Anyone flying soon?

[Simo98]

Yes, and if a doctor was examining someone it would be perfectly reasonable as well. If a massage therapist was working on my thigh, it would be reasonable.

I choose to fly the same way I choose to get a massage or go to the doctor......and all 3 involve a sense of vulnerability I choose to accept.

True, like I said, its a bit of a grey area. And only to an extent. These activities are performed with full consent and behind closed doors, the 'pat downs' are not. They do offer a private screening room I am led to believe, which is good, but I still don't believe that being physically "groped" should be a condition of flying anymore than it should be going to the supermarket. The argument is you can choose not to fly, but that is just not practical in the society of today.

I can't tell you exactly why, and ill have a good think about how I can explain my feelings towards it, but its just not right.

Even if it was a necessary security precaution I would still disagree with it. The fact that it is pretty much unnecessary makes it all the more galling.

 

[Brad Johnson]

True, like I said, its a bit of a grey area. And only to an extent. These activities are performed with full consent and behind closed doors, the 'pat downs' are not. They do offer a private screening room I am led to believe, which is good, but I still don't believe that being physically "groped" should be a condition of flying anymore than it should be going to the supermarket. The argument is you can choose not to fly, but that is just not practical in the society of today.

I can't tell you exactly why, and ill have a good think about how I can explain my feelings towards it, but its just not right.

Even if it was a necessary security precaution I would still disagree with it. The fact that it is pretty much unnecessary makes it all the more galling.

The pat downs are done without consent?

 

[JimmyM]

The pat downs are done without consent?

only if you want to fly to whatever important function you might need to fly to, which where i come from is considered consent under duress.

 

[Brad Johnson]

only if you want to fly to whatever important function you might need to fly to, which where i come from is considered consent under duress.

It's still consent. It is not without it. For that matter it sounds like anything involved in the current security mode is considered duress.

 

[Simo98]

The pat downs are done without consent?

Consenting to something because you want to have a massage, and consenting because you really have no other choice, are two very different things in my opinion.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Consenting to something because you want to have a massage, and consenting because you really have no other choice, are two very different things in my opinion.

But it's still consent so saying pat downs are done without it is simply not true.

I know you want to believe they're entirely different things and I'm guessing you've never received a non-consentual massage.



Consenting to a massage because you want to have a massage and consenting to a security check because you want to fly are both VOLUNTARY. AFAIK no one is going to stop by your house and do a pat down for a flight you're not taking.

 

[JimmyM]

It's still consent. It is not without it.

legally, you would be wrong about that. confessions of crimes aren't allowed if duress is proven. wills aren't allowed if duress is proven. if you're not in hoboken by 8 am the next day, the hawkins account goes to mcginley and levitz and you're out on your ass. getting your dingles jingled or having your entire flabby ass displayed in detail to some punk kid then saved into a database was never supposed to be a condition of flying. so yes, that's duress.

so you know what'll happen? a few dozen more incidents, maybe a few lawsuits, they'll take out the machines, but meanwhile everyone got paid so they couldn't care less that the government spent what? $25 million on them with plenty more to come. that's just taxpayer money. who cares? don't worry...those machines will get bought before they get removed. everyone will get paid.

man, you have to be naive as hell to not see this as anything but a way to convert tax dollars into private riches for a handful of scumbags who invented a new machine and needed their pal the government to be a buyer. the freakin' former head of homeland security is their lobbyist! how much more transparent does it get? use your heads, people!!!

 

[Brad Johnson]

Didn't realize you passed the bar. Congrats. You can take some duress cases and end the madness for all of us.

 

[Son of Sanford]

the freakin' former head of homeland security is their lobbyist! how much more transparent does it get? use your heads, people!!!

Didja ever think about how quick this would have been shot down if Haliburton made the Xray system? Most of the proponents would be screaming one conspiracy theory or another. But, as you stated, when the political party you agree with is in office, everything is "a-ok" in the name of national security.

 

[JimmyM]

Didja ever think about how quick this would have been shot down if Haliburton made the Xray system? Most of the proponents would be screaming one conspiracy theory or another. But, as you stated, when the political party you agree with is in office, everything is "a-ok" in the name of national security.

oh, it would have gone through if haliburton made it. no doubt about it. and the same thing would have been played out with a few different players.

here's the sad fact...devo was right. de-evolution is real and it's upon us in a big way. it doesn't matter who we elect...they are all flushing us right down the universal toilet. the only difference is what direction they wipe.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Didja ever think about how quick this would have been shot down if Haliburton made the Xray system? Most of the proponents would be screaming one conspiracy theory or another. But, as you stated, when the political party you agree with is in office, everything is "a-ok" in the name of national security.

This just gets better and better. The guy Jimmy is talking about was from the previous administration. DUH.

 

[Simo98]

Consenting to a massage because you want to have a massage and consenting to a security check because you want to fly are both VOLUNTARY. AFAIK no one is going to stop by your house and do a pat down for a flight you're not taking.

Like Jimmy said, its consent under duress, you are being pressured into consenting or else you can't fly. As I said, I don't agree that a pat-down should be made a condition of flying. If it was necessary for security because I was walking into a room to meet the Queen, i'd probably consider it reasonable and be happy to consent, however in this case its just a complete waste of everyones time and energy.

Of course you could also say you are consenting to it because you are choosing not to walk through the scanny device. Although they you have an option between consenting to be touched, or consenting to be seen naked.

Like I said, the solution is simple, get supermodels in skimpy outfits doing the pat downs

All I can do it hope these scanners and processes never reach Australian domestic flights, otherwise i'm going to be doing a lot of driving.

I know you want to believe they're entirely different things and I'm guessing you've never received a non-consentual massage.

Actually I have. I consented pretty quick once she got started though

 

[BartmanPDX]

The pat downs are done without consent?

My daughter is severely developmentally disabled. She is incapable of giving consent. She can not stand still for the scanner, so she will have to go through the pat-down. Which means that someone will have to pat her down (she also has sensory issues and often doesn't like being touched). So someone will be feeling up my preteen daughter without her consent while she has a screaming fit.

All for a dog and pony show that doesn't make us much safer.

And before you reply, brad, remember that if you don't have a child like mine, you have NO FREAKING IDEA what it's like. One big meltdown can wreck a whole trip.

 

[Brad Johnson]

My daughter is severely developmentally disabled. She is incapable of giving consent. She can not stand still for the scanner, so she will have to go through the pat-down. Which means that someone will have to pat her down (she also has sensory issues and often doesn't like being touched). So someone will be feeling up my preteen daughter without her consent while she has a screaming fit.

All for a dog and pony show that doesn't make us much safer.

And before you reply, brad, remember that if you don't have a child like mine, you have NO FREAKING IDEA what it's like. One big meltdown can wreck a whole trip.

I'm not going to respond to this. Cool?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Like Jimmy said, its consent under duress, you are being pressured into consenting or else you can't fly. As I said, I don't agree that a pat-down should be made a condition of flying. If it was necessary for security because I was walking into a room to meet the Queen, i'd probably consider it reasonable and be happy to consent, however in this case its just a complete waste of everyones time and energy.

Of course you could also say you are consenting to it because you are choosing not to walk through the scanny device. Although they you have an option between consenting to be touched, or consenting to be seen naked.

Like I said, the solution is simple, get supermodels in skimpy outfits doing the pat downs

All I can do it hope these scanners and processes never reach Australian domestic flights, otherwise i'm going to be doing a lot of driving.



Actually I have. I consented pretty quick once she got started though

Once again I bow to JimmyM's legal expertise.

 

[JimmyM]

I'm not going to respond to this. Cool?

ya, tough to argue with that, isn't it?

bartman, i feel for you and your little gal. that is so not right that it's heartbreaking. i hope you get a nice tsa agent who knows what's right under the circumstances.

 

[GregC]

i'm ok with that. i'm outraged.

listen, let's not forget that it's not just the junk being fondled. i'm outraged that tsa can now see a perfect rendition of my body including the junk with their body snatcher machines. everyone has a right to dignity until it's proven they don't deserve it. this crap isn't making anyone safer. it's just a way to sell machines that earns our skeezy politicians some kickbacks.

I'm fine with outrage when it's justified, Jimmy. In the case I was referring to, the person who posted and titled the video LIED and said the kid was strip-searched by the TSA.

Since that post, I've seen more people taking Youtube titles as gospel without looking at the facts. That Daily Mail article had a guy repeating the "molested" Youtube title as fact.

Also, no one's junk has been fondled, as far as I know. I understand some people are upset and concerned about what's going on, but there's too much wild exaggeration. Some folks would do well to wipe the spittle from their frothing mouths and discuss their concerns more rationally.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

 

[GregC]

The alternative was there. We have been using it the past 9 years. As far as I can tell the system was working fine. All I can say is "If it 'aint broke, don't fix it."

It did seem to work pretty well to me. But I think you have to keep moving ahead with new technology if you think it'll be more effective. I'm no expert, but that seemed to be the consensus among those in the know.

On a side note, some of the posters in this thread seemed to think the previous methods were a sham as well. I'm not sure what they'd approve of.

aha! just saw this on youtube:

"Guess who is making money off these machines--Former Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff

"Chertoff’s group represents Rapiscan, a California based firm “which until recently was the only company qualified to sell full-body scan machines to the TSA.” Last summer, “TSA purchased 150 machines from Rapiscan with $25 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds.”

some stuff on youtube you have to take with a grain of salt. this turns out to be true:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

there you go. michael chertoff. scumbag playing both sides of the fence for monetary gain. i'm sure all his friends who helped him sell these machines got their "commissions," too.

it's always about the money.

OK, there's clearly a conflict of interest here. Probably, someone should be reprimanded for not doing their homework.

That said, it doesn't totally invalidate the use of these machines and it isn't completely damning. As the article states, Chertoff was hardly the only one pushing for them, and other companies that aren't represented by him have now developed the machines as well. Also, notice that the company Chertoff represents was the only one at the time to develop machines that produced gray, much less graphic images. So there was some justification for using them. And you should prefer that feature, right?

 

[Son of Sanford]

This just gets better and better. The guy Jimmy is talking about was from the previous administration. DUH.

No ****? The same previous administration with a VP routinely linked to Haliburton? That is either an uncanny coincidence, or you misunderstood another post again and jumped to a conclusion in your haste to grandstand, punctuated with what must now be your and my gradeschool daughter's favorite way to end a sentence. I am guessing you get corrected a lot but refuse to acknowledge it. I am guessing it is about to happen again. I made a comment to JimmyM. When you are addressed, you will see your name in the post. Cool?