Full body scans and pat downs: Do they cross the line?

[Sinclair Solutions]

To be honest, I think that terrorists are clever mother-fuckers. We've seen what they are capable of. They will sneak a bomb in their underwear if they wanted to. I think that the safety precautions, regardless of how invasive they are, are just one of the things we have to deal with in order to be safer from these people. Sure it sucks, sure it is embarrassing when you get pulled to the side, but would you rather be dead? I think its a sacrifice we have to make.

 

[Frotality]

there are many, many, many things american airlines go too far with, they get away with it because there really isnt an alternative to flying.

i would quote ben franklin, but someone already has. point being, nothing is every truly safe; do what you can to avoid disaster, but this is bordering on the 1984/fahrenheit 451 level of overly safety conscious; i sincerely doubt theyve foiled the plans of all those terrorists stuffing bombs in their crotch or the taliban's new suicide cleavage bomber attack plan.

this isnt safety, its paranoia benefiting no one outside perverted security guards. the point where we are violating the personal space of our own citizens just for a system of public transportation is the point where the terrorists, who mind you fight with TERROR to TERRIFY us, have won.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I heard that a terrorist hid a needle in his urethra. I suggest searches that involve a form of suction as well.


Just to be safe. Remember 9/11.

 

[Crowser]

People ***** about lack of security, and when they increase security, people ***** about too much security. You're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't.

OT: I'm perfectly fine with it, went the The Rally to Restore Sanity and had to fly there... full body scan was a piece of cake. Takes like 5 seconds and they only pat you down IF it detects something (which it shouldn't unless you forgot something in your pocket).

 

[rockingnic]

I don't know about the pat downs but people shouldn't be complaining about the full body scans except for those who are constantly exposed to it. It only has 1/200 of the radiation of an x-ray you get to check for broken bones so the only people that need to worry are those with constant exposure. If you only fly only a couple times a year, don't complain. If you fly on a regular basis like flight attendants, pilots, airport personnel, some business people maybe then you should have an alternative.

 

[Blind Sight]

Well the more places you don't search, the more places an illicit object can be hidden. And we live in uncertain times. Honestly, if you really have a problem with some guy patting your groin or scanning you, you deserve to get blown up. Its a small sacrifice to pay for relative security.

Well then, by all means, bend over and take it. *puts on rubber glove* I'm sure you're in a favour of full anal searches, right? Anything for relative security.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin knew what he was talking about, life's risky, deal with it.

Either you are misquoting him or Ben Franklin is a moron. What liberty are you talking about? The right to hide things on your person? The right to not be touched? There has to be give and take. The airline can accept your right to not be searched, but you should then recognise their right to not put their customers at risk by putting you on their flight.
I'm certain Franklin would submit himself to a search if he thought it made the flight safer.

Franklin's point, in that quote, is that it's a slippy slope once you begin to surrender your rights for the sake of security. As I asked before, are you in favour of full anal searches before you get on a plane? Like you said, it's a small sacrifice to pay for relative security.

As I pointed out in my first post, the security system is fundamentally broken anyway, I could walk up to the security line with a bomb strapped to me and blow myself up there. Lots of dead people, no security to worry about, mission accomplished. How will patting people down prevent that?

 

[Cliff_m85]

Catholic Priests can now work at the airport and get away with feelin' up younguns.

 

[Seitou]

Well the more places you don't search, the more places an illicit object can be hidden. And we live in uncertain times. Honestly, if you really have a problem with some guy patting your groin or scanning you, you deserve to get blown up. Its a small sacrifice to pay for relative security.

Are you kidding me? Having some guy feel up my partner is not a sacrifice I, or her are willing to make just to get on a plane. More to the point no-one should ahve to choose between sexual harrasment and travel. Like Xiorel said some guy wants to cop a feel he'll get her breaking his nose then me breaking his fucking spine. Even worse if they want to search you and you decline and choose to leave that puts you under even more suspiscion, you can't even just fucking /leave/ if you don't want someone feeling you up.

Okay, relax. They don't get men to search women. Also, the rules against sexual harassment in this area are extremely strict, like teachers and paedophiles. If they even thought about suspecting a 'searcher' of feeling up customers, he/she'd be gone. And a full body scan wouldn't even require touching, if they went that far.
As far as I'm concerned, If you refuse a search, you shouldn't be allowed on the plane. If you care that much about being touched by other people, you shouldn't even leave your own house, in case you sue someone who bumps into you in the street.
And really? You'd really rather it was easier for extremists to take over your plane with a concealed weapon than have someone search your partner in privacy? Even if they did feel her up, you'd probably make a killing with a lawsuit. or at least get the flight for free.

With the part about not being allowed on the plane I agree...sort of, but it doesn't work like that, you don't just get to not fly. If you refuse the search suddenly you're under a shitload more suspicion even if it was just to avoid being patted down by a stranger. Oh yeah, what with the fact that body searches are the only way of finding drugs, explosives and weapons, oh right i nearly forgot about the dogs, xrays, chemical scanners and bag checks! And I know the point you're trying to make but the difference between bumping into someone and getting patted down is astronimacally different. It's like comparing someon putting a hand on your shoulder and cupping your ass, not even the same sort of game, let alone the same ballpark.

Finally, fuck the lawsuit if they feel her up I don't want their money I want the guys fucking spinal column :/ ... okay that might be a bit far but you get my point. >.>

Look, my point is it's not too far. I don't care how they search, as long as my flight is as safe as possible. There will probably be a way to cheat any search, but how stupid would you feel if it turned out the terrorist had been hiding explosives in his underpants, and had been allowed to bypass the search by claiming his rights were in violation. I really wouldn't have a problem with my girlfriend being taken to a private room and being searched by a female member of security. If it turned out she was groped by a lesbian, I wouldn't want her spinal column, but I would like her to lose her job. I just don't see your issue with being searched. Are you incapable of being touched in the crotch without feeling violated?

I'm not saying to be more lax in security I'm saying to cut out something that's a breach of a person's fundamental right to their own body's privacy. If it even /remotely/ worked I'd probably be more accepting of it but it doesn't...like, at all. Dogs, bag checks, chemical scanners and swabs, metal detectors, /they/ all have proven to work. And yes, if a stranger touches my balls i feel violated, and? It's an unnesasary addition that adds nothing, finds nothing and only serves as a visible search where the other passangers can see something being done.

 

[Macgyvercas]

I think they cross the line a fair bit. In fact, it's getting quite silly at this point. Right now, we're just being paranoid. To which I respond, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

*Apparently I was ninja'd on that quote, but it bears repeating.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Is it an invasion of privacy? Sure is.

The question, then, is not if such measures are invasive, but rather if you think they offer benefits that outweigh the costs. It isn't as though air travel has ever been anything other than invasive. Before the events of September 11, riding on an aircraft still required you to remove all objects in your pockets, submit your carry on baggage to x-ray (and potential follow on hand) screening, the same for your checked baggage. Passengers could still be more rigorously scanned after the x-ray device with a small wand style scanner and from there it was not unheard of that a pat down search might occur. So, such things were already being done, but they were being done to a relatively small portion of the population.

Does patting everyone etc actually offer an improvement in security? Not really to be honest. If you only pat some people down or scan SOME people, someone trying to smuggle something they shouldn't on the plane might not think to place it in an area where they might be rigorously searched. By doing these searches on everyone, you simply demonstrate where you're going to look leaving people free to find new places to cram stuff. Ingestion, rectal and vaginal stashing and I'm sure plenty of other even less pleasant options still exist.

It would seem then that perfect safety would be both incredibly costly and fantastically invasive. You would require a full strip search, followed by a complete body cavity search, followed by chemical sniffing followed by a battery of internal scans and a thorough background check and psychological evaluation. At that point, you would be employing so many people to guarantee your security the price of the ticket would be astronomical, and while people may eventually get used to being treated as the most dangerous criminal on the planet every time they get on a plane, there aren't many people who'd line up for a dozen or more hours of probing, prodding and questioning in the first place.

 

[Wicky_42]

Well the more places you don't search, the more places an illicit object can be hidden. And we live in uncertain times. Honestly, if you really have a problem with some guy patting your groin or scanning you, you deserve to get blown up. Its a small sacrifice to pay for relative security.

Well then, by all means, bend over and take it. *puts on rubber glove* I'm sure you're in a favour of full anal searches, right? Anything for relative security.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin knew what he was talking about, life's risky, deal with it.

Either you are misquoting him or Ben Franklin is a moron. What liberty are you talking about? The right to hide things on your person? The right to not be touched? There has to be give and take. The airline can accept your right to not be searched, but you should then recognise their right to not put their customers at risk by putting you on their flight.
I'm certain Franklin would submit himself to a search if he thought it made the flight safer.

Basically, why should they be allowed to search you without any grounds for suspicion? It's a violation of your privacy and is degrading. You only allow it because they say it's for your own safety, but if you don't stop and think to offer protest then you're wilfully subjecting yourself to harassment and an invasion of your liberty to travel. You get used to full body searches at airports, then they start telling you that it's needed on buses and trains too, then you'll be happily allowing strip searches in the streets, all under the fear of some third party being out to get you.

There's already a large range of security precautions, to the point where the UK was considering reviewing them because there were so many conflicting standards at play, causing multiple redundancies and costs etc. These two being talked about in the OP add yet another layer of such redundancy: full body scans and an intimate search? Why?! The scan alone sees through your clothes and can analyse chemicals and metals - the grope-up is just some stupid invasive 'we're in control here, comply' bullshit.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

It is not so much that they do this that bugs me so much that the government makes them

 

[SnipErlite]

To be honest, I'm not bothered about strict airport regulations.

In fact, I'm a little worried at times - I snuck a penknife on a flight pretty easily not too long ago (I didn't want to leave it behind okay)

 

[KSarty]

The pat down is only if you refuse the scanner, you don't get both.

They are private airlines, they don't have to let you fly. They are well within their rights to impose these rules, just as you are well within your rights to not use their services.

 

[NoNameMcgee]

People who are really bothered by the full body scanners are laughably insecure with themselves.

As for pat downs.. "Oh no they're invading my personal space!" LOL.. What crybabies. Again, peoples insecurities at play.

Personally I don't care in the slightest. These are not even extreme measures, people.

 

[Antari]

Air travel in general has become a pain, across the board. Unless I need to cross an ocean, I'll drive.

 

[Terminate421]

So long as the person grabbing my crotch is a woman I have no problem.

 

[Seitou]

The pat down is only if you refuse the scanner, you don't get both.

They are private airlines, they don't have to let you fly. They are well within their rights to impose these rules, just as you are well within your rights to not use their services.

They don;'t just refuse you service, if you'd read the entire thread you'd have seen it mentioned a few times that if you do refuse you can be fined, and taken into custody under suspicion, it's not as simple as saying "no thanks" and not flying.

People who are really bothered by this are laughably insecure with themselves.

You can just shut up, you're either an idiot or a troll and either way your opinion is worthless. I'm confident in my body, the fact that I don't want a stranger cupping my balls "just in case" has nothing to do with insecurity and everything to do with modesty. No-one but my friends, my family and my partner can touch my intimately and no-one but my partner can touch my junk. Calling anyone with a sense of personal modesty insecure is ignorant, and you should keep that in mind.

...wow that got a little personal, sorry but that pisses me off, modesty is not a fucking crime against nature and I'm sick of people calling people who actually care about that sort of thing insecure or out of the ordinary.

 

[paddyshay]

its a horrible invasion of personal privacy and an overly-invasive procedure that shocks me to be occurring in a country founded on personal freedom. It's a band-aid. Furthermore, it's a band-aid on a broken bone. It is the airlines saying "Hey look we did something, see we aren't incompetent! Now step into this machine and be 'lightly' irradiated my good sheeple." They aren't fixing the problem, they are simply giving the illusion that they're fixing it.
At this point they might as well have airports be considered foreign soil, since apparently my personal freedoms mean nothing once I step through those doors. If a terrorist makes it to the actual airport, do you know what that means? That means that these people have bamboozled every federal agency, every machine logging information on known terrorist activities, and every safeguard America has in place to prevent these people from succeeding. At that point I really don't see how a man patting down his genitals is going to stop him from succeeding, because he's obviously some sort of terror-houdini. This is a raindrop on a wildfire, and the only thing I see it doing is violating the personal privacy and freedoms of the people it strives to "protect".

The worst part is that everyone is so afraid of the terrorists that they will just roll over and accept that this is for the best because they're told to. They're making up our minds for us and getting away with it by pointing at boogeymen.