# National Opt Out of the Airport Scanners Day



## PetalumaLoco

We won't fly.

Facebook.

Official TSA groping guide T-shirt.


----------



## MrFSS

The Mods/Admins have discussed this one and the other similar thread.

I will open this back up, but as soon as the discussion starts getting off base, it will be shut down, again.

Likewise for the other one.

We all have opinions about these things, but, some of the things being said aren't needed.

Please, lets keep it civil if you add to this thread or the other one related to it.

Thanks!!


----------



## PetalumaLoco

MrFSS said:


> The Mods/Admins have discussed this one and the other similar thread.
> 
> I will open this back up, but as soon as the discussion starts getting off base, it will be shut down, again.
> 
> Likewise for the other one.
> 
> We all have opinions about these things, but, some of the things being said aren't needed.
> 
> Please, lets keep it civil if you add to this thread or the other one related to it.
> 
> Thanks!!


Thank sir, fair enough.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

How calm and reserved do you expect people to be about government-approved groping? Before you answer just think about that for a minute. I realize the staff here may be lucky enough to rarely fly but some of us have to fly regularly as part of our job or due to other time constraints placed on us. We are now being forced to choose between irradiation and vigorous groping with no other options available to us. It may mean little or nothing to you to live in a country that is happily shredding its founding documents, but for some of us this is a _very_ serious issue worthy of frank and open discussions, not hyper-sensitive censorship.


----------



## AlanB

daxomni said:


> How calm and reserved do you expect people to be about government-approved groping? Before you answer just think about that for a minute. I realize the staff here may be lucky enough to rarely fly but some of us have to fly regularly as part of our job or due to other time constraints placed on us. We are now being forced to choose between irradiation and vigorous groping with no other options available to us. It may mean little or nothing to you to live in a country that is happily shredding its founding documents, but for some of us this is a _very_ serious issue worthy of frank and open discussions, not hyper-sensitive censorship.


While I've been fortunate that I've not needed to fly in several years and have no desire to do so, Anthony is a semi-regular flyer, as are both Eric & Tom. In fact, both Anthony and Eric arrived at the recent Gathering by plane. Tom drove, while I took Amtrak.

Regarding censorship, we're talking more about heated arugments and posts that get too graphic, after all we do have minors as members and some folks are also just uncomfortable about such things.

Finally, it should be noted that this forum's reason for being is Amtrak. The fact that we're even allowing such a discussion is already saying a lot. We could have said just head to an airline forum to talk about this.


----------



## AlanB

Now, mod hat off, here's my thoughts on this.

What a major mistake!

While I do understand the concept of a protest, and I do understand that many are upset with the new procedures and the machines, here's what I say this is a major mistake.

This is the busiest travel day of the year. If enough people participate in this protest, then there is going to be a whole lot of people who will miss having Thanksgiving dinner with their families. The TSA isn't going to suspend the rules for the day. Airlines not only cannot, but the will not, hold flights for people who cannot get through screening in time to catch their flight. With flights generally sold out, that means anyone missing their flight is probably not going to be able to get where they wanted to go, or they're going to arrive after the holiday is over on Friday.

The only way to avoid this is going to be to get to the airport 4 or 5 hours early, instead of the normal 2 or 3 that would be needed on such a busy day.

So the only people really getting hurt by this protest are the passengers. The TSA isn't going to care! The airlines aren't going care either and I rather doubt that they'll be issuing any refunds either.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't protest the new rules if they don't like them. After all free speech is one of our rights. I am saying however that I for one don't think that this is the right day to pick for the protest. I see lots of unhappy people missing their holiday with their friends & family if too many people do decide to protest.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

That could be why they're doing it. On one of the busiest days of the year they can hold up the lines and create awareness of there cause. What better way then to shut down an entire airport filled with thousand of people.Like that guy who slipped by the TSA shutting down the entire airport including the planes.


----------



## AlanB

amtrakwolverine said:


> That could be why they're doing it. On one of the busiest days of the year they can hold up the lines and create awareness of there cause. What better way then to shut down an entire airport filled with thousand of people.Like that guy who slipped by the TSA shutting down the entire airport including the planes.


You are quite correct! That is absolutely why they are trying to do it that day.

I'm just not sure that having thousands of people who decide to join that protest and then miss having Thanksgiving with their families is the right choice. And I'm afraid that far too many people won't realize just what the consequences of their actions will be until it is too late.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

If you don't think this lunacy will eventually be coming to Amtrak some day you're just fooling yourself. Unfortunately, by the time it gets to Amtrak it will probably be far too late to do much of anything about it. If I understand your concern correctly you're worried about people who have no specific problem with the continuous erosion of our Constitution so long as they don't have read about it on a train forum. We can address this by simply keeping the groping/irradiating topic in it's own thread. That allows folks who have a hard time living in the real world to simply avoid hearing anything about what's going on around them. As for kids, if they're really too young to read about this they're probably too young to understand what groping entails or why we're so concerned about it. I suppose we can continue to shield them from reality but chances are they'll eventually have to go through an airport at some point. If anything I'm _more_ upset about what these rules may mean for American kids than for myself. I'm an adult. You can test the effects of irradiation on adults and get an idea of what the short term effects are. However, you can *not* test the effects of irradiation on kids -- by law. Unfortunately you *can* force kids to go through these currently untested machines in the name of our fake security theatrics. If we were a logical society you might think parents would be the people _most_ concerned about irradiation vs. groping out of anyone. :excl:


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

daxomni said:


> If you don't think this lunacy will eventually be coming to Amtrak some day you're just fooling yourself. Unfortunately, by the time it gets to Amtrak it will probably be far too late to do much of anything about it. If I understand your concern correctly you're worried about people who have no specific problem with the continuous erosion of our Constitution so long as they don't have read about it on a train forum. We can address this by simply keeping the groping/irradiating topic in it's own thread. That allows folks who have a hard time living in the real world to simply avoid hearing anything about what's going on around them. As for kids, if they're really too young to read about this they're probably too young to understand what groping entails or why we're so concerned about it. I suppose we can continue to shield them from reality but chances are they'll eventually have to go through an airport at some point. If anything I'm _more_ upset about what these rules may mean for American kids than for myself. I'm an adult. You can test the effects of irradiation on adults and get an idea of what the short term effects are. However, you can *not* test the effects of irradiation on kids -- by law. Unfortunately you *can* force kids to go through these currently untested machines in the name of our fake security theatrics. If we were a logical society you might think parents would be the people _most_ concerned about irradiation vs. groping out of anyone. :excl:


while i didn't see what happened in the original thread I was 16 when I joined the board, and appreciate what the mods have done. Even though now I am a legal adult I don't come here to read about people getting grouped.

I personally have never been through a full body scanner although my father who flies usually once a week hasn't seemed to mind the shift to body scanners, or at least hasn't mentioned going through them to me. The last time I flew I had a nice "S" printed on my ticket indicating I needed extra screening. Sadly this is not the first time I've been "randomly" selected for extra security. My previous TSA pat downs haven't been anything out of hand. In fact I've been more carefully frisked entering concert venues in my area.

I guess my question becomes where does TSA go from here? What happens when there is some kind of incident even after you go through a full body scanner, or receive your enhanced pat down?

I don't think Amtrak will ever have security quite like this. Where is the TSA going to set up there gear in places like Provo, UT or Beamount, Tx?


----------



## Ryan

daxomni said:


> We are now being forced to choose between irradiation and vigorous groping with no other options available to us.


The radiation from one scan is equivalent to the radiation that you get from cruising at altitude for 2 minutes. Utterly insignificant.



AlanB said:


> [i'm just not sure that having thousands of people who decide to join that protest and then miss having Thanksgiving with their families is the right choice. And I'm afraid that far too many people won't realize just what the consequences of their actions will be until it is too late.


I'm more concerned about the people that don't care/don't know about this getting screwed over by people trying to make a point.



daxomni said:


> If you don't think this lunacy will eventually be coming to Amtrak some day you're just fooling yourself.


[citation needed]


----------



## jis

A very interesting blog on this subject:

TSA and the "Audacity of Grope"


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Long Train Runnin said:


> Even though now I am a legal adult I don't come here to read about people getting grouped.


Then what are you doing here in this thread?



Long Train Runnin said:


> My previous TSA pat downs haven't been anything out of hand. In fact I've been more carefully frisked entering concert venues in my area.


If you had bothered to read about this before posting you might have noticed that the groping directive has changed to be far more vigorous and intimate. Also, my job doesn't require me to visit a concert so I can easily avoid that eardrum blowing nonsense, unlike flying.



Ryan said:


> The radiation from one scan is equivalent to the radiation that you get from cruising at altitude for 2 minutes. Utterly insignificant.


The only studies I've seen on these machines were funded by the very companies who sell them. Not surprisingly I don't consider them to be an objective analysis. Nor is there any law against funding a dozen closed studies and then only releasing the positive outcome of the one outlier that shows no ill effects.



Ryan said:


> I'm more concerned about the people that don't care/don't know about this getting screwed over by people trying to make a point.


If you don't like citizens challenging the erosion of their civil rights you're always free to go live in a dictatorship.



Ryan said:


> [citation needed]


Where's yours? Maybe you should practice what you preach Ryan.


----------



## Ryan

daxomni said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more concerned about the people that don't care/don't know about this getting screwed over by people trying to make a point.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like citizens challenging the erosion of their civil rights you're always free to go live in a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that I didn't like citizens challenging the erosion of their civil rights?



> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [citation needed]
> 
> 
> 
> Where's yours? Maybe you should practice what you preach Ryan.
Click to expand...

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You're perfectly aware of my source, since you attacked it. If you've got contradicting evidence, I can't wait to see it.
You'd do better to attack the substance of people's arguments rather then the person making the argument.

(on a train related note, I'm posting this while doing 125 MPH in Acela First Class - awesome!)


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ryan said:


> Where did I say that I didn't like citizens challenging the erosion of their civil rights?


You said those who were taking a stand were screwing over the helpless comatose sheep among us. What exactly would you consider an acceptable major policy-confronting reaction by those of us who are fed up with the TSA? I'm just glad to see Americans finally taking a stand on something other than the "three G's." It's a rare event, far too rare if you ask me, and it's heartening to see people finally turning their words into action.



Ryan said:


> You can't have your cake and eat it too. You're perfectly aware of my source, since you attacked it. If you've got contradicting evidence, I can't wait to see it.


I have absolutely no idea what your source is because you have refused to give it.



Ryan said:


> You'd do better to attack the substance of people's arguments rather then the person making the argument.


What substance? Even when I asked for a citation you refused to provide one.



Ryan said:


> (on a train related note, I'm posting this while doing 125 MPH in Acela First Class - awesome!)


I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic, but yes, we're all very happy that America has finally caught up with the cutting edge speeds of 1964.


----------



## AlanB

daxomni said:


> If I understand your concern correctly you're worried about people who have no specific problem with the continuous erosion of our Constitution so long as they don't have read about it on a train forum.


No, you don't understand my concern at all. While I do agree that there are things in the past 10 years or so that have led to some erosion of our Constitution, this isn't one of them. No place in the Constitution are you granted the right to fly on an airplane, much less do so without passing through some form of security.

And the Constitutional rights regarding search and seizure do not apply here. You are not being forced to get on that plane. No one is barging into your house to conduct a search. You purchased a ticket to do something and through that act gave your consent. You had the right not to buy that ticket if you didn't want to submit. And most importantly, you are not on your private property, like you are in your car or your home.

Finally for the record, as I believe both Bill(PRR60) & Jishnu have publicly stated more than once around here, I too agree with them that much of what is being done in the name of security is useless. There are plenty of other far better things that could be done and aren't being done. I do think that we've gone over the top here with things and I don't agree with a lot of what is being done, but that doesn't change the fact that it has nothing to do with any Constitutional rights.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

If you don't have a dog in this fight then feel free to sit this one out and stop suggesting that the rest of us shouldn't care either. You're still free to be irradiated as groped as much as you like. And I'll take my constitutional advice from people who don't have a history of blindly following the whims of authority figures while challenging anyone who speaks up.


----------



## the_traveler

daxomni said:


> If you don't think this lunacy will eventually be coming to Amtrak some day you're just fooling yourself.


Maybe at some stations like NYP, PHL, WAS or CHI where you have to go thru a gate to get to the train, but I doubt at KIN, where I go thru an open gate to get to the platform! And I really doubt that TSA is going to set them up and man them at an unstaffed station (such as Elko, NV) where the train stops at 1-2 AM!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I never said they'll be installed at _every_ Amtrak station, in fact I'm sure they won't. But that's exactly what makes this whole thing all the more ludicrous.


----------



## AlanB

daxomni said:


> If you don't have a dog in this fight then feel free to sit this one out and stop suggesting that the rest of us shouldn't care either. You're still free to be irradiated as groped as much as you like. And I'll take my constitutional advice from people who don't have a history of blindly following the whims of authority figures while challenging anyone who speaks up.


First, you should really try reading what people write and stop seeing what you think they wrote. I never said or suggested that people shouldn't try to protest the new rules or that they shouldn't care. So stop putting words in my mouth! :angry2:

I did say that I felt that picking the Wednesday before Thanksgiving was a bad day to do any protest. And my reasons for that are simple; any substantial protest is going to mean that a whole lot of people are going to miss having Thanksgiving dinner with their friends & families. That IMHO is a very big price to ask people to pay. Perhaps 90% of America will disagree with me, but I don't think so.

So again, I think that the organizers should find a different day to do this protest. Especially since it's unlikely to change anything anyhow and will only hurt many people.

Second, you don't have to take Constitutional advice from me. If there were any Constitutional grounds, groups like the NAACP and so on would have already gone to court over these rules. They aren't because the best Constitutional lawyers have informed them that they have no case to bring. And again, the main reason that there is no case is because you are buying a ticket. Anyone can attach any terms that they want to a ticket. You have the choice not to buy that ticket and agree to their terms.

Only if the Fed said "from now on, any trip over 100 miles must be taken on a plane, would things potentially be changed." The Fed isn't saying that.

Finally, you have no idea about my history of anything beyond what I say here. However, topics like my criticism of SDS quite clearly prove that I'm more than willing to challenge the whims of authority figures.

Additionally this is exactly the type of discussion that you were warned about back at the beginning of this thread. In fact, had your post been directed at any other member of this forum, it would already be gone. Insulting members is one of the few, hard & fast rules we have around here.

Now if you actually want to discuss things, please feel free to do so. But any more insults from you will find their way into the trash can and may well lead to the closure of this topic.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AlanB said:


> Any substantial protest is going to mean that a whole lot of people are going to miss having Thanksgiving dinner with their friends & families. That IMHO is a very big price to ask people to pay.


And I happen to think perpetual groping and irradiation is a bigger price to pay than being late to the caloric orgy Thanksgiving has become. I also think civil disobedience should be undertaken on the day it will have the most impact instead of on a day when few will notice or care. But maybe that's just me. If you expect the constitution to spell out precisely how much tyranny is allowed or not allowed in America you won't find it written anywhere in that document. However, that doesn't mean American citizens should just immediately accept defeat every time their privacy is ignored by an ever more belligerent government. I believe the _spirit_ of the constitution is just as relevant and worthy of protection as the application of legal enforcement. And the spirit of that document is _definitely_ under attack from what I can see. We may not be able to actively defend every attack on the constitution in court, and even when we can it costs a lot of money that's hard to come by in poor economic times like this. However, that doesn't mean we don't have an obligation to defend it by those means which are still available to us. This isn't a one-way street, people who strongly disagree with the event are still free to promote an _anti-action_ campaign asking everyone to stay home or drive. After all, as you've made abundantly clear none of us are actually being _forced_ to fly anywhere, so what's the big deal?


----------



## Ryan

daxomni said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that I didn't like citizens challenging the erosion of their civil rights?
> 
> 
> 
> You said those who were taking a stand were screwing over the helpless comatose sheep among us.
Click to expand...

Are you so blind that you're complete unable to see any middle ground between screwing over thousands of Americans and a willingness to live under the kind of totalitarian regime that you're imagining?


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have your cake and eat it too. You're perfectly aware of my source, since you attacked it. If you've got contradicting evidence, I can't wait to see it.
> 
> 
> 
> I have absolutely no idea what your source is because you have refused to give it.
Click to expand...

That didn't stop you from ranting and raving about how it was invalid. 


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> (on a train related note, I'm posting this while doing 125 MPH in Acela First Class - awesome!)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic, but yes, we're all very happy that America has finally caught up with the cutting edge speeds of 1964.
Click to expand...

Nothing at all, I just thought that since we're on a board talking about Amtrak that it would be of interest.
Here's a citation for you - if you have an issue with it, take it up with Reuters or the FAA.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60553920100106


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ryan said:


> That didn't stop you from ranting and raving about how it was invalid.


In the English language _rant_ generally refers to negative comments while _rave_ generally refers to positive comments, so you might want to pick one or the other next time, but not both.



Ryan said:


> Here's a citation for you - if you have an issue with it, take it up with Reuters or the FAA. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60553920100106


All I see there is that the "two minutes of flying" soundbite actually comes from the TSA itself and that no study details or methodology are included in the article. In other words, easily repeatable sound bites with no actual substance behind them.


----------



## AlanB

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any substantial protest is going to mean that a whole lot of people are going to miss having Thanksgiving dinner with their friends & families. That IMHO is a very big price to ask people to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> And I happen to think perpetual groping and irradiation is a bigger price to pay than being late to the caloric orgy Thanksgiving has become. I also think civil disobedience should be undertaken on the day it will have the most impact instead of on a day when few will notice or care. But maybe that's just me.
Click to expand...

No argument that many will stuff their faces on that Thursday. But it is about more than just that. This is one of the few times of the year that families get together. Brother & sisters, parents & grandparents, people who may not see each other for months on end due to the distances involved and the rigors of daily life.

As someone who just 8 months ago carried his father to his final rest, I can assure you that those moments are important and precious. In fact, one of the bigger problems that I believe faces our country and society in general is the lack of family for so many. Granted big weekends like this aren't going to solve that problem all on its own, but it is a start and it is a reminder to try and do better.



daxomni said:


> If you expect the constitution to spell out precisely how much tyranny is allowed or not allowed in America you won't find it written anywhere in that document. However, that doesn't mean American citizens should just immediately accept defeat every time their privacy is ignored by an ever more belligerent government. I believe the _spirit_ of the constitution is just as relevant and worthy of protection as the application of legal enforcement. And the spirit of that document is _definitely_ under attack from what I can see. We may not be able to actively defend every attack on the constitution in court, and even when we can it costs a lot of money that's hard to come by in poor economic times like this. However, that doesn't mean we don't have an obligation to defend it by those means which are still available to us. This isn't a one-way street, people who strongly disagree with the event are still free to promote an _anti-action_ campaign asking everyone to stay home or drive. After all, as you've made abundantly clear none of us are actually being _forced_ to fly anywhere, so what's the big deal?


I'm not expecting the Constitution to spell anything out for me, although I do have a very good understanding of it.

I'm basing my statements upon the fact that there are any number of civil rights lawyers that would love to sink their teeth into any Constitutional issues and get their names in the paper if they could. The fact that none are stepping up to the plate to do so tells me that they know that this is not a Constitutional issue. It would get tossed out of court long before it ever got near the Supreme Court.

It would probably be thrown out of the first court to see the case, and it's doubtful that any appeals court would even hear an appeal much less force the court to have a trial. There is no Constitutional issue to attack in this case.


----------



## jis

Ryan said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are now being forced to choose between irradiation and vigorous groping with no other options available to us.
> 
> 
> 
> The radiation from one scan is equivalent to the radiation that you get from cruising at altitude for 2 minutes. Utterly insignificant.
Click to expand...

Are we talking here of the mm radiation devices or the backscatter X-Ray devices? My understanding is that there are some doubts about the X-Ray devices, or so said a biophysicist professor whose opinion I trust more on such matters than AFAIK anyone on this forum. However, since I am no expert I won't argue the point. I'd just want to see an impartial study that does not involve the manufacturer of the devices or the TSA as funding source. If I can find such a study then I'd take it to him and ask him about what he thinks of it. I hasten to add that none of you have to believe or not any of this because I say so.


----------



## Ryan

daxomni said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That didn't stop you from ranting and raving about how it was invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> In the English language _rant_ generally refers to negative comments while _rave_ generally refers to positive comments, so you might want to pick one or the other next time, but not both.
Click to expand...

Really? After all of that, you're still attacking the poster and style and not substance? Do you want to keep playing word games or have a grown up conversation?

Jis, the article was referring to the backscatter. I'd love to see some testing of both - as infrequently as I fly, I don't really have a dog in that fight, but it would be good to have some actual medical data.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> Are we talking here of the mm radiation devices or the backscatter X-Ray devices? My understanding is that there are some doubts about the X-Ray devices, or so said a biophysicist professor whose opinion I trust more on such matters than AFAIK anyone on this forum. However, since I am no expert I won't argue the point. I'd just want to see an impartial study that does not involve the manufacturer of the devices or the TSA as funding source. If I can find such a study then I'd take it to him and ask him about what he thinks of it.


I wholeheartedly agree. But until that day comes, I want the TSA to put the breaks on this Guinea pig process they've put together. Instead they've started moving in the opposite direction by using increasingly vigorous groping as some sort of bizarre deterrent to opting out.



Ryan said:


> Really? After all of that, you're still attacking the poster and style and not substance? Do you want to keep playing word games or have a grown up conversation?


Another personal attack disguised as a rant _against_ personal attacks? Bravo.


----------



## jis

daxomni said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we talking here of the mm radiation devices or the backscatter X-Ray devices? My understanding is that there are some doubts about the X-Ray devices, or so said a biophysicist professor whose opinion I trust more on such matters than AFAIK anyone on this forum. However, since I am no expert I won't argue the point. I'd just want to see an impartial study that does not involve the manufacturer of the devices or the TSA as funding source. If I can find such a study then I'd take it to him and ask him about what he thinks of it.
> 
> 
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree. But until that day comes, I want the TSA to put the breaks on this Guinea pig process they've put together. Instead they've started moving in the opposite direction by using increasingly vigorous groping as some sort of bizarre deterrent to opting out.
Click to expand...

Dax, you hit the nail on the head. Read this one:

For the First Time, TSA meets Resistance.

'Are Any Parts of Your Body Sore?' Asks the Man From TSA

and a related article:

TSA Desktop Image Makes Joke of Cavity Searching Children

and here is a good one 

TSA Body Scanning is Completely Safe..... unless

All from completely reputable sources, so hopefully they will not be edited out by the moderators.


----------



## jis

The Wikipedia actually has a very interesting article on Backscatter X-Ray Scanners, which is not exactly conclusive in any particular way but presents a spectrum of studies and opinions concerning their safety.

Incidentally, you can check out the Flame Fest at Airliners.net on this subject.

And here is the official web site:

http://www.optoutday.com/

As it turns out I will be flying on that day  It should be interesting.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Alan I disagree that this isn't a Constitutional issue. I think that it is one of the many issues that the Supreme Court should eventually pick up on-- the question is "are these laws Constitutional" do they violate the 4th Amendment? Furthermore the way these regulations are enacted, without full votes by our elected representatives, rather almost exclusively the Executive branch. The reason we have a Congress is to represent popular opinion, the President to enact laws, and the Supreme Court to judge those laws.

Of course Congress is not completely blameless-- The PATRIOT Act and numerous other legislations, however the mandate that backscatters became mandatory has yet to touch Congress.

Furthermore there is the question on whether or not these orders by the TSA are carried out lawfully. Under the law if you give a choice between two evils, you have the right to choose. However it is clear from reports that the TSA has been attempting to politely bully people to take the backscatters instead of the pat down. In attempting to demonize their own actions they are passively forcing people to make the "choice".

Furthermore the TSA, especially at the lower levels have thrown around the word "contract" that implies when you buy a ticket you surrender your rights. If this is true, then contract law can be applied to TSA mandates. In particular in the US nobody under the age of 18 may enter into a legally binding contract-- therefore the TSA is forcing minors into illegal contracts. It doesn't stop at minors either.

All of the above are possible (some less plausible than others) angles to say that while lawful, these actions are not Constitutional. It is up to the judicial branch of the government to decide this.

EDIT

Perhaps to clarify my position... currently this mess IS Constitutional by virtue of no court ruling that it isn't so. However the Constitution applies to all laws of the United States, and the people have the right to bring this to a court questioning Consitutionality, specifically whether these are lawfully conducted searches or not.


----------



## AlanB

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Alan I disagree that this isn't a Constitutional issue. I think that it is one of the many issues that the Supreme Court should eventually pick up on-- the question is "are these laws Constitutional" do they violate the 4th Amendment? Furthermore the way these regulations are enacted, without full votes by our elected representatives, rather almost exclusively the Executive branch. The reason we have a Congress is to represent popular opinion, the President to enact laws, and the Supreme Court to judge those laws.


Congress doesn't vote everytime the FRA passes a new rule.

And the TSA isn't issuing laws, they are passing rules. Rules that you must comply with if you wish to board an airplane.



ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Furthermore the TSA, especially at the lower levels have thrown around the word "contract" that implies when you buy a ticket you surrender your rights. If this is true, then contract law can be applied to TSA mandates. In particular in the US nobody under the age of 18 may enter into a legally binding contract-- therefore the TSA is forcing minors into illegal contracts. It doesn't stop at minors either.


True, minors cannot enter into a legally binding contract. That's why minors can't buy airline tickets. Mom and dad do (or legal guardians), since they are authorized to enter into a legally binding contract on behalf of their children.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

No, and that's okay. But when said rule is starting to annoy millions of people and they're getting mad-- the representative body has a responsibility to get into the fray, especially if its a federal agency that imposes said rule.

And yes, if parents buy for their children then they should also make the decision if the children take the backscatter or pat down, and they should also be for-warned that their children may be subject to the same screening as they are.


----------



## jis

I think the current problem is that DHS has been given too much leeway in rule making on matters related fundamental values of the nation, without having gone through a proper debate on those matters. The issue of balance between policing and freedoms is smack dab in the middle of that. I think this debate needs to be entered into starting with the Congress and the President leading by curbing DHS's rule making freedoms in this area pending such a debate taking place, except in reasonably agreed upon emergency situations. If they are incapable of handling such a simple matter bearing upon the very essence of who we are then it should be reasonable to consider replacing them as elections come by, by those that can.

There is no point in succumbing wholesale to the desires of the Osama's of the world by unilaterally destroying all that we stand for out of fear of terrorism.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Hypothetical TSA full-body scanner situation.


----------



## Ryan

jis said:


> *There is no point in succumbing wholesale to the desires of the Osama's of the world by unilaterally destroying all that we stand for out of fear of terrorism.*


Absolute Truth right there, ladies and gents.

The amount of money and focus on security at airports is ridiculously disproportionate to the threat, and Osama and his pals are doubtless laughing with amusement every time something like this boils to the top of our national consciousness.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Well said Jis, it's time the government got involved in actually governing. Our ELECTED officials are letting APPOINTED officials do their jobs just because they want reelected. I think that appointees have too much power, or at least the elected oenes aren't doing their job to check their power. The Legislative branchnshould be checking the real threat in Executive, but instead of worrying about what certain appointees do they're attacking the very top of tthe food chain.


----------



## AlanB

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> No, and that's okay. But when said rule is starting to annoy millions of people and they're getting mad-- the representative body has a responsibility to get into the fray, especially if its a federal agency that imposes said rule.
> 
> And yes, if parents buy for their children then they should also make the decision if the children take the backscatter or pat down, and they should also be for-warned that their children may be subject to the same screening as they are.





jis said:


> I think the current problem is that DHS has been given too much leeway in rule making on matters related fundamental values of the nation, without having gone through a proper debate on those matters. The issue of balance between policing and freedoms is smack dab in the middle of that. I think this debate needs to be entered into starting with the Congress and the President leading by curbing DHS's rule making freedoms in this area pending such a debate taking place, except in reasonably agreed upon emergency situations. If they are incapable of handling such a simple matter bearing upon the very essence of who we are then it should be reasonable to consider replacing them as elections come by, by those that can.
> 
> There is no point in succumbing wholesale to the desires of the Osama's of the world by unilaterally destroying all that we stand for out of fear of terrorism.


I wouldn't argue any of what's been said in these two posts. And I've said before that much of what's being done isn't really keeping us safe. There a plenty of other, better things that we could be doing. We should start with looking at what Isreal has been doing for years.

My main point through all of this is that this isn't a Constitutional issue. I'm not condoing it; just saying that the Constitution doesn't come into play.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Precisely, not yet anyway. I think the greatest way to challenge the TSA is to make it a Constitutional issue by trying to set a legal precedent where a federal court rules one of it's executive policies unconstitutional.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AlanB said:


> My main point through all of this is that this isn't a Constitutional issue. I'm not condoing it; just saying that the Constitution doesn't come into play.


So what exactly _does_ come into play? In other words, what _are_ you willing to condone?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> My main point through all of this is that this isn't a Constitutional issue. I'm not condoing it; just saying that the Constitution doesn't come into play.
> 
> 
> 
> So what exactly _does_ come into play? In other words, what _are_ you willing to condone?
Click to expand...

He condones what jis and I have said, that there needs to be action on the other two sides of our government to check this power.

There are two different views of how the Constitution applies. Alan is right, this isn't in the Constitution, the Constitution doesn't speculate anything about it, they never foresaw it. It is therefore impossible to say "the stuff the TSA imposes is a violation of privacy and unconstitutional". However there is enough to say that, under the fourth amendment, "these laws are not carried out in line with the constitution"

The TSA policies only INDIRECTLY challenge the Constitution.

An example of a DIRECT opposition of the Constitution is if a Sheriff stopped all women from voting in his county, as according to the Vonstitution, women have the right to vote.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Of course that presupposes the Judicial rule that it in any fashion opposes the Constitution, if they do not rule so then this behavior will remain as it is. Status quo, this behavior is constitutional.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

I was watching the early show and they were talking about this type of protest. They also showed the new frisking technique where the female tsa searches around the breast etc. Of course with a tv camera on you your going to do everything by the book.They also said how the scanners are new and not every airport has them yet. and one guy said if your at a airport that has the magnetometers to go for that. The tsa does not have enough people to do hand searchers so with this large protest its going to cause big problems. He also said you can opt out of the scanners anyway but they won't tell you that you have to ask.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

FYI updated airport list from Flyertalk;

Complete List of Airports with Whole Body Imaging/Advanced Imaging Technology Scanner


----------



## leemell

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Precisely, not yet anyway. I think the greatest way to challenge the TSA is to make it a Constitutional issue by trying to set a legal precedent where a federal court rules one of it's executive policies unconstitutional.


There, at last. This is what should happen. Opt out protests are just going to annoy and punish tens of thousands of people and not accomplish anything beyond that. It is the courts that must decide or Congress must change the law.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

leemell said:


> There, at last. This is what should happen. Opt out protests are just going to annoy and punish tens of thousands of people and not accomplish anything beyond that. It is the courts that must decide or Congress must change the law.


Even though I disagree with Alan that this isn't a court issue I do agree that the Roberts Court has given us little reason to expect any ruling supporting reinstatement of our eroding civil liberties. I'm not aware of any congressperson who actively campaigned on pushing back against the TSA's encroachment. And frankly, it might hurt a politician's funding levels or push the companies who manufacture and sell these scanners to fund the opponents of anyone who takes on the TSA's mandate. This is a runaway train that needs a serious wake-up call to be stopped. That's why people are looking to really shake things up this holiday season. People are slowly getting fed up with this mess and some of them are even ready to put their actions where their mouth is. The sheep are already being irradiated and groped, they're just pointing out to them how bizarre this security theater has finally become. If you don't like people sticking up for their own rights when nobody else will then don't fly.


----------



## Ryan

daxomni said:


> If you don't like people sticking up for their own rights when nobody else will then don't fly.


You still don't get that it isn't the fact that people are sticking up for their rights, but the manner in which they are going about doing it.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ryan said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like people sticking up for their own rights when nobody else will then don't fly.
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get that it isn't the fact that people are sticking up for their rights, but the manner in which they are going about doing it.
Click to expand...

And your suggestion for alternative corrective action on the part of the citizenry is...? If you think the courts or congress will fix this on their own as some folks seem to, then you have a lot more faith in our politicians than I do.


----------



## AlanB

daxomni said:


> Even though I disagree with Alan that this isn't a court issue I do agree that the Roberts Court has given us little reason to expect any ruling supporting reinstatement of our eroding civil liberties. I'm not aware of any congressperson who actively campaigned on pushing back against the TSA's encroachment. And frankly, it might hurt a politician's funding levels or push the companies who manufacture and sell these scanners to fund the opponents of anyone who takes on the TSA's mandate. This is a runaway train that needs a serious wake-up call to be stopped. That's why people are looking to really shake things up this holiday season. People are slowly getting fed up with this mess and some of them are even ready to put their actions where their mouth is. The sheep are already being irradiated and groped, they're just pointing out to them how bizarre this security theater has finally become. If you don't like people sticking up for their own rights when nobody else will then don't fly.


I didn't say that this wasn't a court issue. Not once!

I said that this isn't a Constitutional issue. There may well be ways to challenge this in court, ways that might even see the TSA being forced to reverse things.

But the idea that this violates your 4th amendment rights to search & seizure is wrong. You made the choice to ride that plane. It is not your private property, nor is the airport. You brought the ticket voluntarily and as part of that contract to carry you to your destination you have agreed to what ever measures of security are deemed necessary.

If I owned my own plane and the TSA wanted to come onto my plane and perform such a pat down, then the 4th amendment would apply. They are on my property!

But the only ways to get this changed and it should be changed, are to find some other legal challenge or to put enough pressure on both Congress & the White House to make changes to the policies. But the 4th amendment is a legal dead end that will go no where. Like I said way back in the beginning, there are dozens of lawyers who would just love to be able to take on such a challenge. They aren't doing it because they know that they have no hope of winning and that most likely the case would be tossed out of a lower court long before the Supremes ever heard of it; much less consider hearing the case.

And I continue to believe that any protests on the day before Thanksgiving, especially in light of the fact that there is almost zero publicity about this is a mistake. The people who are going to be hurt the most by this protest are those trying to get home for some quality family time.

Something like this would be much better to do say during peak summer travel times. Yes, some people will have their vacation plans screwed up, but the impact on the innocent would be much less than it will be on Wednesday.


----------



## Ryan

daxomni said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like people sticking up for their own rights when nobody else will then don't fly.
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get that it isn't the fact that people are sticking up for their rights, but the manner in which they are going about doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your suggestion for alternative corrective action on the part of the citizenry is...?
Click to expand...

Something like what this guy is doing. Tons of publicity, no innocent bystanders inconvenienced. It'll be interesting to see if the threatened civil penalties develop.


> If you think the courts or congress will fix this on their own as some folks seem to, then you have a lot more faith in our politicians than I do.


I don't, nor to I see anyone that does.


----------



## leemell

Ryan said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like people sticking up for their own rights when nobody else will then don't fly.
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get that it isn't the fact that people are sticking up for their rights, but the manner in which they are going about doing it.
Click to expand...

And a lot of the irritated people are going to be very turned off and will come out against the protesters and their issue because of it.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ryan said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your suggestion for alternative corrective action on the part of the citizenry is...?
> 
> 
> 
> Something like what this guy is doing. Tons of publicity, no innocent bystanders inconvenienced. It'll be interesting to see if the threatened civil penalties develop.
Click to expand...

Your suggestion is for the citizenry to risk incarceration and/or civil penalties that could reach ten grand or more? I tend to _avoid_ suggesting other people do something I myself would never do. Sounds more than a little disingenuous if you don't mind my saying so. I don't mind suggesting (or participating in) the November 24th event because it's completely legal if done with the slightest bit of care and forethought and won't result in expensive, tedious and potentially career-altering prosecutions that vastly dwarf the seriousness of the original problem.



leemell said:


> And a lot of the irritated people are going to be very turned off and will come out against the protesters and their issue because of it.


There will always be millions of proudly ignorant people who intentionally confuse the messenger with the problem and will do everything they can to ensure no good deed will ever go unpunished. The only part I don't understand is why we should care what the sheeple think. That's like trying to explain to a child why they need a vaccination shot. Sometimes you just have to force the solution on them and let them think whatever they want about it.


----------



## Ryan

daxomni said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your suggestion for alternative corrective action on the part of the citizenry is...?
> 
> 
> 
> Something like what this guy is doing. Tons of publicity, no innocent bystanders inconvenienced. It'll be interesting to see if the threatened civil penalties develop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your suggestion is for the citizenry to risk incarceration and/or civil penalties that could reach ten grand or more? I tend to _avoid_ suggesting other people do something I myself would never do. I don't mind suggesting (or participating in) the November 24th event because it's completely legal if done with the slightest bit of care and forethought and won't result in expensive, tedious and potentially career-altering prosecutions that vastly dwarf the seriousness of the original problem.
Click to expand...

That's pretty damn selfish. You've got no problem screwing over your fellow man (and gaining nothing in the process), but God forbid that you take a risk that could end badly for yourself (but may actually get the problem in front of a judge where the problem can be rectified).
That's a real courageous stand you're talking about taking there.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ryan said:


> That's pretty damn selfish. You've got no problem screwing over your fellow man (and gaining nothing in the process), but God forbid that you take a risk that could end badly for yourself (but may actually get the problem in front of a judge where the problem can be rectified). That's a real courageous stand you're talking about taking there.


You're a real piece of work there Ryan, seriously, all I can do is laugh at your endless feigned confusion and blatant hypocrisy. Lets hope nobody sees you as any sort of role model for how citizens should act.


----------



## Ryan

And again, when you have to substance to respond with, you resort to the content free personal attack. Try arguing how you think that pissing people off is going to work better at getting this crap repealed then getting the subject in front of a judge that can actually do something. Or, if you'd prefer to continue this stupid little personal feud that you can't seem to resist, try pointing out anything confusing or hypocritical that I've said in this thread.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

You're not even worth the trouble Ryan. I've yet to see you make one substantive post. Your only point seems to be wasting the time of people who actually care about this issue.


----------



## AlanB

The only way that things will get changed is if enough Americans protest about the policies to the Congress Reps. If Thanksgiving Wednesday goes down like I think it will, the only thing that the average pissed off American who missed their flight is going to be doing is protesting the idiots who thought that picking the day before a huge American, family orientated holiday for their stunt was a good idea.

They won't be calling their Congressman about the issues with the pat downs or the scanners. If they call their Congressmen at all it will be to advocate for more TSA workers and more machines to get the job done next year so that they don't miss their holiday or to have the fools prosecuted for their stunt.

One doesn't shoot oneself in the foot to prove that guns can be dangerous.

There are much better ways and days to get the message out to the people to get them to call their Congressmen. This isn’t one of those ways/days.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

http://portal.wowway.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9JGR85G1%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018

even employees don't like it.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AlanB said:


> The only way that things will get changed is if enough Americans protest about the policies to the Congress Reps.


That sounds good, but when was the last time you actually saw average Americans banding together and standing up for the enforced protection of our civil liberties? The 1960's? That era is long forgotten my friend. As a whole, generation X and Y have shown little interest in civil activism, let alone the massive and sustained movement that would be necessary to push the TSA around. Today we live in the era of the Guinea pig. Citizens who have no concern over being repeatedly irradiated or groped. Which is just as well I suppose, it's their life after all. But the flip side of that comatose existence is that they may inadvertently become pawns in a game played by people who think outside the cage.


----------



## George Harris

Here is what the Fourth Ammendment actually says:



> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


My personal opinion is that these searches violate the "right of the people to be secure in their persons" and that because one person may decide to do something dangerous the government has chosen to require hundreds of thousands of people to be subjected to an intimate search is unreasonable. These searches also have the air of being considered guilty until proven innocent, which is also contrary to the constitution. That is to say, where is the probable cause?

The key question is whether or not we can get a series of judges to think that way, probably all the way up to the supreme court.


----------



## Ryan

daxomni said:


> You're not even worth the trouble Ryan. I've yet to see you make one substantive post. Your only point seems to be wasting the time of people who actually care about this issue.


I'll take that as a "No, you haven't said anything confusing or hypocritical, I'm just trying to deflect attention from your point since you're absolutely right, but I can't admit that."



George Harris said:


> My personal opinion is that these searches violate the "right of the people to be secure in their persons" and that because one person may decide to do something dangerous the government has chosen to require hundreds of thousands of people to be subjected to an intimate search is unreasonable.


Except for the government hasn't required it - you're perfectly welcome to avoid the search by not flying. I guess the question for the judge is going to hinge on if it's unreasonable to expect that people not fly in this day and age (which I think could really go either way).


----------



## Ryan

Here's an interesting article that raises some good points on the medical/safety side of these scanners:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/fda-sidesteps-safety-concerns-over-tsa-body-scanners.ars


----------



## AlanB

Ryan said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal opinion is that these searches violate the "right of the people to be secure in their persons" and that because one person may decide to do something dangerous the government has chosen to require hundreds of thousands of people to be subjected to an intimate search is unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the government hasn't required it - you're perfectly welcome to avoid the search by not flying. I guess the question for the judge is going to hinge on if it's unreasonable to expect that people not fly in this day and age (which I think could really go either way).
Click to expand...

And that is precisely the key Ryan, the Government didn't walk up to you and say "you have to get into this scanner or submit to the pat down because that's what I want." You brought a ticket! No one forced you to buy that ticket! It was your choice and by making that choice to buy that ticket, you gave you consent to the searches.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Gov't agencies not only _can_ save scanned images, they already _are_.

"While federal agencies have defended body scanning that looks under your clothes by saying the images are disposed of immediately, that turns out to not be the case at all."

Link to story.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

I thought that with the scanners they gave you a metal plate or something to stick over your family jewels so it didn't show up on the scanner.


----------



## Anderson

The question of whether it's reasonable to expect one to avoid flying or not is a tough one, and ultimately, it depends. In some regions, I'd say yes: The NEC leaps to mind (as does most everything north of DC...it's either drivable or you can catch a train with some flexibility in your schedule, and if you're taking a plane from DC to NYC and complaining about this, I'm going to look at you funny...you've got something like 40-50 trains a day on that route, and the NYC airports are far enough from the city center that you're probably not even saving time vs. the Acela). So do some parts of the Midwest, California, etc.

However, there are some areas where it's simply not a workable proposition: Las Vegas is tough to reach (believe me, I looked into it once), Nashville doesn't even have connecting bus service, and so on. Also, if you're traveling from, say, Chicago to LA...yeah, I think you've got a fair claim that anything but air travel is impractical in terms of the time involved, let alone the cost in some cases (a month out, net of food, New York to San Fransisco is $250-$350 and takes three days...one way. NYC-LA is marginally better at $200...but again, this is net of food and is one way). Even under generous cost assumptions as far as food goes, you're looking at spending at least twice what a competitive round trip airfare would run and taking a week for the round trip. Greyhound is at least competitive with the airlines in terms of cost...but again, you're looking at a week on the road, and on some schedules you've got 12 hours or more without a listed food stop.

So...it's a mixed situation. Sometimes it is reasonable to expect someone to not fly, sometimes it's not reasonable to expect it. Mind you, none of this gets into international travel or Alaska/Hawaii travel (if you've got to go to one or the other for some reason, I'd submit that non-airline alternatives do not exist in practical terms, particularly over the winter in the case of Alaska...and any time in the case of Hawaii).


----------



## MrFSS

US insists full-body airport scanners are safe, saying machines give off minuscule radiation

By LINDSEY TANNER

AP Medical Writer

CHICAGO (AP) -- They look a little like giant refrigerators and pack a radiation dose big enough to peer through clothing for bombs or weapons, yet too minuscule to be harmful, federal officials insist.

As the government rolls out hundreds more full-body scanners at airports just in time for crowds of holiday travelers, it is working to reassure the public that the machines are safe.

*FULL STORY*


----------



## PetalumaLoco

MrFSS said:


> US insists full-body airport scanners are safe, saying machines give off minuscule radiation
> 
> By LINDSEY TANNER
> 
> AP Medical Writer
> 
> CHICAGO (AP) -- They look a little like giant refrigerators and pack a radiation dose big enough to peer through clothing for bombs or weapons, yet too minuscule to be harmful, federal officials insist.
> 
> As the government rolls out hundreds more full-body scanners at airports just in time for crowds of holiday travelers, it is working to reassure the public that the machines are safe.
> 
> *FULL STORY*


Having received many CT scans the last few years fighting cancer, there IS NO safe dose for me. Also, if it's "ok", why are pilots complaining about it?

Not directed against you MrFSS, just my feelings on how this is being handled.


----------



## leemell

PetalumaLoco said:


> Gov't agencies not only _can_ save scanned images, they already _are_.
> 
> "While federal agencies have defended body scanning that looks under your clothes by saying the images are disposed of immediately, that turns out to not be the case at all."
> 
> Link to story.


You know, of couse, that this is about the US Marshalls Service and that they have a totally different charge, mission, rules, and procedures. They are law enforcement, not security, that are also in the Department of Justice and not in the Department of Homeland Security.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

leemell said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gov't agencies not only _can_ save scanned images, they already _are_.
> 
> "While federal agencies have defended body scanning that looks under your clothes by saying the images are disposed of immediately, that turns out to not be the case at all."
> 
> Link to story.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, of couse, that this is about the US Marshalls Service and that they have a totally different charge, mission, rules, and procedures. They are law enforcement, not security, that are also in the Department of Justice and not in the Department of Homeland Security.
Click to expand...

Yes, the point being that they were also charged with not saving the images.


----------



## leemell

PetalumaLoco said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> 
> US insists full-body airport scanners are safe, saying machines give off minuscule radiation
> 
> By LINDSEY TANNER
> 
> AP Medical Writer
> 
> CHICAGO (AP) -- They look a little like giant refrigerators and pack a radiation dose big enough to peer through clothing for bombs or weapons, yet too minuscule to be harmful, federal officials insist.
> 
> As the government rolls out hundreds more full-body scanners at airports just in time for crowds of holiday travelers, it is working to reassure the public that the machines are safe.
> 
> *FULL STORY*
> 
> 
> 
> Having received many CT scans the last few years fighting cancer, there IS NO safe dose for me. Also, if it's "ok", why are pilots complaining about it?
> 
> Not directed against you MrFSS, just my feelings on how this is being handled.
Click to expand...

Well, here is another report that should set some context:

"A passenger would need to be scanned using a backscatter scanner, from both the front and the back, about 200,000 times to receive the amount of radiation equal to one typical CT scan," said Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City.

"Another way to look at this is that if you were scanned with a backscatter scanner every day of your life, you would still only receive a tenth of the dose of a typical CT scan," he said.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

CT scans are not the trivial amounts of radiation Americans seem to think they are. In any case, until we have independent analysis of these new scanners I don't see how we're supposed to ascertain their potential for risk among such a large number of routine travelers. Many questions with few independently studied answers leaves me wanting more studies and information before we write off any chance of long-term risk.


----------



## leemell

daxomni said:


> CT scans are not the trivial amounts of radiation Americans seem to think they are. In any case, until we have independent analysis of these new scanners I don't see how we're supposed to ascertain their potential for risk among such a large number of routine travelers. Many questions with few independently studied answers leaves me wanting more studies and information before we write off any chance of long-term risk.


I cannot quote the source, but just read that the dosage from an ordinary chest x-ray is equivalent to 5000 backscatter x-ray scans. That puts the CT scan at 4 times the chest x-ray. Those numbers seem to be the right order of magnitude.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

leemell said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> 
> US insists full-body airport scanners are safe, saying machines give off minuscule radiation
> 
> By LINDSEY TANNER
> 
> AP Medical Writer
> 
> CHICAGO (AP) -- They look a little like giant refrigerators and pack a radiation dose big enough to peer through clothing for bombs or weapons, yet too minuscule to be harmful, federal officials insist.
> 
> As the government rolls out hundreds more full-body scanners at airports just in time for crowds of holiday travelers, it is working to reassure the public that the machines are safe.
> 
> *FULL STORY*
> 
> 
> 
> Having received many CT scans the last few years fighting cancer, there IS NO safe dose for me. Also, if it's "ok", why are pilots complaining about it?
> 
> Not directed against you MrFSS, just my feelings on how this is being handled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, here is another report that should set some context:
> 
> "A passenger would need to be scanned using a backscatter scanner, from both the front and the back, about 200,000 times to receive the amount of radiation equal to one typical CT scan," said Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City.
> 
> "Another way to look at this is that if you were scanned with a backscatter scanner every day of your life, you would still only receive a tenth of the dose of a typical CT scan," he said.
Click to expand...

OK, we'll let my experts duke it out with your experts. Meanwhile, I won't step into a backscatter scanner while they figure out who's right.


----------



## leemell

daxomni said:


> CT scans are not the trivial amounts of radiation Americans seem to think they are. In any case, until we have independent analysis of these new scanners I don't see how we're supposed to ascertain their potential for risk among such a large number of routine travelers. Many questions with few independently studied answers leaves me wanting more studies and information before we write off any chance of long-term risk.



Here is a couple, one is independent of the TSA:

"The Health Physics Society (HPS) ( http://www.hps.org/) reports that a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 millirems (or 0.05 μSv) of radiation; American Science and Engineering Inc. reports 0.009 mrems (0.09 μSv).[9] According to U.S. regulatory agencies, "1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure". (http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/backscatter.htm)


----------



## Devil's Advocate

leemell said:


> I cannot quote the source, but just read that the dosage from an ordinary chest x-ray is equivalent to 5000 backscatter x-ray scans. That puts the CT scan at 4 times the chest x-ray. Those numbers seem to be the right order of magnitude.


The last time I looked it up full abdominal CT scans generally resulted in dosages hundreds of times that of a conventional chest x-ray. Of course there are many variables in that equation that we have yet to touch on. Whatever we're willing to call a "safe" dose of radiation is a matter of debate even among the experts and varies both by subject and by point of exposure. As these scans are being applied indiscriminately to a very large population of subjects I find it concerning, especially with regard to children and those who have received higher-than-average exposure to other radiation sources. Remember we don't have controlled studies to show us how much radiation a child or a baby can receive before it does any harm, largely because those studies would be illegal and immoral. So we make a guess and hope for the best, but it's not something we should assume is a fully known quantity. It doesn't sound as though you have a dog in this race, and yet you appear rather adamant that we stop questioning the objectivity and veracity of the little information the TSA is willing to give us.


----------



## leemell

daxomni said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot quote the source, but just read that the dosage from an ordinary chest x-ray is equivalent to 5000 backscatter x-ray scans. That puts the CT scan at 4 times the chest x-ray. Those numbers seem to be the right order of magnitude.
> 
> 
> 
> The last time I looked it up full abdominal CT scans generally resulted in dosages hundreds of times that of a conventional chest x-ray. Of course there are many variables in that equation that we have yet to touch on. Whatever we're willing to call a "safe" dose of radiation is a matter of debate even among the experts and varies both by subject and by point of exposure. As these scans are being applied indiscriminately to a very large population of subjects I find it concerning, especially with regard to children and those who have received higher-than-average exposure to other radiation sources. Remember we don't have controlled studies to show us how much radiation a child or a baby can receive before it does any harm, largely because those studies would be illegal and immoral. So we make a guess and hope for the best, but it's not something we should assume is a fully known quantity. It doesn't sound as though you have a dog in this race, and yet you appear rather adamant that we stop questioning the objectivity and veracity of the little information the TSA is willing to give us.
Click to expand...

If you read my last post, there are numbers there that the TSA did not generate and they seem to support the TSA. I am not saying not to question TSA numbers, but there are other sources of good scientific repute. Backscatter radiation is not a new technology, just in a new public application. I have worked with and around for ionizing radiation for a major portion of my working life and have served as a Safety Engineer in one of the premier scientific organizations in the world.

I do have a dog in this race, as does anybody who flies commercial.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

leemell said:


> If you read my last post, there are numbers there that the TSA did not generate and they seem to support the TSA.


I was not aware the TSA had generated their own numbers. I thought they were simply regurgitating the same numbers that the manufacturers had released to them. HPS is apparently claiming the dosage received is lower than even the manufacturer claims, but without more information on the testing and methodology used it's hard to know how important that is.



leemell said:


> I have worked with and around for ionizing radiation for a major portion of my working life and have served as a Safety Engineer in one of the premier scientific organizations in the world.


Then I would expect you to understand my concerns about the levels we arbitrarily prescribe as "safe" to subjects we can't actually test against in a controlled manner.


----------



## MrFSS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Transportation Security Administration has agreed to allow airline pilots to skip security scanning and pat-downs, pilot organizations said Friday. Pilots traveling in uniform on airline business will be allowed to pass security by presenting two photo IDs, one from their company and one from the government, to be checked against a secure flight crew database, officials at the pilot groups said.

*FULL STORY*


----------



## the_traveler

I opt out of airport scanners almost everyday! Unless I need to be somewhere yesterday, I'll take the train, and not have to deal with this waste of time, money and privacy!


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal opinion is that these searches violate the "right of the people to be secure in their persons" and that because one person may decide to do something dangerous the government has chosen to require hundreds of thousands of people to be subjected to an intimate search is unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the government hasn't required it - you're perfectly welcome to avoid the search by not flying. I guess the question for the judge is going to hinge on if it's unreasonable to expect that people not fly in this day and age (which I think could really go either way).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that is precisely the key Ryan, the Government didn't walk up to you and say "you have to get into this scanner or submit to the pat down because that's what I want." You brought a ticket! No one forced you to buy that ticket! It was your choice and by making that choice to buy that ticket, you gave you consent to the searches.
Click to expand...

However, the same argument does not work on highways. One could say no one asked you to get on a highway. So therefore if you are on a highway we could apply some rule set down by us to search your vehicle without any suspicion about anything. I am told that argument usually does not work very well in case of highways.

Again, I have zero legal training of this sort or any sort. But I notice that today New York Times has a whole article on this issue, and reading that it was clear to me that even in the legal community this is not such a cut and dried, open and shut case as some of you are trying to make it out to be. I think it will need to play its way through the courts before we will know for sure.


----------



## Ryan

I don't disagree! The biggest difference in my mind is that in the case of the highway, there's a long history of court cases that pretty clearly delineate what's legal and what's not. On the other hand, the TSA has been reasonably free from judicial oversight - time to get some cases before the courts and get a reasonable set of rules laid out.


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal opinion is that these searches violate the "right of the people to be secure in their persons" and that because one person may decide to do something dangerous the government has chosen to require hundreds of thousands of people to be subjected to an intimate search is unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the government hasn't required it - you're perfectly welcome to avoid the search by not flying. I guess the question for the judge is going to hinge on if it's unreasonable to expect that people not fly in this day and age (which I think could really go either way).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that is precisely the key Ryan, the Government didn't walk up to you and say "you have to get into this scanner or submit to the pat down because that's what I want." You brought a ticket! No one forced you to buy that ticket! It was your choice and by making that choice to buy that ticket, you gave you consent to the searches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However, the same argument does not work on highways. One could say no one asked you to get on a highway. So therefore if you are on a highway we could apply some rule set down by us to search your vehicle without any suspicion about anything. I am told that argument usually does not work very well in case of highways.
> 
> Again, I have zero legal training of this sort or any sort. But I notice that today New York Times has a whole article on this issue, and reading that it was clear to me that even in the legal community this is not such a cut and dried, open and shut case as some of you are trying to make it out to be. I think it will need to play its way through the courts before we will know for sure.
Click to expand...

While true that no one asked you to get on a highway, there are differences.

1) You didn't buy a ticket and enter into a legal contract to drive on that highway; not to mention that in most cases it is a public (Government owned) highway.

2) You are in your own private vehicle that you purchased with your own money.

I will also mention one other item here. First let me note that in this case the "search & seizure" isn't as severe as what's happening in the airports. That is to say, they are only searching luggage, backpacks, and large bags. But here in NY City they started a few years ago with random searches of any large bag for people boarding subways & commuter trains. While I personally think that these searches are an even bigger joke in terms of providing security than what the TSA is doing, nonetheless the city was taken to court by the ACLU I believe (maybe even others) on the 4th amendment.

The courts ruled in the city's favor, and the searches continue.

I consider them a joke because you can just turn around and walk out of the station and board elsewhere, which is what any terrorist with even half a brain would do. I've done that at least once at my home station, walking to the next nearest one. And twice while in Manhattan I've seen them searching at one set of turnstiles, so I just walked to the next set and totally avoided the need to be singled out and searched. I've had nothing dangerous in my backpack, unless one considers a laptop a weapon. I suppose if I smacked someone with it maybe it could be. I just didn't want the hassle and the wait.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> While true that no one asked you to get on a highway, there are differences.
> 
> 1) You didn't buy a ticket and enter into a legal contract to drive on that highway; not to mention that in most cases it is a public (Government owned) highway.


As are airports government or government agency owned, so what is your point? Also what exactly is the difference between a toll highway and a service for which you need to buy a ticket? I am afraid I am not seeing the distinction.

The main point is that until now there was a tacit agreement (and case law support for the fact)that the searches at airport security barriers were reasonable. Hence the searches are those that are allowed within the purview of 4th Amendment.

That 4th Amendment does not apply is just a patently false statement. The question about whether these new procedure searches are reasonable or not per 4th Amendment, is the key issue that needs to be decided by the courts. On this I agree with Ryan. This is what a couple of my constitutional scholar acquaintances tell me too. Of course they could be wrong too, no doubt - but again, it is not a cut and dried issue as you have been trying to make it out to be in all your messages.

People do get confused between the searches and seizures that CBP is permitted to carry out before someone is legally admitted to the US, and the sort of searches that can be carried out while within the US. Those two are entirely different things, is what I have been told by several constitutional scholars. Again I am not one and am just stating what I have been told. The TSA searches are of the second variety.

Indeed the TSA itself on its web site clearly states: "_Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose,_". And to the extent that the searches are consistent with the 4th Amendment, one can choose not to fly if one does not like them. However, the question at hand at this moment is whether the new searches are consistent with 4th Amendment or not.

Of course such pesky things never stop government bureaucrats from figuring out ways around, hoping that no one is paying attention. Afterall in the W era, there was a period when the right of _Habeus Corpus_ (Section 9 Clause 2 of the US Constitution) was suspended by a Presidential order in 2001, but was substantially overturned by the Supreme Court in 2004. Then Congress passed a law removing right of _Habeus Corpus_ from Aliens detained in Guantanamo Bay, and even that was substantially overturned by the Supreme Court in 2006. Even then the matter was not fully resolved until President Obama by executive order restored the right to all at Guantanamo. Of course once the matter had been narrowed down to only those in Guantanamo most of the country lost interest in it.

Bottom line is, every such change should be challenged and run through the courts to establish validity. Just an Executive Order does not make something legal in and of itself, until it has been vetted through the courts.



> 2) You are in your own private vehicle that you purchased with your own money.


What about Buses? Trains on railroads? Assuming that it is only the privateness of your own car that you bought with your own money, or of a rental which by virtue of the lease agreement makes it private, it should be OK to pat down anyone and if refused to eject him/her from the highway, as long as they were not within their private car bought with their own money?

Shouldn't one being in ones private clothes count for something? 

So then since someone is not in a private car as soon as s/he steps out of his/her car, it would be OK to catch a person outside his/her car and shove him/her through a airport style patdown for just being on a certain part of highway property? And in a related area then CBP doing TSA style patdowns on Amtrak or NJT trains should be fine too, even when it is within the US borders for those legally in the US. Indeed in the latter cases you *do* buy a ticket to enter into a legal contract to be transported.

Again, (i) I don't know the nuances of the law. But in my view your position is logically inconsistent, at least in a subset of the case even on the highway. (ii) The issue boils down to the reasonableness or lack thereof of the search given the circumstances leading to the search.


----------



## jis

From the _Los Angeles Times_



> After weeks of pressure from pilot unions over controversial new airport screening measures, the Transportation Security Administration has agreed to exempt pilots from enhanced pat-downs and full body scans, pilot organizations said Friday.


See TSA Exempts Pilots from Patdowns


----------



## PetalumaLoco

This is getting just plain stupid.

Flight attendant ordered to show her prosthetic breast.

My wife has one of those. And a titanium hip. I just know they're going to give her the 3rd degree next month.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

On the plus side, Amtrak trains seem to be super packed right now. You can forget about having your own row like the old days. Although that might have as much to do with ThanksStuffing as the whole TSA thing. This year most of my family is either driving or taking the train. Hopefully they won't be turned off by the sometimes abrasive staff or the sometimes poor quality food.


----------



## leemell

jis said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> While true that no one asked you to get on a highway, there are differences.
> 
> 1) You didn't buy a ticket and enter into a legal contract to drive on that highway; not to mention that in most cases it is a public (Government owned) highway.
> 
> 
> 
> As are airports government or government agency owned, so what is your point? Also what exactly is the difference between a toll highway and a service for which you need to buy a ticket? I am afraid I am not seeing the distinction.
> 
> The main point is that until now there was a tacit agreement (and case law support for the fact)that the searches at airport security barriers were reasonable. Hence the searches are those that are allowed within the purview of 4th Amendment.
> 
> That 4th Amendment does not apply is just a patently false statement. The question about whether these new procedure searches are reasonable or not per 4th Amendment, is the key issue that needs to be decided by the courts. On this I agree with Ryan. This is what a couple of my constitutional scholar acquaintances tell me too. Of course they could be wrong too, no doubt - but again, it is not a cut and dried issue as you have been trying to make it out to be in all your messages.
> 
> People do get confused between the searches and seizures that CBP is permitted to carry out before someone is legally admitted to the US, and the sort of searches that can be carried out while within the US. Those two are entirely different things, is what I have been told by several constitutional scholars. Again I am not one and am just stating what I have been told. The TSA searches are of the second variety.
> 
> Indeed the TSA itself on its web site clearly states: "_Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose,_". And to the extent that the searches are consistent with the 4th Amendment, one can choose not to fly if one does not like them. However, the question at hand at this moment is whether the new searches are consistent with 4th Amendment or not.
> 
> [snip]
Click to expand...

The current TSA pat down is quite consistent, in fact identical with, what law enforcement has been allowed by the courts when a person is detained. The court has allowed that on the basis of officer and civilian safety, even if they are not being arrested (which is different from being detained). If the court is asked this question, then I don't really see that they will see a difference between TSA and street cop procedures as both are related to the safety of people. We shall see.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

PetalumaLoco said:


> This is getting just plain stupid.
> 
> Flight attendant ordered to show her prosthetic breast.
> 
> My wife has one of those. And a titanium hip. I just know they're going to give her the 3rd degree next month.


And all because one agent told her to put her ID on her back.

This BS has got to stop. What next ask females to strip naked so the agent can feel your fake hip?


----------



## PetalumaLoco

The latest; TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine

"...travelers with disabilities and medical conditions have “the option of requesting a private screening” and that security officers “will not ask nor require you to remove your prosthetic device, cast, or support brace.”

Yeah, right.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

Get rid of the TSA and the airport will be a better place.


----------



## jis

amtrakwolverine said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting just plain stupid.
> 
> Flight attendant ordered to show her prosthetic breast.
> 
> My wife has one of those. And a titanium hip. I just know they're going to give her the 3rd degree next month.
> 
> 
> 
> And all because one agent told her to put her ID on her back.
> 
> This BS has got to stop. What next ask females to strip naked so the agent can feel your fake hip?
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, since a replacement hip will not appear as an anomaly in an AIP image, the woman should have no problem breezing through. Nor will an explosive buried inside the body of anyone by whatever means appear as an anomaly. A prosthetic breast (not an implant) or an insulin pump or a colostomy bag are a separate matter, since they will appear as anomalies in an AIP image. Oddly enough at least some people have asserted that an underwear laced with the right kind of powder explosive won't appear as an anomaly either. If that is true then one of the last incidents that occurred would have passed through the new more rigorous screening.


----------



## jis

There is what appears to me to be a well reasoned item on _Yahoo.com_:



> How did an agency created to protect the public become the target of so much public scorn?
> After nine years of funneling travelers into ever longer lines with orders to have shoes off, sippy cups empty and laptops out for inspection, the most surprising thing about increasingly heated frustration with the federal Transportation Security Administration may be that it took so long to boil over.
> 
> The agency, a marvel of nearly instant government when it was launched in the fearful months following the 9/11 terror attacks, started out with a strong measure of public goodwill. Americans wanted the assurance of safety when they boarded planes and entrusted the government with the responsibility.
> 
> But in episode after episode since then, the TSA has demonstrated a knack for ignoring the basics of customer relations, while struggling with what experts say is an all but impossible task. It must stand as the last line against unknown terror, yet somehow do so without treating everyone from frequent business travelers to the family heading home to visit grandma as a potential terrorist.


You can read the whole article here.


----------



## jis

Now we have even Chinese satire of TSA, which is kind of ironic.... anyway take a look

 for a laugh or cry, whichever.....


----------



## Pastor Dave

I'm a veteran "protester" over the last three decades. I've stood against the military budget, the failure of many government entities to recognize same-sex marriage, and "profiling."

That being said, I've also done everything possible to recognize that the rights and benefits of society should not denied because someone might disagree with my stance. Do I disagree with the TSA rules at this point? Absolutely, I think they border on the edge of paranoia and insanity. But I can also find less-agressive ways of making my point than preventing someone from getting home to a Thanksgiving with their family.

In the end, all of this stuff ends up being judicial. Rather than create havoc for travellers who just want to see their loved ones, call your legislator and ask others to do so as well. It may not have the immediate (instant gratification) result that we so often desire, but a consistent, grass-roots effort has a better chance of being successful in the end (this is just my personal experience, but I am open to other viewpoints as well.)


----------



## George Harris

leemell said:


> The current TSA pat down is quite consistent, in fact identical with, what law enforcement has been allowed by the courts when a person is detained. The court has allowed that on the basis of officer and civilian safety, even if they are not being arrested (which is different from being detained). If the court is asked this question, then I don't really see that they will see a difference between TSA and street cop procedures as both are related to the safety of people. We shall see.


I see no reason for either to be applied at an airport. Generally to "detain" someone at least requires some grounds. There is none here.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

Security protest could disrupt Thanksgiving travel

and check this out

Underwear invention protects privacy at airport


----------



## jis

amtrakwolverine said:


> and check this out
> 
> Underwear invention protects privacy at airport


So that would show up as an anomaly leading to a pat down, possibly with much poking and prodding in that area. Brilliant! Why not just opt-out and make the process shorter?


----------



## amtrakwolverine

What not to wear? Clothing a security line issue


----------



## jis

See this article from the _Daily Tech_.

In summary:



> The British Department for Transport (DfT) and the Home Office tested the new 3D scanners thoroughly and found that while they were relatively accurate in catching high-density materials that pat-downs missed (such as knives, box-cutters, or other problem items), they failed to detect most low-density items, including bags of liquid.
> The Christmas Day bomber used a 3 oz. package of the chemical powder PETN (pentaerythritol tetranitrate), disguised in his crotch. Hard to detect in a pat down, British politicians familiar with the country's internal research say that "millimeter-wave" scanners would also likely fail to spot the bag of low-density chemical explosives.


If this is true then the very threat that is supposed to be addressed by the full body scanners, turns out, cannot be prevented or addressed with any significant certainty, and it is good at catching things that we could mostly catch already - though I guess we shall grant that a ceramic knife would be better detected by the scanner, provided it is not nicely hidden away somewhere inside the body  , Meanwhile we will catch all colostomy bags and prosthetic boobs that are there to catch. Oh well.......


----------



## amtrakwolverine

So if a passenger gets on the plane covered in pee we know why.


----------



## leemell

George Harris said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current TSA pat down is quite consistent, in fact identical with, what law enforcement has been allowed by the courts when a person is detained. The court has allowed that on the basis of officer and civilian safety, even if they are not being arrested (which is different from being detained). If the court is asked this question, then I don't really see that they will see a difference between TSA and street cop procedures as both are related to the safety of people. We shall see.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason for either to be applied at an airport. Generally to "detain" someone at least requires some grounds. There is none here.
Click to expand...

The point of both is the search for weapons and the safety of all personnel, hence the similarity of technique.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

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

And hilarity ensues...


----------



## the_traveler

I opted out of the airport totally!




Does that count?





Nobody at home even tried to pat me down!


----------



## MattW

Yep, based on the news reports, the packed train stations, ghost town airports and tsa's own reaction, I'd call NOOD a complete and total success. What's particularly interesting is that the tsa actually shut down many of the insta-porns such that there was nothing to opt out of. I'm wondering if they went right back to status quo after NOOD, then these one-flight-a-year people leaving will see what's really going on, on their return trip and the opt-outers who were unable to opt-out going, will be able to opt-out coming back. Won't have the same big effect yesterday would have, but it's a start.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

According to the news weather not NOOD was the cause of delays.


----------



## PRR 60

I'll rank Opt-Out Day with the bird flu and Y2K as a media-created non-event.


----------



## jim hudson

the_traveler said:


> I opted out of the airport totally!
> 
> 
> 
> Does that count?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody at home even tried to pat me down!


Me too, only my girlfriend tried to pat me down, I didnt opt out of that! :lol:


----------



## MikefromCrete

PRR 60 said:


> I'll rank Opt-Out Day with the bird flu and Y2K as a media-created non-event.


I agree. There were no big delays at O'Hare or Midway airports in Chicago due to people wanting pat-downs instead of going through the machines. Really, is somebody actually going to delay their own trip in order to make some kind of point? Besides, the whole thing was organized on the internet, which consists mainly of people sitting in their mother's basements and never leaving the house. (just a joke, folks).

Has any potential terrorist ever been caught by the security screeners?


----------



## jis

PRR 60 said:


> I'll rank Opt-Out Day with the bird flu and Y2K as a media-created non-event.


I agree. And TSA might have played a role in making it so too, by simply not putting as many ATI machines on line that day 9at least in Newark T3 they did not use any AFAICT), and also restricting patdowns to the less invasive kind. Which of course goes to show that the whole thing is a bit of a sham. But the bottom line is there was no real disruption of any sort, and things moved quite smoothly.

The business about more people taking to the roads probably has as much to do with significantly average air fares this years as anything else.



MikefromCrete said:


> Has any potential terrorist ever been caught by the security screeners?


Apparently there is not documented case that the TSA is willing to tell anyone about. So most likely there isn't any. Of course they have a good track record at catching prosthetic boobs and hips and knees, and creating a mess checking out other benign things. However, they seem to have difficulty finding knives in bags, which surprised travelers find later, having forgotten to remove them in the first place.


----------



## jis

the_traveler said:


> I opted out of the airport totally!
> 
> 
> 
> Does that count?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody at home even tried to pat me down!


You need to get someone to pat you down privately :lol: It can be very enjoyable actually


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

> Apparently there is not documented case that the TSA is willing to tell anyone about. So most likely there isn't any. Of course they have a good track record at catching prosthetic boobs and hips and knees, and creating a mess checking out other benign things. However, they seem to have difficulty finding knives in bags, which surprised travelers find later, having forgotten to remove them in the first place.


We'd have to ask WikiLeaks about that one--

I remember Tom Ridge (after his tenure at DHS) being asked by Anderson Cooper about the success of the TSA and DHS in general. He responded "You never hear about the victories because we keep them secret so that our enemies can't learn how to improve their message."

Wouldn't a plane not being blown up be evidence enough that they screwed up? I'd challenge the TSA to produce ONE, just ONE person who attempted to smuggle an explosive device onto a plane. Y'know, besides the lighters and matches and cameras and cell phones that we could all use to rig an explosive, the fireworks we can hide in our nether regions or the bombs that can be surgically implanted.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://joyerickson.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/tundra-tsa.jpg%3Fw%3D640%26h%3D497&imgrefurl=http://joyerickson.wordpress.com/&usg=__vRVRY3_OHSfvS2j6boTCaqexr_o=&h=497&w=640&sz=55&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=wZIi1ARCO6ndrM:&tbnh=132&tbnw=170&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtundra%2Bcomic%2Btsa%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-USfficial%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D550%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=500&vpy=83&dur=408&hovh=177&hovw=228&tx=108&ty=105&ei=G1IATdXGAo3TngfZ_KzlDQ&oei=_lEATZyjH4a0nAff1d3nDQ&esq=12&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0


----------

