What happens when you refuse to pose for TSA or be sexually molested to fly.

Status
Not open for further replies.

jmsprovan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,192
Location
Alba
Right. I'm sure you would have said the same thing ten years ago if I told you we would be subject to nude-o-tron x-rays and molestation at airports by 2010.
no, actually what i would of said that would be is general progression of technology, something that Full x-rays, cat scans and cavity searches for all at the gates aren't.

Going by the experiences of passengers whom I've asked, there is no real policy (shocking from the TSA, I know). Sometimes it's random, sometimes it's only after you set off the metal detector, sometimes everybody is being herded through them.
Not having a definite set of rules for when you pull someone over is the best idea, it means those who want to inflict harm can't plan around it.
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,980
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
Its fearmongering now because you're referring them as nude-o-tron x-rays and molestation.

Of course passengers are in fact experts and well informed on TSA policy. Why not ask TSA employees instead?

How reliable are bomb sniffing dogs?
TSA has said that they have no set policy, and that this is not a failing on their part, but is actually a security feature. (The article was mentioned in this thread)

What TSA is doing is molestation, or sexual assault. You argue that the context of the physical contact makes it acceptable, but from the psychological perspective being examined by an authority figure in a uniform in this way may be more damaging, especially to victims of sexual abuse, rape, sexual assault or child sex abuse - of which there are hundreds of thousands. It is common for these individuals to have life-long difficulties with intimacy, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, hypervigilance and other mental health concerns. The current TSA policy makes passengers feel powerless, they are literally trapped at the checkpoint and are unable to leave once they enter the line. Anything could trigger a severe abreaction to the screening, from the scent of the screener's deodorant, to the color of his/her hair. The passenger likely won't know how s/he will react until the screening process has started, but according to TSA you will have to pay an $11,000 fine if you become uncomfortable with the process and don't want to continue.

There are hundreds of thousands of individuals with a trauma history in the US, many of whom struggle with mental health issues as a result; I believe that subjecting them to these experiences that retard their recovery or retraumatize them is illegal under the Constitution and the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Its fearmongering now because you're referring them as nude-o-tron x-rays and molestation.

Of course passengers are in fact experts and well informed on TSA policy. Why not ask TSA employees instead?

How reliable are bomb sniffing dogs?
From the article:
An aviation security expert on Tuesday speculated the bag had once been used for testing, and still had remaining residue when it was used as a "last bag." That's a piece of luggage meant to signal a plane has been unloaded.
So it's possible that the dog was correct, and there was explosive residue on the bag. It was left out due to human error.

There are a number of chemicals that dogs are trained to detect
So that answers the question of whether or not a dog can detect more than one substance.

So how reliable are dogs?
The problem with machines is they are expensive. As a suitcase full of bottles of honey proved Tuesday, they can also cause false alarms. Authorities shut down Meadows Field airport in Bakersfield, Calif., for a time after a machine mistakenly detected TNT in a Milwaukee man's suitcase. It turned out to be five bottles of honey.
Even machines don't eliminate false-positives.

Dogs can get tired, as the article stated, but so can the operators of machines who sit in a room under florescent lights staring at photos over and over all day.

But what if someone is taking a suitcase full of dog biscuits home?
It's a big difference between a dog showing, well, this smells good, versus saying 'Whoa, I think I'm near [explosives],'"
Dogs are trained to give a specific signal, usually sitting down next to the item, when they smell the substance they are trained to alert on. The handler is part of the team and is responsible for managing the dog and interpreting his/her behavior. (see: Mythbusters episode on beating the dogs)
 
Last edited:

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
Its fearmongering now because you're referring them as nude-o-tron x-rays and molestation.
They use x-rays create a virtually nude image and molest you if you refuse. How is that fear mongering?
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,394
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
This is off-topic, but are fruit & veggies like kryptonite for Aussies, or what?
Off-topic response: No, but australia is a very isolated, unique environment where species (both animals and plants) that didn't mix with "mainland" (see, europe-asia-africa landmass) species, so bringing in fruits (which have seeds in them) or plants (which will produce seeds and reproduce), can be dangerous to the natural balance of things. I'm sure we've all heard the story of non-native frogs introduced in Australia where they thrived and became a plague.... from the Simspons :D but it's true.
 

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
They use x-rays create a virtually nude image and molest you if you refuse. How is that fear mongering?
Molestation:
A person commits the offense of child molestation when he or she does any immoral or indecent act to or in the presence of or with any child under the age of 16 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person.
Fear Mongering

Fear mongering (or scaremongering) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.
There are hundreds of thousands of individuals with a trauma history in the US, many of whom struggle with mental health issues as a result; I believe that subjecting them to these experiences that retard their recovery or retraumatize them is illegal under the Constitution and the Americans With Disabilities Act.
as a result of pat down searches from the TSA? [citation needed] And hundreds of thousands of people is statistically insignificant, at least not enough to justify getting rid of airport scanners or the like. Please cite the relevant information from Constitution and the Americans With Disabilities Act regarding "retardation of recovery and retraumatization" and how it applies to airport security

The current TSA policy makes passengers feel powerless, they are literally trapped at the checkpoint and are unable to leave once they enter the line. Anything could trigger a severe abreaction to the screening, from the scent of the screener's deodorant, to the color of his/her hair.
Machines can be updated, modified, etc indefinitely. Dog training can only go so far, and replacing security measures with dogs is neither practical or feasible.

The first x-ray scanners were primitive, blurry, and black and white. now we have this:

 
Last edited:

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
Call it what you like, but if you want to make a legal case that these things are violating your rights, you'd better check the ridiculous hyperbole at the door. If you consider it sexual assault, then you don't have to subject yourself to it, and I'm sure the airlines would refund your ticket and if not, you may have a legitimate lawsuit on your hands. You can consider a pat-down at the courthouse sexual assault as well, and if you have some kind of court order or reason you HAVE to be there, its completely unavoidable as opposed to airline travel which is optional.
 
Last edited:

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,980
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
Before you call it ridiculous hyperbole I recommend you do some mental health work with victims of sexual assault, rape, and molestation. Also, for a citation, try the whole of Trauma Theory.
 

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
Before you call it ridiculous hyperbole I recommend you do some mental health work with victims of sexual assault, rape, and molestation. Also, for a citation, try the whole of Trauma Theory.
Really? How many of those cases are the result of security pat-downs? And if they have been the result of TSA pat downs, then recommend they don't fly. If your argument is going to rely on the what would be an infinitesimally small minority of people who experienced trauma as a result of an airport check-in pat down (barring a pre-existing condition in which case they should apply for a waiver of some kind or simply not fly) then its becoming ridiculous for reasons beyond terrible rhetoric.

Oh and trotting out victims of rape and molestation and trying to equate their plight to that of any random person who was subject to an airport pat-down is f*cking sick Blind, seriously
 
Last edited:

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,980
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
Really? How many of those cases are the result of security pat-downs? And if they have been the result of TSA pat downs, then recommend they don't fly. If your argument is going to rely on the what would be an infinitesimally small minority of people who experienced trauma as a result of an airport check-in pat down (barring a pre-existing condition in which case they should apply for a waiver of some kind or simply not fly) then its becoming ridiculous for reasons beyond terrible rhetoric.
Ok, seriously, drop the "don't fly argument." We've been over it again, and again and again and again and again. I'm about *this* close to handing out a neg-rep for trolling, and if this were in any section other than politics I would have pages ago.

This is not a small minority, I posted the numbers of women sexually assaulted or raped every year earlier in this thread, and that number does not include victims of child sex abuse. I recommend you go find that number and contemplate that many new sex abuse, assault or rape victims every year.

Remember, these new procedures are just that: new. People have built their lives around airport security that didn't involve invasive body-searches (and don't say go through the scanner, because that doesn't mean that you won't get the body search anyway). Family is far-flung across the nation, jobs require travel, etc.; we have built our lives around life pre-body-search so not flying is not an option. We have discussed at great length the necessity of flight as a means of travel due to the lack of any alternative infrastructure and the impossibility of using alternative transportation to reach some parts of the nation for large parts of the population.

You want to talk about safety? Flying, even with a terrorist threat, is still far safer than driving. It is 9/11 every six months out there on the nations highways, but we don't seem to give a shit about those people. Your idea of not flying, even assuming that ground travel was a feasible alternative for the entire population and all destinations, is still far more dangerous than flying - even with a terrorist threat and pre-body-search security.
 

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
I'm not reading back through 29 pages to find this number. If you'll do me a favor and find it since you'd know where it is, then calculate the percentage of the population it represents that would be grand.

The don't fly argument is a legitimate argument whether you want to hear it not, no worse than arguing about x-ray radiation at least.
 
Last edited:

jmsprovan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,192
Location
Alba
Ok, seriously, drop the "don't fly argument." We've been over it again, and again and again and again and again. I'm about *this* close to handing out a neg-rep for trolling, and if this were in any section other than politics I would have pages ago.
i bet he is quivering in his little booties.

This is not a small minority, I posted the numbers of women sexually assaulted or raped every year earlier in this thread, and that number does not include victims of child sex abuse. I recommend you go find that number and contemplate that many new sex abuse, assault or rape victims every year.

Remember, these new procedures are just that: new. People have built their lives around airport security that didn't involve invasive body-searches (and don't say go through the scanner, because that doesn't mean that you won't get the body search anyway). Family is far-flung across the nation, jobs require travel, etc.; we have built our lives around life pre-body-search so not flying is not an option. We have discussed at great length the necessity of flight as a means of travel due to the lack of any alternative infrastructure and the impossibility of using alternative transportation to reach some parts of the nation for large parts of the population.

You want to talk about safety? Flying, even with a terrorist threat, is still far safer than driving. It is 9/11 every six months out there on the nations highways, but we don't seem to give a shit about those people. Your idea of not flying, even assuming that ground travel was a feasible alternative for the entire population and all destinations, is still far more dangerous than flying - even with a terrorist threat and pre-body-search security.
Frisking has been standard procedure for a long time, I've never seen a report of someone being Traumatised by it, so these people are doing one of three things:

Not Flying
Getting a doctors letter excusing them from being Frisked.
Sucking it up and dealing with the procedure.

The new method of Frisking has been predominantly used for people who create a fuss about the scanners, the answer to that would be to just go through the damn scanners.

There, that is 3 genuine options for people who don't want to be Frisked but need to fly, saying they don't have any option is a load of shit.
 
Last edited:

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,980
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
Do you read anything in this thread?

Here it is again, in bold so you can't miss it:

Going through the scanners does not preclude you from being body-searched.

What TSA is doing is not "frisking," it's an invasive body-search that is on-par with what prisoners experience when being booked into jail. A frisk does not involve grabbing the genitals or breasts, it is a brief over-the-clothes pat-down to ensure that person has no weapons with which to harm an officer. It does not involve emptying the pockets or going inside the clothing. TSA grabs the genitals, breasts, and puts a gloved hand inside the waistline under the clothing - in no law enforcement agency is this considered a "frisk."

In terms of your "viable options"

1 - not an option for many for reasons already stated. Stop bringing it up.

2- You can't get a doctor's note saying you don't have to be body-searched, you can only opt-out of the scanner and go straight to the body-search. TSA has explicitly stated that you cannot opt-out of both and once you enter the line you must be screened or face an $11,000 fine.

3 - So be treated like a prisoner going into jail and waive your 4th Amendment rights, and for many be re-victimized while submitting yourself to being searched by someone who has no more than an 8th grade reading level (average for an adult in the US) - all in the name of being able to travel within your own nation, a right that is also guaranteed by the Constitution.

Wooflepoof, if you want to make a point, back it up with something. I have made my assertion in this thread and backed it up with numbers. If you want to make a different one, find your own sources. I'm tired of the constant assertions of the same idiotic ideas that have been refuted on almost every page of this thread. It's not up to me to prove your point for you.
 
Last edited:

jmsprovan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,192
Location
Alba
Do you read anything in this thread?

Here it is again, in bold so you can't miss it:

Going through the scanners does not preclude you from being body-searched.
[citation needed]

What TSA is doing is not "frisking," it's an invasive body-search that is on-par with what prisoners experience when being booked into jail. A frisk does not involve grabbing the genitals or breasts, it is a brief over-the-clothes pat-down to ensure that person has no weapons with which to harm an officer. It does not involve emptying the pockets or going inside the clothing. TSA grabs the genitals, breasts, and puts a gloved hand inside the waistline under the clothing - in no law enforcement agency is this considered a "frisk."
You are making generalisations, once again.

The "Enhanced" search has not replaced regular Frisking procedure in almost all cases. I was not groped when i was frisked going through Orlando this summer.

You can't get a doctor's note saying you don't have to be body-searched, you can only opt-out of the scanner and go straight to the body-search. TSA has explicitly stated that you cannot opt-out of both and once you enter the line you must be screened or face an $11,000 fine.
If you have a doctors note then the search would become unreasonable, breaking the 4th. You have been crowing about it so much in this thread i thought you would realise that.

3 - So be treated like a prisoner going into jail and waive your 4th Amendment rights, and for many be re-victimized while submitting yourself to being searched by someone who has no more than an 8th grade reading level (average for an adult in the US) - all in the name of being able to travel within your own nation, a right that is also guaranteed by the Constitution.
You are making generalisations, once again, and this statement makes no sense at all, you only want academics to do the job or something?

Wooflepoof, if you want to make a point, back it up with something. I have made my assertion in this thread and backed it up with numbers. If you want to make a different one, find your own sources. I'm tired of the constant assertions of the same idiotic ideas that have been refuted on almost every page of this thread. It's not up to me to prove your point for you.
Desperation.
 
Last edited:

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,980
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
The scanners look for anomalies, anything that is not clearly defined results in a body-search. David Barry was pulled aside because they did not get a clear image of his crotch. The story is in this thread.

I'm not making a generalization about a frisking. Go ask any cop if they are allowed to do that kind of a body-search, also, see the SCOTUS case that gave police the power to frisk people for weapons (Terry v Ohio) - which I also discussed in this thread.

Care to explain how a doctor's note will get you though the screening process without a scan or body-search? I'd love to see the TSA guideline/regulation regarding that.

As for you last insult, you simply post "citation needed" when I bring up things that have already been cited in this thread, but when I ask someone else to cite his source for a statistical assertion I'm "desperate?" Do you even read what you post?
 

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
Do you read anything in this thread?

Here it is again, in bold so you can't miss it:

Wooflepoof, if you want to make a point, back it up with something. I have made my assertion in this thread and backed it up with numbers. If you want to make a different one, find your own sources. I'm tired of the constant assertions of the same idiotic ideas that have been refuted on almost every page of this thread. It's not up to me to prove your point for you.
Sorry but they really haven't been. Most the numbers I've seen from you so far haven't been in perspective. But sure I'll cite my own sources, my source found 135,000 instances of child sexual abuse. And another stated that about 17.7 million were the victims of attempted or completed rape. I'll round up to 25 million to include children and anyone I missed. I'll round down the US population in 2000 to 280 million. The 25 million represent 9% percent of the population(with generous estimates). this is a minority. I could then make the number smaller by mixing them into the percentage of people who actually fly, and then you'd also have to factor in the number of cases who were actually so traumatized that it would affect them mentally to be searched by TSA.
 
Last edited:

jmsprovan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,192
Location
Alba
I'm not making a generalization about a frisking. Go ask any cop if they are allowed to do that kind of a body-search, also, see the SCOTUS case that gave police the power to frisk people for weapons (Terry v Ohio) - which I also discussed in this thread.
Cops have no situation under which such a detailed search would be required, if they suspect something they can just arrest them and perform a strip search back at the station.

Care to explain how a doctor's note will get you though the screening process without a scan or body-search? I'd love to see the TSA guideline/regulation regarding that.
Well having not done it myself, i would assume you get them to bring over a supervisor and preach your case for not being Frisked, using the evidence that they are breaking the 4th if they don't comply.

As for you last insult, you simply post "citation needed" when I bring up things that have already been cited in this thread, but when I ask someone else to cite his source for a statistical assertion I'm "desperate?"
anecdotal evidence =/= truth

Do you even read what you post?
I wonder this about your posts, which have become nothing more than shoestring arguments repeated over and over, and comparing victims of molestation to normal people who have been frisked.
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,980
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
Those numbers are for the number of people abused per year.

Now add that in to adult victims of sexual assault or rape per year and you will get the number of new sex-related victims every year. Then extrapolate that along the lifetime.

Over the life time, one in four female college students will survive a rape or rape attempt since their early-mid adolescence (does not include numbers for child sex abuse). 20% of high school girls had survived rape or attempted rape. Suddenly that's not such a small number, is it?
 

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
Those numbers are for the number of people abused per year.

Now add that in to adult victims of sexual assault or rape per year and you will get the number of new sex-related victims every year. Then extrapolate that along the lifetime.

Over the life time, one in four female college students will survive a rape or rape attempt since their early-mid adolescence (does not include numbers for child sex abuse). 20% of high school girls had survived rape or attempted rape. Suddenly that's not such a small number, is it?
yes it is. College girls and high school girls are a small percentage of the population. Even less those that have been subject to traumatizing sexual abuse which would keep them from being searched by TSA without incurring more damage.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top