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?
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.
'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.
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)
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
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.
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**
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
by L a d y f a c e 7 years ago
Currently there are two new measures in place at the airport for screening. There is the 3D machine (Advanced Imaging Technology) which sees through clothing; and there is the new pat down option where people are actually having their genitals groped. If you are 'randomly selected' for the extra...
by Danette Watt 6 years ago
Do you travel less by plane now because of TSA regulations?
by tobey100 8 years ago
I support the Arizona Immigration Law and I'll gladly tell you why....I've read it. All of it. I've been slammed from every corner for supporting profiling. I always ask my critic, "Have you read the law?" the answer is usually a resounding yes yet, when I ask them...
by Abdul Hood 2 years ago
Is it reasonable to think one could fight and win a racial profiling case?In the south there are still police that racial profile to pull potential drug traffickers over to illegally search their vehicles. is it worth it to fight in a racist community and can it be beat? ...
by Jason Matthews 10 months ago
Should airports be able to hire private security to replace the TSA?Some are questioning the TSA's ability to properly screen travelers; many have had bad TSA experiences. Should there be alternative options to the TSA?
by LailaK 6 years ago
Many people agree and disagree with racial profiling. To put it in simpler words, if someone looks like a terrorist, for example, do you think he/she should be stopped and checked in the airport only because the person looks like one? Would you get offended if YOU were randomly picked out from the...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|