• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Anyone flying soon?

that's a damn good idea! hell, why stop there? pee in your pants!

see thats gross. i highly doubt they ENJOY frisking people. put dog **** on the front porches of the guys who put this in place, dont blame the poor peons that have to enforce it.

i wish the world had any idea how often ive almost decked customers at work for personally blaming ME for what my GIANT company does. im one step from the bottom.. dont take it out on me.

luckily i can just step into a freezer and scream obscenities as loud as i can. these poor saps have to stand there and inspect the next guy.
 
Excluding the 4 planes jacked on 9-11, a total of 13 US commercial airliners were hijacked.

Two occured in the 1960's
Eight in the 1970's
Two in the 1980's
One in the 1990's
Then in 2001 we had the 4 hijacked on 9-11.

We must also take into account the total number of aircraft that fly on a daily basis and create a ratio of total planes to hijacked planes. This makes the total amount of hijacked planes a very minute figure in relationship to total planes flying per year.

Other than the 1970's, the trend remained consistently low. Since 2001, we're also pretty much, on par for the course as far as the trend in hijacking goes per decade. It is obvious that security procedures put in place post 1970's era were in fact reducing hijackings, hence making them effective. These statistics do add some legitimacy to what people are saying about post 9-11 being fueled by governmental forced fed fear tactics to keep the masses scared.

Please educate me on how we are safer now?
Well, we apparently haven't had a single hijacking in nine years. Based on the data above, that could very well be a record.;)
 
This is a good point, except that YOU'RE NOT GIVING UP ANY RIGHTS.
This would be a good point, except that HE NEVER SAID HE WAS GIVING UP ANY RIGHTS. It is pretty sad how insolent people get when addressing another's concerns that seemingly cross their political standing. Don't worry, though, a reread of this thread would reveal that you're not the only one.
Backing to lurking.:rolleyes:
 
I tend to agree with cassanova and Jimmy on this. I'm not necessarily in disagreement with the searches, or even the technology, but rather the unblinking systematic brainless approach to it. A family of three beeps. They're pulled aside and given the wand. Again nothing bad so far. They search the bag, pat down the mom, pat down the dad, and pat down the kid. They still beep. They don't want to be body scanned so they're body searched. Including the child who is screaming bloody murder as a stranger feels her whole body. Personally I'm with the kid. It don't feel right.

I'm not opposed to any of the methods currently in place, but I can't help but feel when I stare into the mouth breathing blankness that is the TSA, that this is all just an illusion. Personally, I like the methods the Israelis use. They look at the people. They use the same technology and look for physical cues. If a person looks suspicious he or she is interrogated and scrutinized. They've learned to distinguish a nervous flyer from a nervous hijacker/bomber or the different ways different cultures, peoples, and their sexes exhibit the range of behaviors that could be interpreted as dangerous. The difference is they rely on profiling, and interviews more than body searches. It's less invasive and more accurate IMO.
 
Personally I don't care about the searches one bit and I get a kick out of it. I fly a lot and I'd like to keep coming back to my wife and daughter. I blame the idiots that try to kill us, not the TSA.


Apparently you're one of the people that has fallen for the TSA "security theater"... it LOOKS safer, so it must be safer

...even though repeated evidence shows it's no safer, but much less efficient than the old way.
 
This is a good point, except that YOU'RE NOT GIVING UP ANY RIGHTS.

Questionable - because you can be charged civilly for refusing to consent to the search.

Basically if they walk up and say they want to search you, and you say "no way, I'm going to leave and not get on a plane" and walk out of the airport... they can charge you with a civil infraction.

That seems to come pretty darn close to bordering on a rights violation - you can't even refuse the search and leave the private property... there has to be SOME opt out.
 
The thing that bugs me the most about the outrage over these "invasive" searches is that the people who are up in arms about it are the same people who will crucify the current administration if another plane gets hijacked...

Speak for yourself. Planes get hijacked. They always have, and they always will. I think most Americans understand that and would rather take the risk than subject themselves to the pathetic attempts of "security" that airports are trying to impose on the public - which have pretty much been a failure.

IMHO, the terrorists have already won at this point. When you can't even bring nail clippers, a bottle of water, or cleaning solution for contacts past security, something is seriously wrong. We're allowing the fear of the potential for something bad to happen to control the way we live our lives. That's not saying we should get rid of all security measures, but rather, we should make an attempt to establish a conversation that asks, "how much (security) is too much?" It's a gray area for sure, however, most Americans seem to think it's currently too much.

This is a good point, except that YOU'RE NOT GIVING UP ANY RIGHTS.

Wah wah wah. I don't feel like I'm giving up my freedom when flying nor my rights...

If you feel violated, you can always charter a private plane. You don't go through security (at least I haven't when I flew both corporate and private). Problem solved. Oh, you can't afford it? Ok, then don't fly and we're left with no issue.

Stop whining and deal with the fact that there are some people that want us all dead and planes as proven make nice vehicles for the job. Let's hear your better ideas for security as I'm sure that our folks that are in charge of this stuff just aren't really giving it they old boy scout try. Let's hear your blueprints for better security.

The problem with this outlook is that there are many, many ways to get around security and cause harm to the American public.

Heck, why is a terrorist suddenly only able to do harm at an airport? What's stopping him from blowing up a public bus, a high school, a community rec center, a well populated mall, or any other place in order to instigate fear in the American public?

You know what, you're absolutely right. We should look towards airport security as our one true beacon of hope, and we should learn from their example. I think I'll write my congressmen and tell them to install full body scanners in malls.
I also believe that kids these days are so influential by outside forces that it's very likely that many of them are terrorists, too. Perhaps we should have TSA agents give mandatory frisks to all high school students in all high schools across the country. Of course, this wouldn't apply to private school kids because they can afford non-commercial schools.

:rollno: Where does it stop, and when will people realize that all this additive sense of security is nothing more than an allusion? If people want to harm us then they will by any means necessary, and they will not limit themselves just to airports.

Look man. You don't have to insult people with comments like "wah wah wah" and down play the way many feel about this...

People forget or act like planes weren't hijacked prior to 9-11, they were. The biggest difference between now and then is we didn't allow ourselves to live in fear of it. We went on with our lives, as we should.

Let's all, also remember one very important piece of information about the hijackings on 9-11 that tend to never get mentioned. The hijackers that took control of the planes brought nothing illegal on board and broke no laws to get on board. Up until the actual hijacking itself, nothing illegal happened.

The moral of that story is, that if someone wants to hijack a plane they will always find a way to do it, regardless of what security procedures are in place.

It is not outside the realm of possibility to think that militant organizations have personnel currently in place such as, security, baggage handlers, and other miscellaneous staff which are granted access to planes. This could easily afford them the opportunity to circumvent security procedures, which in turn, would allow them sneak explosives or other devices onto a plane.

The more security measures we put in place that restrict our rights, freedoms, and liberties, the more we cater to the will of militant organizations that use terrorism as a battle tactic; because we are giving them exactly what they want by disrupting our way of life and living in fear of them. It also helps to create some dissension within our country, which makes it a tad easier for them to carry out their will against us. It is always easier to attack someone when you divide and conquer, and to some extent, I think that's what's happening here in the states. We are gradually being divided amongst each other and our government.

Please educate me on how we are safer now?

We have rights. If they are rights, then the government should NOT be allowed to take them away. After all, that's what a right is, something we are entitled to that cannot be taken away. If it weren't then it would be called a privilege. Flying is a privilege not a right, but just because someone buys a plane ticket and chooses to fly does not give the government legitimate grounds to circumvent your rights granted by the constitution. They put all these security measures in place under the guise of security because there are people out there that want us dead and used planes to kill us, but these same people can obtain a f****** gun at Walmart. Not to mention guns have been used more than any other weapon in violent crimes, but I'm supposed to be buying the government gives a s*** about our safety. If they did, then they'd be making it damn near impossible for most people to get a gun instead since it's more commonly used to kill people than a plane ever has. :rollno:

+1,000,000

Questionable - because you can be charged civilly for refusing to consent to the search.

Basically if they walk up and say they want to search you, and you say "no way, I'm going to leave and not get on a plane" and walk out of the airport... they can charge you with a civil infraction.

That seems to come pretty darn close to bordering on a rights violation - you can't even refuse the search and leave the private property... there has to be SOME opt out.

Another great point.
 
aborgman said:
Questionable - because you can be charged civilly for refusing to consent to the search.

Basically if they walk up and say they want to search you, and you say "no way, I'm going to leave and not get on a plane" and walk out of the airport... they can charge you with a civil infraction.

That seems to come pretty darn close to bordering on a rights violation - you can't even refuse the search and leave the private property... there has to be SOME opt out.

The "opt out" is not showing up at the airport. Problem solved.
 
listen, the govt has turned tsa into a showboat agency that desperately wants to prove that they're doing something. remember when they banned and confiscated lighters because of that idiot who had a wet shoebomb? it cost them about $4 million over the course of 2 years to dispose of them, and during that whole entire time, i was able to walk in and out of security with a lighter in my pocket. this is more of the same.

write your congressman! write your senators! tell them we won't stand for being gate raped just to pretend like we're safer flying. except for a handful of you wussies who lay down like dogs for whatever the government tells you to do as long as it's your party who told you and not the other guy's party.
 
Personally, I like the methods the Israelis use. They look at the people. They use the same technology and look for physical cues. If a person looks suspicious he or she is interrogated and scrutinized. They've learned to distinguish a nervous flyer from a nervous hijacker/bomber or the different ways different cultures, peoples, and their sexes exhibit the range of behaviors that could be interpreted as dangerous. The difference is they rely on profiling, and interviews more than body searches. It's less invasive and more accurate IMO.

actually, i've been detained in israel, they suck too.
just as bad, if not worse.
we had to have the gear flown back separately by the promoter because they had to search everything. couldn't wait as we would've missed our only flight option that day after the extra 4 hours of questioning and already having to be rebooked to the only other flight.
coming in was a wave and hand shake, go figure.
it all sucks. but i really don't have any answers, and as someone who relies on flying for work, i actually feel it's better than nothing.
in a bad mood? share the love and do some crop dusting during the pat.
 
:rolleyes:

You could have asked via PM.
But then the rest of us wouldn't be able to read about it, and we're all busybodies.:D

As a fan of civil liberties I disagree with intrusive screening at airports. It's stepped over the previous line of Monty Python-eque silliness and reached abusive.

I'm boycotting air flights until either I need to go somewhere far away or they retool their screening techniques, whichever comes first.:hmm:
 
I know a guy who is a pilot, and he said they have to submit to all the security measures etc as well. Scanned for explosives, can't take a nail file on board, blah blah. Apparently its mainly for show. Though he did get reprimanded for 6 months because he pointed out that if he wanted to kill everyone, he would just crash the plane into the ground..

The best part is, the catering staff and baggage handlers can just waltz straight on and off most of the time.

Airport security is way overboard in my opinion. If you want to blow up a plane, get a job working in one of the food outlets on the inside of the security area, or head down to the hangar and stick the bomb on there. Boarding as a normal passenger doesn't seem like a very good option even with light security measures.


what? australia (and new zealand) were the two most hardcore searches ive ever seen, though that was only coming in maybe. i forget. im sure they dont care what you carry off the island.

Im guessing he means flying within the country. International security measures kind of make sense being island nations. They are not too concerned about you having a bomb on the plane.. but take a piece of fruit on their and you'll have customs all over you ;)