TSA Regulations - No One Will Be Spared

1. 60

   SiddSinghposted 13 years ago

   Meera Shankar, the Indian (India = the South Asian Country) Ambassador to the USA subjected to a pat down check.
   
   http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl … 070125.cms
   
   I have been following the debate on TSA regulations in a cursory way - though I am not a US resident. I understand the concern of US authorities - but can they draw a line somewhere?

   replyreport
   1. 58

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed. However here in the US we have been hung up on  political correctness. Basically every tenth person gets searched. It's done this way so no one can say we are profiling. I say WHO CARES! Children are being patted down. Nuns are being patted down. It's rediculous. I'm all for security but I would like a little common sense as well.

      replyreport
2. 78

   kirstenblogposted 13 years ago

   'but can they draw a line somewhere?'
   
   Simple answer, nope!
   
   The people need to draw that line and are not doing so. I guess because they are still being kept scared of the Muslim boogyman, sad really
   
   Freedom is ever vigilant, and so many have become complacent.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Dalyinxposted 13 years ago

   This is ridiculous.  I hate the TSA.
   
   From an inconvenience - benefit analysis, you can find that all of this extra security is pretty meaningless. 
   
   I'd take the .000008% chance of being blown/killed in an airplane over a 5% chance of being harassed by the TSA.  (this is assuming a successful attack rate of 1/year without the TSA, which is HIGHLY unlikely, and 30,000 commercial flights/day, although it's probably higher now)

   replyreport
   1. 78

      kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I bet you are happy taking a chance ever time you cross the road too! Honestly, I am too. Life is full of chances and risks, no compromise on freedom is worth the supposed safety offered. I am happy enough for reasonable checks to be made to insure basic safety but there are limits to what is reasonable and those limits have been pissed on

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Dalyinxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I agree entirely @ reasonable checks.  I'd like to not get hit by a car or blown up, but I'm not going to stay inside my house all the time in order to avoid it.  This insanity needs to stop.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I bet you are also the sort to look both ways before crossing the street, instead of closing your eyes and hoping for the best! Seriously, some safety precautions are good, that guy getting on the plane with wires sticking out should be checked, the guy who sets the metal detectors off too, but everyone? Hmmm, land of the free my a**

            replyreport
   2. 94

      wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      YOU may be willing to take the risk as opposed to the inconvenience, but the 3000 people that die as a result of that risk would probably rather see you inconvenienced slightly.  As would your fellow 200 passengers.
      
      I would also question your "highly unlikely" rate of 1 incident per year without the TSA; why would terrorists give up a proven successful killing tool unless they had to?  We might see 10 or 100 incidents per year if we made no effort to stop it - any guess here is meaningless.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Dalyinxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Because the TSA has only existed since 9/11.  Before then, airlines had their own security.  There were not 10-100 attacks a year during that time.
         
         Also, I think you're misinterpreting the point that I'm trying to get across.  It's that excessive security measures offer such a small benefit that they're not worth it.  To go back to Kristen's crossing the street analogy: I'm sure plenty of people don't want to get hit by a car, but does that stop them from stepping outside of their house?  No.  I don't -want- to get blown up, but I'm not (and many clearly aren't) willing to inconvenience myself to such a degree in order to avoid it.
         
         Traditionally, car/truck bombings are more successful than airplane attacks.  Should we have an agency dedicated to exhaustive inspection of cars and trucks?

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "excessive security measures" - a few seconds delay in a scanner is not excessive.  And certainly a few seconds of YOUR time to potentially save MY life is worth it to me!
            
            "small benefit" - if your life is the one saved, it is not so small.  You cannot possibly predict how many attempts will be made if we relax security, just that a prediction of increased attempts would be a good bet.  And that if just ONE is successful many people will die.
            
            car/truck bombings require large amounts of explosive and other materials and this is already watched for.  No need to check individual cars, although some particularly suspicious are checked for a variety of reasons.

            replyreport
4. 58

   foreignpressposted 13 years ago

   The problem is this: The United States is the only nation that doesn't profile. This is because everybody in the U.S. has the same right to equal treatment. So if there are 3,000 people in an airport and only one of these travelers is considered suspicious, then everybody will be screened the same. The Israelis have the best security screening model. But it is based on profiling (although they don't admit it). It's because of this "rights" issue that the TSA has sunk millions of dollars into equipment and training, and has inconvenienced and embarrassed tens of millions of travelers. if the TSA were to use the Israeli screening model, there would probably be numerous lawsuits under the guise of profiling and violation of rights.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Trust me, the US already profiles, we just don't admit it. My husband gets stopped about every second or third time we fly for the crime of Flying While Muslim. That's a little more than "random" if you ask me.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         If your correct, the search every tenth person policy is pure harrasment.

         replyreport