Esse site utiliza cookies. Ao usá-lo e continuar a navegar, você concorda com isso.
Ignorar
Você sabia que o rastreamento de voos da FlightAware é patrocinado por anúncios?
Você pode nos ajudar a manter o FlightAware gratuito, permitindo anúncios de FlightAware.com. Trabalhamos muito para manter nossa publicidade relevante e discreta para criar uma ótima experiência. É rápido e fácil permitir anúncios no FlightAware ou, caso prefira, considere nossas contas premium.
Ignorar
Back to Squawk list
  • 113

Full Frontal Nudity Doesn’t Make Us Safer: Abolish the TSA

Enviado há
 
Bipartisan support should be immediate. For fiscal conservatives, it’s hard to come up with a more wasteful agency than the TSA. For privacy advocates, eliminating an organization that requires you to choose between a nude body scan or genital groping in order to board a plane should be a no-brainer. (blogs.forbes.com) Mais...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


desperado50
desperado50 0
Yeah, let's abolish TSA and return security to the lowest bidding private contractor. That worked so well before 9-11. TSA has gotten a little out of hand, and needs to have the ability to profile, but their top priority is security. Profit is the top priority of private contractors. Why don't we pattern our airport security after the most successful security program, El Al? I'm no fan of Israel, but at least they've got that figured out.
mattdavis
mattdavis 0
The TSA has shown that they are incompetent at their jobs. . .it has been documented that they miss a large portion of weapons that pass through their systems. The real point here though is that 'security' while flying is a complete charade. Americans are being forced to display their genitalia on computers for the sake of 'security,' which doesn't really exist. Why should we be asked to make that compromise when there is no real improvement to the system?
chiphermes
Chip Hermes 0
@desperardo "Yeah, let's abolish TSA and return security to the lowest bidding private contractor. That worked so well before 9-11." -- are you aware that tests have shown no measurable improvements in detection of prohibited materials? Billions of dollars later, their success rate is roughly comparable to that of the private contractors pre-9/11.
desperado50
desperado50 0
Both of you want to abolish the TSA but you offer no viable alternatives. I can't think of a single successful act of terrorism aboard a commercial aircraft since 9-11. Should we go with no security? Incompetent private contractors? Or maybe something like El Al uses. Profiling should be a top priority. I'm no fan of TSA, (they're a real threat to GA) but until something better comes along, they'll have to do. If you want to talk about the waste of billions of government dollars, I could go on and on.
dbaker
Daniel Baker 0
You are right that in the 9 years since 9/11, there hasn't been a successful attack on a commercial airliner in the US. However, that's also true about the 9 years prior to 9/11.
atlwatchdog
Watch Dog 0
TSA = Transportation Stupidity Administration.

I had a TSA agent tell me that I "gave up" all my rights after 9/11. I didn't give up anything. I didn't VOTE on ANYTHING. Our crap representatives voted for us and what THEY thought was in our best interest. Simply put I hate the TSA. Bunch of $10/Hr workers who really don't give two hoots about our personal liberties. I can't believe Americans put up with this stuff. X-Ray machines, groin groping. It's 4th Amendment violation all the way. And when I told this same TSA worker they are violating the 4th Amendment, her response was, "What's that?" SERIOUSLY?!?!?!?!?!? THAT is the problem with the TSA.
chiphermes
Chip Hermes 0
It's funny that you mention $10/hr. I was in a long security line last week and was thinking about how I pay a $5.00 per segment (not per screening, so you pay double if you connect) fee to the TSA for their services. Given how little they pay, you'd think they could afford to make the lines shorter, too.
atlwatchdog
Watch Dog 0
Oh, and how about the $44,765,360 that the TSA wants to spend on handheld or table top Bottled Liquid Scanners (BLS), that can take up to 15 seconds to determine whether the liquid in a bottle is "safe" or "unsafe". Let's just keep spending money, please government, let's spend as much as we can to tell if someone is carrying Suave or Head & Shoulders.

After this whole UPS thing going on, the next step is that we will have to be screened when dropping out packages off at the UPS Store or FedEx Kinko's.
calico
Shane Sater 0
An interesting first person account on the TSA outrage:

http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html
BoeingFan59
Troy Raiteri 0
Wait a minute..why does airline passengers goes through these but here Fedex pilots goes through these? What do they not think someone's gonna bomb their flight? you can tell that to FDX705.
BoeingFan59
Troy Raiteri 0
sorry I meant doesn't
jmbarkes
Jeff Barkesfa 0
Desperado- No suceessful acts of terrorism, you are correct however a shoe bomber and and underware bomber both were on planes trying to blow them up that were not caught by security (ours or theirs) and the time square bomber was allowed on a plane even after being placed on the no fly list! What I want to hear is how many terrorist were stopped BEFORE getting on a plane (and I don't mean 80 yr old ladies with knitting needles ) with bombs on their person (even better if they were caught with full body scanner or having their nards grabbed). So far my count has 2 that we know got on with bombs and zero that were found with bombs PRIOR to getting on an airplane. Care to answer?
atlwatchdog
Watch Dog 0
Answer this Jeff,

Why has the TSA/FBI/CIA/NSA or any other Alphabet agency not been able to identify the "wayward" baggage handler that caused a "scare" at PHL back in October.

Why have we not heard any more about that story and why has the media not followed up with the question of why can't the police or other agencies figure out who this guy is.

While we're on that note, did you know baggage handlers and food vendors do not go though TSA screening. They are most often waved though and are not subjected to the screening process. They may go through TSA, but are not screened. Did you know also that the food delivered to the vendors in the concourses is not screened, and did you also know that the aircraft cleaners are not screened for "devices" before gaining access to the aircraft. Nor are maintenance personnel.

This is of course unless something has recently changed.

The point is this, there are easier ways if some idiot were so inclined, to get a "device" or other materials (such as drugs to smuggle) on board an aircraft, than putting it under or in your "junk".

The TSA is a joke and DHS as a whole is nothing more than government wellfare providing jobs to undereducated fools with below average IQs. DHS= Knee-jerk reaction by people who believe in limiting the personal freedoms and liberties of the American public.
chiphermes
Chip Hermes 0
Very true, watchdog, and well said. The TSA makes the Iraq war look sensible by comparison.
atlwatchdog
Watch Dog 0
Troy,

What's the point of screening someone who has access to the controls of the aircraft?

Sure you might stop them from carrying a weapon on board, but as I always have to remind people, as a pilot I have access to a crash axe. I would be hard pressed to stop someone (fellow pilot or other employee) from attacking me with or any other crew member with this axe.

If someone like the FedEx guy goes berserk there is not much we can do but deal with it at that moment in time and try to stop him. But a crazy person wielding an axe would be quite frightening to encounter. Either way I think the people being attacked would be seriously injured.

But, these events are rare. Most pilots and other crew I know are mentally stable folks who know things like this can happen, but most certainly would not be the one to do something horrific like that.
atlwatchdog
Watch Dog 0
Chip: "It's funny that you mention $10/hr. I was in a long security line last week and was thinking about how I pay a $5.00 per segment (not per screening, so you pay double if you connect) fee to the TSA for their services. Given how little they pay, you'd think they could afford to make the lines shorter, too."

Yes Chip that is quite perplexing to me as well. A TSA Agent at HOU actually joked with me about it when he was screening me. I asked why so many other TSA agents were just standing around, while only him and one other agent were screening people. He told me, "Well don't you know? That's how the government does things!" Hey, at least he admitted it! I have to give it to that guy for being honest, or at least telling me what I wanted to hear! HAHA.

In all seriousness though, next time you go though TSA, just count how many of them there are standing around doing nothing. Such a waste.
jmbarkes
Jeff Barkesfa 0
Interesting point in the article, it says since XXXX (dont remember the date they used, but safe to say prior to 9/11, 3000 (rounded off) people were killed by terrorists using an airplane as a weapon, "obviously mainly from 1 act" (9/11) EVEN IF the underware bomber or the shoe bomber suceeded, that number would be rise to close to 3500. IN THAT SAME TIME over 15000 people have been murdered in the US. Could you imagine what security we would have to go thru if 15,000 people died in an airplane terrorist attack?
atlwatchdog
Watch Dog 0
Since 2001, not including 2001 and this year so far, there have been over 131,500 Murders in the United States alone.

2009 saw an estimated 15,241.

Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
atlwatchdog
Watch Dog 0
Just to clarify, the 131,500 is for years 2002-2009

131,500 Murders over the course of 8 years. That's an average of 16,437.5 per year.
cwsfan18
Ryan Pitt 0
Although I disagree with the title, I do believe the TSA does require major reform. From this blog and videos, http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html, you can see the true truth about todays TSA in America. One of the TSA agents in the video states that "When you bought your ticket, you gave up your rights." Would someone explain to me how this can be? You don't give up any rights as an American citizen in America. As our founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence, all men have "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Also in Article 14 of the U.S. Constitution, it is stated that no citizen should be deprived "of life, liberty, or property." It has come to a time where the government (in this case the TSA) is becoming too powerful and abusing your rights as a citizen. Those are just my views on this issue.
MANBOI
MANBOI 0
Vote with your wallet.
atsdroid
Andrew Skretvedt 0
TSA. I'm skeptical about the persuasive chances of any viewpoint on this comment list. Here's another stupid idea to the fire, then (or is it?).

We ought to separate the realms of airport and airliner security. Then, privatize both. No government subsidy whatsoever. But also 100% freedom for individual airports and individual airlines to form partnerships to source their security needs.

Instead of a one-size-fits-all cudgel, humiliating the humble folks of Backwater, Middlestate with equal egrigiousness as folks Detroit, LA, or NYC, operators in areas with a greater _real_ threat would become motivated to buy extra capability for the more dangerous locations. Operators elsewhere may suffice with simpler screenings (or even, gasp, no screening save your ticket-in-hand!)

The point is to get back to a rational standard. [dbaker] above has it right, no attacks in the 9-years before 9/11 either! All the close calls were diffused not by screening measures or additional air marshalls, but by other wary passengers, acting in their own self interest to ensure their own safety on the aircraft!

This needlessly heavy-handed approach merely incentivizes laxity beyond the checkpoint (we passed the screening, so we're no threat, right?).

When government acts as middleman, broker, and provider-par-excellence, everyone else is encouraged to give up their efforts (why duplicate costs?).

Telling the providers of airport and airliner services that _you're on your own for security_ and then allowing them to set their own standards without interference, you will quickly reach a equilibrium between cost effectiveness and real threat level.

No one can predict the future, and it's cost prohibitive (public or private) to try to secure all known attack vectors, so no system would operate with perfection. But who would really want a perfect system? The better the security, the lower the convenience and the higher the cost. Sometimes we're willing to pay more for heightened security, sometimes we just want to get there cheaply and feel justified in "widening our stance" on risk.

In an unfettered market-oriented scenario, there would be constant re-evaluation of those various parameters and continuous adjustment. With the airlines responsible for their own security beyond the airport gate-area, you also get portable capability that goes with the airline to all the places it operates. Credible threats uncovered in Holland? Agents redistribute overnight to cover the flights with Holland as one of the endpoints.

Each airline get the freedom to decide its own risk profile regarding prohibited items and security screening practices, and the freedom to adjust that profile dynamically as the threat environment directs.

Passengers get the freedom to make their own judgements regarding the risk of travel versus the convenience and cost of the flight, and the ability to choose the carrier that best fits.

Everyone is incentivized to take an active role in assuring their own security as much as possible, and not place blind faith in the capability of the security officials handling them at the airport or on the aircraft. This inspires more of the sort of vigilance that's already proven itself successful in passengers responding to suspicious activity and imminent danger onboard aircraft underway. The flying public _help_ the operators do their jobs, rather than becoming chattel cargo to be scanned and wrangled.

[Desparado50]'s characterization of private security is ill-informed and not fully reasoned.

Everyone loves to point a finger at El-Al and suggest we emulate them. It's almost the kneejerk response. Is it warranted? El Al's reputation comes from decades of consistently safe flying. Certainly El-Al has had its own share of security failures, some tragic. Again, no system is perfect and can predict the future. El-Al is a flag carrier who does get some government support, and so is not a perfect fit to my ideas. But, the argument could be made that at least El-Al's way of doing security IS APPROPRIATE for where El-Al flies and they are a better example than any other I can think of for adopting my above argument.

Freedom, flexibility, and rapid adapability to changing threats in scope, type, and severity. This is what a private "hands-off" model buys you.

(Or, we can embrace x-rays and genital searches for everyone!)
indy2001
indy2001 0
For God's sake, have we really become a nation/world of incessant whiners with such a short memory that we can't remember 9 years ago? This weakness is exactly what the terrorists are waiting for because the TSA has done its job. They don't need to defeat the TSA because the American public will do it for them. It's true that the TSA may not be as efficient as it could be, but the department is very young and still finding its way. And yet, there hasn't been another successful attack since its creation. In my post-9/11 travels, I have found TSA agents to be uniformly friendly, efficient, and helpful (with one exception, for whom her supervisor apologized profusely). The airline personnel could actually learn from them in how to deal with the public. Except that we now have an airline first officer who encourages civil disobedience, as long as it doesn't occur on his flights. Grow up, people.
ThunderHaus
ThunderHaus 0
Lets face it, the real screeners and people providing security are the other passengers on the airplane. They can "profile" folks that look suspicious and take action when things go wrong. The TSA is a feel good action to keep the sheep boarding the airplanes calm.
johnystick
johnystick 0
Ok But what i want to know is what do they do with children under 18? What is there policy? the images are illegal, and they cannot touch them.
chiphermes
Chip Hermes 0
John Stickelmaier, you must be an optimist. The law does not apply to the TSA, or at least they seem to think that. Same goes for reality and logic.
atlwatchdog
Watch Dog 0
ter·ror·ism
   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


Indy,

Give this some thought. The average murder rate in the United States is 15,000+/Yr. What is the average death rate per year in this country from acts of terrorism?

I imagine you to be the type of individual who would welcome the police to search your house and other property in the name of preventing murder. Would you willingly give in to that?

And while we're talking about terror, let's read what a few definitions of terrorism are:

ter·ror·ism
   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


Number 1 and 2 sounds like the regular updates we receive from DHS, "Todays threat level is Orange"

I worry more about being a murder victim than I do a victim or terrorism. The numbers speak for themselves.

So you go ahead and give up your constitutional rights, or in the case of DHS and TSA, just let them take them from you. You obviously don't appreciate them so perhaps you and others with your same train of thought are not deserving of them.
mikeNY
mikeNY 0
The TSA lost all credibility and respect when they were caught stealing from checked luggage, which by regulation must not be locked by the passenger. Hand over your checked luggage to the TSA, a pack of thieves with salaries funded by taxpayers, unaccountable in ever respect, and sanctioned by the goverment, ,,, and then say good bye to your personal property.
GordonDDSS
GordonDDSS 0
I couldn't agree more with abolishing the TSA. They miss what? 40% of the stuff they're supposed to find? And they refuse to follow normal law enforcement procedures such as profiling. TSA is truly a bureacratic nightmare. Set up parameters for local law enforecement and airport security.
I'm just waiting for someone to start a movement to abolish it. I haven't seen one yet.
preed66617
Pat Reed 0
1) Eliminate the carry on. No more luggage carried on to the plane with the exception of diaper bag for babies, or medical kit for special medical needs. Business passengers suffer with the rest of us. Eliminates need for most of equipment. And the Bin wars on the plane. And everyone is on and off faster, no waiting for the person if front trying to pull down a couple large bags on every ones head.
2) Changing rooms. Use the space where the x ray machines were and have a changing room. Choice; pat down, x-ray or undressing with no touching. Just get to the airport earlier enough for choice 3 as the plane doesn't wait.
cloudskurfer
cloudskurfer 0
Every one of you should be taking the time to write your Senator! Having a blog debate does Nothing! Everyone sounds passionate about this but i'll bet not one of you took the same amount of time to write your Senator. All because you think your opinion doesn't count. Well enjoy the pretty pictures on flightaware then.
MrTommy
MrTommy 0
For those who don't remember, back before 9-11 there were virtually no prohibitions on what you could carry on board. I carry a three inch blade knife with me at all times, and back then I could carry that on the plane. The guy checking 'stuff' when you boarded the plane would open my knife, put the blade up to a ruler taped to the wall, and give me the OK because it was three inches or less. Now you can't bring a nail clipper with you (which makes NO sense). I still think if we just tossed political correctness aside, and brought in some common sense (which, of course, is no longer COMMON!), and started profiling, we could eliminate this time wasting screening of 90 year old white grandmothers, people we ALL know aren't terrorists or even POTENTIAL terrorists, and eight year old mentally challenged youngsters, and actually get on with the job of making air travel safe. I'm lucky enough to NOT have a job requiring flying, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that I'm DONE flying anywhere.
markdeyster
markdeyster 0
What a bunch of ideological drivel. We need security for airlines. Sure the TSA can do a better job, just like most of us can do better in our individual lives. I've seen lots of things I thought were not the best practices. The random pat downs that they did a few years back resulted in my 2 year old son being patted down on our way to the Caribbean. Even the TSA worker thought it was silly. On another flight, they removed a computer from a bag (I can't remember why) and walked it past the screener, only to return it to me without inspecting it. Then, recently, I, and many others were put threw the body scanners. I noticed that the ones being scanned were teh ones who failed the metal detecters. The result was that they were only scanning boobs, like me, that forgot to remove a cell phone, or other like objects, from a pocket. My guess is that someone intent on smuggling something on board would be pretty sure to remove metal objects from their pockets. Seemed like a waste. But to suggest we don't need some sort of institutionalized security process is just silly. If you don't like it, don't fly. If you choose to fly, be prepared to accept this unfortunate, but necessary, inconvenience.
mikeyates
mikeyates 0
No successful acts of terrorism since 9/11? I think you have to count the "pants-on-fire" guy and the shoe guy as successes that didn't quite execute. They were both on board with their devices and trying to activate them. Their failure was not due in any part to the TSA.
cgates6466
Charles Gates 0
There are issues that do not lend themselves to "fiscal conservative" analysis. Airline passenger safety is among them. Perhaps TSA is not as efficient as it could be, so it should continue to striving to improve. Indeed, we should demand it. TSA should NOT pack ITS bags and leave the job unfilled or filled by those even less efficient. Why should we expect a private-sector group to perform any better? I have qualms regarding the tendency of a private company to create "efficiency" to improve its profits and not our security. I'm a supporter of the free-market and its efficiencies, but it can fail at times as we learned several years ago. I fly to Japan at least once a year and find the Japanese security at Tokyo-Narita less hyperactive about screening and definitely more courteous, but that gives me a certain cause for worry. I had the same concern once at London Gatwick and expressed it to a fellow traveller, who was a Brit. His response: "We've been doing it longer than the Yanks and have it down to a fine science." For me, I'd rather be a tad embarrassed and a bit inconvenienced than prematurely dead. I agree that there are a couple of comments that attempt to approach the security issue with reason and analysis but too many that seem to be anecdotal nonsense. It might be a help if the airlines returned to a culture of vigorous and courteous customer service on each side of the security screening process. By the time many of us reach the TSA, we are already frustrated by the treatment from airline employees and the carriers' ticketing and baggage policies. Then after enduring the TSA, we then face too many surely boarding agents and flight attendants with the grace and manners of boot camp drill sergeants.
boughbw
Brian Bough 0
"For fiscal conservatives, it’s hard to come up with a more wasteful agency than the TSA."
Allegedly 'fiscal conservatives' came up with the TSA, as well as the Department of Homeland Security. 'Fiscal conservatives' made the largest bureaucracies in the government since WW-II.
Of course, they also ran up $13 trillion in debt.

Obama is in a no-win situation. It is clear that this plan was moving forward under Chertoff (who has profited immensely from this since leaving government) before Obama even came to power. But if Obama waived-off these rules and a successful act of terrorism brought down an airliner, the same people who are yowling now about privacy rights and government power would be painting him as soft on terrorism. This would be the same Republicans who filibustered allowing Obama's nominee to lead the TSA to even come up for a confirmation vote until just June of this year -- six months after the underwear bomber.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the scanners. Published images have clarified that they really aren't all that revealing. But I think it would be appropriate to randomly select passengers for this type of screening and only steer larger threats in this direction after having gone through the customary screening we have all become used to and was in-place until this fiasco came about.
Popi
Popi 0
NEXT Unzip your pants!
MrTommy
MrTommy 0
We need to get over our 'false modesty' and just leave our clothes in the car. That won't be enough of course, so next will come the cavity searches. Gee, will we be able to pick the TSA professional we want to DO the search? We need to get busy on that "Beam me up, Scotty" technology right now!

I'm not making light of the terrorist menace, but I AM making light of the useless body scanning technology that they've already admitted would NOT have detected that explosive stuff (whatever its name) that is the choice of current 'blow-up' artists. Right now, somewhere in the middle-east, there's terrorists sitting in a cave watching CNN or Fox, pointing and laughing at us.
Gurden5
Jonathan Gurden 0
"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Richarm
Mark Richards 0
We spend all this money on technology to detect weapons or materials that can be fabrcated into a weapon all the while the terrorist only starts looking and inventing ways to circumvent the new technology. It becomes obsolete. The only way that does not become technology obsolete is profiling. I support profiling.
MRDUCKS
David Babbitt 0
I never did understand why profiling was anything other that a political problem. How does it become a constitutional issue?
Again, El Al has never had a problem (which includes hijacking from day one}.
Richarm
Mark Richards 0
Another, lets appease the rest of the world at our expense. Just go to another country and see if your civil rights apply there.
boughbw
Brian Bough 0
Does El Al sell tickets to everyone? I'd bet El Al has a better watch list than the US has an I'd also bet they don't let suspects buy tickets (except for the purpose of capturing the terrorists).
heidecke
There are better ways to focus our security. First we MUST secure our borders so terrorist are not free to simply walk across our southern border. We must also strictly enforce our immigration laws so we know about aliens in the country that are up to no good (i.e., the 9/11 guys). Next we MUST implement an effective "Trusted Traveler" program at ALL airports so we don't waste our time on non-threats. For example, why do pilots have to go through this security procedure ... if they want to destroy the airplane they already have that ability. Any traveler who wants to go through a rigorous background investigation should be able to also bypass this extra security which means TSA could concentrate their efforts on those who do not want to or cannot pass a background check or those who are flagged for special attention for a good reason. Spending time worrying about someone with a nail file attached to their nal clippers or someone with a bottle of eye liquid is an absolute waste of everyone's time. I know TSA is trying to justify more money and more people but it is time to have "SMART SECURITY".
Richarm
Mark Richards 0
If you are a suspected terrorist or even from a country that terrorist activites are know to exist you go through a comprehensive screening. If enough of the citizens of these countries have to suffer through this humiliation maybe they will start policeing themselves. It is sad but that crap has to change from within. And we have to stop worring about political correctness.
Richarm
Mark Richards 0
Richard, I like your idea about a comprehensive back ground check. That person can be issued an id card that would basically allow you to bypass the exray and pat down. I had to do this to be able to enter different plants that we have at port cities. It is a TWIC card. (Transportation worker Identification Card). Eliminating most of the non-threats should speed check ups and eliminate a lot of wasteful spending. But, this is the government that thrives on finding ways to garner more tax dollers so even though it makes a lot of sense, it's not likely to happen.
jcartlidge
John Cartlidge 0
People who moan about security checks really annoy me.
What would rather have,walk through a perfectly harmless scanner or have a bunch of mental ragheads hijack you flight and drop it on a big building.?????
I know which i would rather have or are you all ashamed of your small penis'.?
Richarm
Mark Richards 0
Look jack wad, all I'm saying is there are better ways to accompolish security at far less waste and expense. I'm glad we're doing something I just think there are better, less intrusive ways for the majority of the traveling public. Why should the majority of the traveling public that is not a threat be subjected to this because of a few. I say isolate the few or give the majoriy a means to exhonerate themselves ie the back ground check. Have no idea where you get being ashamed of anything comes out in any of the posted dialogue. You must be a liberal.
Caps8
Robbie Leahy 0
Clothes are to blame. No close=no where to hide contraband. But id much rather wear clothes.
Sundancer73
Mike Towner 0
The ONLY thing that will make commercial ari travel safer is simply eliminate the insane 'ban' on 'profiling'.. Nuns and 3 year old children will never hijack an airliner.. Muslims WILL..yet we're not permitted to single them out. The radical Muslims are laughing their asses off at us.. they can pretty much do what they's like.
IMHO, these jerks don't expect BIG results from aircraft.. next will be a cargo containr in some Liberal Basion harbor like S.F, L.A., Boston or N.Y.C. But watch, WHEN it happens, it will be 'Bush's Fault'..
MRDUCKS
David Babbitt 0
Robbie you have forgotten about the suicide bomber who had the devise internally when he attempted to kill a Saudi prince. Up next, cavity searches for everyone!
MRDUCKS
David Babbitt 0
I just returned from China. I never had a better experience in commercial travel. Did 5 internal flights and one international.
skleinert
skleinert 0
First the airport..next the bank, the grocery store, college campus, grade schools. After all, more people are dying in this places from domestic thugs so lets keep giving up our rights and live under that red hammer and sickle flag. At least then, we are being honest about what we have given up. Heck, just give the keys back to England.
skleinert
skleinert 0
First the airport..next the bank, the grocery store, college campus, grade schools. After all, more people are dying in this places from domestic thugs so lets keep giving up our rights and live under that red hammer and sickle flag. At least then, we are being honest about what we have given up. Heck, just give the keys back to England.
skleinert
skleinert 0
First the airport..next the bank, the grocery store, college campus, grade schools. After all, more people are dying in this places from domestic thugs so lets keep giving up our rights and live under that red hammer and sickle flag. At least then, we are being honest about what we have given up. Heck, just give the keys back to England.
MRDUCKS
David Babbitt 0
If we as Americans want to be a Free people we must accept some risk. There is no such thing as risk free. When we set sail for these shores we risked everything. When we pushed west we did the same. When we began to explore space we did the same. We can mitigate the risk but never remove it completely. Those getting on the Titanic thought they were totally risk free. If you are unwilling to accept any amount of risk - stay home!
atlwatchdog
Watch Dog 0
Again people,

The annual murder rate in this country averages over 15,000 people. How many folks die in this country from acts of terrorism each year? But yet there are still those of you who will quickly give up your rights for the sake of feeling safe on an airplane.

The next step for you is to allow the police to randomly search your home. This would be equivalent to the SS searching for Jews, just instead it would be the police searching for people who look weird or look like they might commit a crime one day.

Those of you who are blind to this, I feel really sorry for you.
cloudskurfer
cloudskurfer 0
You people have demolished this thread. The TSA is grabbing your sack at the airport cause you guys think posting on is flight aware.com is going to do something. Write your politician and make em work for you. How about you do something productive and get off the facebook mentality by responding to blogs with anger and grow up ... Write a paper letter and send it to your state and federal government!!!!!!!
mbazell
mbazell 0
I totally agree. Add to that, I don't see any screeners or cops getting patted down or the back scatter gama rays treatment. So now flight crews go thru the routine, radiation, medical exam, take off belts, shoes, watches, wallets out of pockets, etc., then they go down stairs to ops and pick up their Glock or Smith & Wesson and get on board. Real common sense coming from TSA. I'd like to see Napolitano go thru gama rays 5 or 6 times a day, then get exposed to UV rays 8 hours a day coming thru the windshield. Israel has gone 3 decades with only one incident and they don't use deadly rays or groping. They use profiling...but that wouldn't work in the U.S. It's not politically correct.
skleinert
skleinert 0
The sad upside of this whole process is the 1,000's of TSA Mall Cop wannabe's will be glowing a nuclear Soilent Green in a few years from constant exposure to all of those "safe" nukes! Yep, like most things Government, "we thought it was safe, guess we was wrong!" At least they won't have junk to be grabbed when they get to go through...it will have fallen off.
chuck416
chuck416 0
TSA

Terrorists
Succeeded
Again

That's what I think every time I see the line going through security lines. If we truly want secure flights, we need look no further than the Israelis, and do what they do. One glaring omission from their perspective is "security theatre" that we have here in the 'land of the free'. Thanks Amerika
Chuck
putsche
Harvey Putsche 0
My solution would to be put the Air-marshals back on every flight and shut down the massive bureaucracy that is building up in TSA. The cost savings to the tax-payers will provide ample funding for the Air-marshals (probably at a lower cost) and provide a more hassle free environment for air travelers. (except those that need to be hassled by the air-marshal(s). Keep the metal detectors and bag scanners in a law enforcement local police officers environment (not contractors). Make it a duty rotation so they stay sharp and don't get bored doing this every day. (police officers go through much more thorough training and can handle situations that a contractor will not and the police officers will be U.S. Citizens ... not green card employees)
CrawfordAir
CrawfordAir 0
Police officers should also be able to obtain a "certification" to carry concealed on aircraft. Police officers are generally very used to carrying weapons among many people in many situations and doing so with the reliance of the hand gun. No "panic" is not part of the equation. The officers are typically used to carrying while off duty and it is common to carry while on travel. But when it comes to air transportation they have to put away their guns just when the public can really benefit from what is essentially free protection. "Where are the cops when you need them" comes to mind. With a little extra taining we can let cops be cops.
I do think the common metal detectors and x-ray screening are ok. They certainly prevent the knuckleheads from trying the system. However, I think if you get caught and convicted of trying the penalty should be severe to the point of unfair; lets just say.
CrawfordAir
CrawfordAir 0
I meant to say "without" the reliance of a hand gun. Very significant typo. Sorry
patrickj62
Patrick Johnston 0
Security does not trump the constitution:

"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."

Seems pretty clear to me... this IS our way of life and those that wish to harm the US on a large scale have succeeded - by way of the TSA, not in spite of it.

Entrar

Não tem uma conta? Registre-se agora (gratuito) para funcionalidades personalizáveis, alertas de vôo e mais!