    She (the little girl) may have the chemical signature for explosives on her. There are lots of innocent ways this could happen, from borrowing the sweater of her friend, whose father works in a mine, to using a fabric softener that uses a chemical that is similar to one of the many chemicals that can combined with others to make a bomb.

    If the TSA has a chemical sniffer at that security station, and that sniffer is indicating the presence of a possible explosive.... do you really want a TSA staffer making judgement calls on who needs to be double-checked and who gets a bye?

    We don't know what happened.... there is no context.... who knows....
     
  9. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #9
    I think they missed the bomb in her hair. Why not do an X-RAY as well? God, what stupidity!
     
  10. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #10
    The radiation dosage from any properly maintained active scanner is still orders of magnitude less than what you get from a 4-hour flight at 10 km. Go ahead and opt out of your full-body scans... if you're doing it for the "health" reason you're tilting at a very small windmill.
     
  11. wpotere Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    #11
    I don't see anything wrong with it at all. People use children to carry goods all the time and the TSA agent was totally professional about it talking through each step. The rules are there to provide a layer of safety and if you think that it doesn't and don't like the rules, ride the bus!

    Better yet, let's remove the TSA agents and let someone fly a plane into another building. :rolleyes:
     
  12. wpotere, Apr 13, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2011

    wpotere Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    #12
    Yeah, because you have access to all of the intellegence reports. :rolleyes: As for the TSA not making air travel any safer you literally have nothing to go on other than making a blind assumption. It is simply another security layer and that in itself will deter some from giving it a try. That being said, if someone wants to kill people bad enough they will and people like you will constantly blame it on others. :rolleyes:

    So tell me, what would you prefer? Ponds guards walking the halls or no security at all? I bet your mind might change if you were on a plane that was hijacked.
     
  13. whooleytoo macrumors 603

    whooleytoo

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Location:
    Cork, Ireland.
    #13
    The secret service might get lucky and stop a terrorist organisation before they do any harm, but they can do nothing to prevent a nutter getting on a plane if he doesn't have any record. It's up to the airport security to limit the weapons available to him on the plane, it's the best they can do.

    And it's up to everyone to decide what the 'best balance' is between privacy and safety. One thing is certain - the TSA (or any other airport authorities around the world) are always wrong: searches like this are wrong/if a weapon slips through and is used in a hijacking they're wrong.
     
  14. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #14
    I don't get how you see nothing wrong with it. In addition to it being completely pointless and ineffective, if you moved this situation from the security line of an airport to anywhere else, the TSA agent would be thrown in jail for touching a little girl like that and the mother probably would as well for allowing it to happen.
     
  15. wpotere Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    #15
    OMG!!! She patted down a little girl using the back of her hands! Send her to jail now for molesting that little girl! :rolleyes:

    What if that little girl had a gun strapped to her leg because her mother or father wanted to go on a shooting spree and they were using her as a mule to get the weapon in?

    The poster above is right, they won't win either way. Like I said, take a different form of transportation if you don't like the rules.
     
  16. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #16
    I imagine they have to scan kids because desperate smugglers/addicts have hidden drugs on their children in the past.
     
  17. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #17
    The 9/11 hijackers did not bring anything on the plane that was banned. No amount of groping or searching by airport security would've prevented 9/11.

    9/11 was a failure of intelligence, not a failure of airport security.
     
  18. wpotere Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    #18
    That is a 2+ year old blog article and proves nothing. :rolleyes:

    So tell me since you seem to be so wise, what would you do to fix this problem? Rather than tear down the current solution how about telling us what you would do to FIX it? We clearly can't get rid of screening as that leaves us open for attack using planes as missles.
     
  19. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #19
    I thought box cutters were banned? Can you provide a link to support your statement?
     
  20. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #20

    Box cutters were banned in response to 9/11. As always, airline security is reactive. Bush sold us a bill of goods while increasing the size and cost of government.
     
  21. wpotere Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    #21
    Let me give you a REAL scenario. I used to use my laptop backpack to carry my lunch to work and I was at the airport heading out of town. What I didn't know is that one of my butter knives had slid down under the lining of the backpack. Of course I went in security and was pulled to the side where I was professionally patted down. They then pulled me off to the side to further inspect the bag. I told them the story and they allowed me to slip it in an envelope to mail it home.

    1. It worked as they did catch a potential weapon.
    2. They were profesional about it the entire time (Boston TSA).
    3. If you cooperate with them it is generally no big deal.

    People that are making this difficult simply like to complain for the sake of complaining. Take the bus....
     
  22. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #22
    The OP was ambiguous ... I read it that the weapons used on 9/11 were still not banned. As opposed to not banned at the time.

    Hasn't anyone noticed that not a single US plane has been hijacked in the past 10 years? A quick look at Wikipedia shows 7 US planes hijacked in the 1970s, several in the 80s and 90s. Four planes were hijacked in 2001 (all on the same day....) - and then not a single US, European, Japanese plane has been hijacked.

    Something is working.....
     
  23. darkplanets macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #23
    I would prefer the cheaper and more effective way; profiling.

    Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
     
  24. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #24
    Airport security is on a downward spiral, they really need to rethink the approach. Basic human dignity is being trampled on, the costs involved are skyrocketing and the whole approach just adds to making air travel unpleasant.
     
  25. wpotere Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    #25
    Great, a shoot out on a plane loaded with innocent bystanders. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page