Airport Security

[TheBigUnit]

What do you think of the TSA?....if you're not from usa, what do you think of the airport security in your country?

Do you think TSA is justified to do "random" searches on those who are muslim

[Jess]

No, they aren't, because not every Muslim is a terrorist, and not every terrorist is a Muslim. I've read news stories where the TSA searched little kids or people with disabilities, causing them distress....

just my thoughts...

[Sugaree]

No, they aren't, because not every Muslim is a terrorist, and not every terrorist is a Muslim. I've read news stories where the TSA searched little kids or people with disabilities, causing them distress....

just my thoughts...

The TSA doesn't care if you're Muslim or not.

[Manjusri]

Just because airport security preforms random searches on muslims doesn't mean they're searching for them. Many religions wear forms of headdresses, and unless you have esp, you won't be able to identify someone's religion just by looking at them. So claiming that they're looking specifically for muslims is not only ridiculous but next to impossible. I've never been able to guess someone's religion simply by appearance.

The airport security is getting somewhat extensive, but you have to ask yourself if it's necessary or not. With increasing technology comes more incognito explosive devices or any other harmful weaponry that can easily be hidden on someone's person. Therefore security systems need to provide more extensive search methods to ensure the safety of all their passengers, it's common sense really.

It never ceases to amaze me the stubbornness of some people. If you're uncomfortable with the security measureless that are becoming more and more necessary then you need to find other means of transportation. Security procedures aren't meant to dehumanize people, but to ensure the safety of all occupants, whether it be a transportation system or a large venue.

[Mortal Coil]

I think the TSA is a pain in the ass, and they've been horrible to people in the past, like that 90-year-old with an adult diaper, and the little girl. For the most part, I honestly think they're just doing their job and probably hate it as much as we do, but when they do stuff like traumatizing toddlers I get a little upset.

[anyone50]

I think the TSA is just another bureaucratic idea that sounded good in the wake of 9/11 but has gone far beyond what most people had envisioned when it was formed much like Homeland Security which has eroded our freedoms and rights as individuals.

[Hypers]

i think airport security is taken way too seriously in the states... it takes forever ad doesn't always eliminate security threats...

[Thunderstorm]

Maybe if we stopped putting so much attention towards airport security, it will stop. I dont mean completely not have security, but find a happy medium. Same with school shootings. Each time we pass a new law about something, more people will try and figure out a way to disobey it.

[TheBigUnit]

Just because airport security preforms random searches on muslims doesn't mean they're searching for them. Many religions wear forms of headdresses, and unless you have esp, you won't be able to identify someone's religion just by looking at them. So claiming that they're looking specifically for muslims is not only ridiculous but next to impossible. I've never been able to guess someone's religion simply by appearance.

The airport security is getting somewhat extensive, but you have to ask yourself if it's necessary or not. With increasing technology comes more incognito explosive devices or any other harmful weaponry that can easily be hidden on someone's person. Therefore security systems need to provide more extensive search methods to ensure the safety of all their passengers, it's common sense really.

It never ceases to amaze me the stubbornness of some people. If you're uncomfortable with the security measureless that are becoming more and more necessary then you need to find other means of transportation. Security procedures aren't meant to dehumanize people, but to ensure the safety of all occupants, whether it be a transportation system or a large venue.

Who was that directed to?

i think airport security is taken way too seriously in the states... it takes forever ad doesn't always eliminate security threats...

You do have to admit there really hasn't been another major airline hijack since 9/11

[Cicero]

I've never had to struggle with airport security cause we get a police escort :D

But I think they should check people randomly, they already check people who come from other countries. Like if you just went to Cuba, your bags get checked for cigars, fruit, etc.

[Lights]

While a lot of you complain you don't like the somewhat invasive security measures taken, I think you would much rather have them over and done with than having to experience a repeat of 9/11 or suchlike. Air travel is very useful, but it's also extremely dangerous and has the potential to kill thousands of people, as we've seen before. We can't afford to take such fatal risks just because some people are a little bit more touchy about being checked. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.

As far as I'm concerned, do whatever you have to, within justifiable reason, to keep air travel safe. I think random searches are entirely acceptable. If you're exhibiting suspicious behaviors and there's any question at all that this person could be a potential terrorist, then a check should be permitted. You would rather be safe than sorry. I would just maintain that checks need to be within good reason which could be justified if and when motivation for these checks were questioned.

[Hypers]

You do have to admit there really hasn't been another major airline hijack since 9/11
yes, but there hasn't been a major hijack before 9/11 either.

[Dooby the potato god]

I'm from the UK, and as far as I've heard we have more relaxed security.

You stand in a line, place your metal items and hand luggage on a tray, walk up to a detector-ma-bob and walk through. If you get beeped at, they make you go through again or go on another scanner. If after that you still beep, you'll probably be patted down.

[Sugaree]

I've never had to struggle with airport security cause we get a police escort :D

But I think they should check people randomly, they already check people who come from other countries. Like if you just went to Cuba, your bags get checked for cigars, fruit, etc.

Well, look at you getting a police escort. That must mean you're special, right? No one should get a police escort unless they are a high value target. You get in line just like everyone else. The TSA shouldn't exist because it is nothing more than a lobby group that has whittled away at the rights of the American people by trying to eliminate our right to privacy. It doesn't work in theory, it sure as hell doesn't work in practice, we need to stop taking security so seriously.

yes, but there hasn't been a major hijack before 9/11 either.

1988. Pan Am 103. That was probably the only major airline hijack before 9/11, and this was 13 years before 9/11.

[Lights]

Well, look at you getting a police escort. That must mean you're special, right? No one should get a police escort unless they are a high value target. You get in line just like everyone else. The TSA shouldn't exist because it is nothing more than a lobby group that has whittled away at the rights of the American people by trying to eliminate our right to privacy. It doesn't work in theory, it sure as hell doesn't work in practice, we need to stop taking security so seriously.



1988. Pan Am 103. That was probably the only major airline hijack before 9/11, and this was 13 years before 9/11.

You're valuing a little bit of privacy above potentially people's lives. I think that's ridiculous, with all respect. If the American government took your approach to safety, no doubt there would be a repeat of 9/11 in some form. You simply can't allow little windows for exploitation. You just can't. Of all the countries in the Western world, I would have said America was the most at risk in terms of terrorism attacks. There are a lot of people out there who despise America and what they believe it has done to their culture. Some simply believe Western culture is totally wrong, by allowing things like atheism and homosexuality etc. There really is a lot of hateful people out there, as I'm sure you realise.

What does this 'lobby group' have to gain from 'whittling away' rights anyway? They're there for your benefit, protecting you. This might just be me, but I think it's ludicrous to put a little bit of privacy ahead of life saving security.

[Cicero]

Well, look at you getting a police escort. That must mean you're special, right? No one should get a police escort unless they are a high value target. You get in line just like everyone else. The TSA shouldn't exist because it is nothing more than a lobby group that has whittled away at the rights of the American people by trying to eliminate our right to privacy. It doesn't work in theory, it sure as hell doesn't work in practice, we need to stop taking security so seriously.




No, just means we've gotten a police escort each time we go to the airport. We only get it so we can skip through the long lines and so we don't have to take off all metal stuff and shoes.

[Sugaree]

You're valuing a little bit of privacy above potentially people's lives. I think that's ridiculous, with all respect. If the American government took your approach to safety, no doubt there would be a repeat of 9/11 in some form. You simply can't allow little windows for exploitation. You just can't. Of all the countries in the Western world, I would have said America was the most at risk in terms of terrorism attacks. There are a lot of people out there who despise America and what they believe it has done to their culture. Some simply believe Western culture is totally wrong, by allowing things like atheism and homosexuality etc. There really is a lot of hateful people out there, as I'm sure you realise.

What does this 'lobby group' have to gain from 'whittling away' rights anyway? They're there for your benefit, protecting you. This might just be me, but I think it's ludicrous to put a little bit of privacy ahead of life saving security.

That's absolute bullshit. The TSA was a step too far in terms of keeping this country safe. It has overreached its bounds by being allowed to do things like random frisks and full body x-rays of people. We are slowly becoming a police state, and that makes everyone MUCH less safe. I'm not saying we should do away with all security, but we can't trust the government to always keep us safe and know what's best for us. The TSA, NDAA, the Patriot Act...all of this was meant to keep us "safe" and they've all done little to nothing.

No, just means we've gotten a police escort each time we go to the airport. We only get it so we can skip through the long lines and so we don't have to take off all metal stuff and shoes.

So why do you get a police escort and the rest of us peons are forced into a line to be frisked?

[MisterSix]

1988. Pan Am 103. That was probably the only major airline hijack before 9/11, and this was 13 years before 9/11.

Flight 103 was a bombing, not highjacking. They used a bomb on a timer.
I love how no one ever remembers the problems Germany had with their little terrorist organization.

I think Lufthansa Flight 181 was a significant hijacking

[Cicero]

That's absolute bullshit. The TSA was a step too far in terms of keeping this country safe. It has overreached its bounds by being allowed to do things like random frisks and full body x-rays of people. We are slowly becoming a police state, and that makes everyone MUCH less safe. I'm not saying we should do away with all security, but we can't trust the government to always keep us safe and know what's best for us. The TSA, NDAA, the Patriot Act...all of this was meant to keep us "safe" and they've all done little to nothing.



So why do you get a police escort and the rest of us peons are forced into a line to be frisked?
Cause they are willing to do this for my dad as a favor. I live in a big city comparable to LA, so it's not like its that special, I'm sure it'd be hard to do this in a smaller city.

[TheBigUnit]

yes, but there hasn't been a major hijack before 9/11 either.

Your kidding right? 4 hijacking come to the top of my head right this second of hijackings before 9/11

[tucke7239]

I live in the USA and I know that TSA is terrible but it means that everyone is safe from terrorist attacks. But if a country had to be awarded the best and most efficient airport security I would say it went Singapore's Changi Airport. A person can get through in (during rush hour) about five minutes stat

[Lights]

That's absolute bullshit. The TSA was a step too far in terms of keeping this country safe. It has overreached its bounds by being allowed to do things like random frisks and full body x-rays of people. We are slowly becoming a police state, and that makes everyone MUCH less safe. I'm not saying we should do away with all security, but we can't trust the government to always keep us safe and know what's best for us. The TSA, NDAA, the Patriot Act...all of this was meant to keep us "safe" and they've all done little to nothing.

You make it sound like they are perverts who take pleasure out of frisking and taking x-rays. I have to ask again: even if they were hypothetically exceeding their boundaries, what do they have to gain from these searches? They are there as a security measure and that's all they're meant to be there for. I think it's fine they do their random searches as long as they are within justifiable reason; safety should come first. Also, it's not as if they make you strip down to your underwear, or even naked - they do basic frisks and take x-rays which spare you having to do those things which would understandably be considered an invasion of privacy.

How does a 'police state' make things much less safe? I don't think that America is becoming a police state, but even if it was, I'm not sure how that would make it less safe?

Have you thought about if those things weren't in place? As I said before, if you give terrorism any windows of opportunity, it is going to take advantage of them. It's a sad truth, but it is a real truth.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Security is such a pain, especially at airports, it makes my ass bleed.
Point 1: The government spies on us, EVERY DAY. This is why I hate security in general, but especially high security. Security by cameras- spies!!!
Point 2: Airport security: takes away anything made of metal. Pointless. There are weapons not made of metal. And there are harmless things made of metal like brass instruments.
Conclusion; I'm bleeding out, the pains SOOO bad.

[rockNroll]

Honestly, people need to chill about the TSA. They're just doing their job, which is to protect the airs of the US. Would you rather have some guy search you or have another 9/11? Besides, if you haven't done anything wrong then why are you worried about getting searched?

[Sugaree]

How does a 'police state' make things much less safe? I don't think that America is becoming a police state, but even if it was, I'm not sure how that would make it less safe?

When you give authority absolute control and power over you, you end up having a "Brave New World" or "1984"-esque situation. Giving the state the power to take away your rights to privacy in the name of security is just asking to be fucked in the ass. I don't trust the TSA for that exact reason: because it exists for the government to reach its hand to somewhere it shouldn't. Airport security can easily go to contracted companies like private security firms which have no power to take away your personal rights.

[Lights]

When you give authority absolute control and power over you, you end up having a "Brave New World" or "1984"-esque situation. Giving the state the power to take away your rights to privacy in the name of security is just asking to be fucked in the ass. I don't trust the TSA for that exact reason: because it exists for the government to reach its hand to somewhere it shouldn't. Airport security can easily go to contracted companies like private security firms which have no power to take away your personal rights.

You ignored most of my last post. Would you be able to answer the rest of it?

I don't think your reasoning is particularly well explained and you keep avoiding the point I'm making that life-saving safety should come ahead of a number of people getting frisked/x-rayed every now and then. I think I'm just not understanding why you value minor privacy ahead of safety and security which really isn't very invasive if you think about it. Do you believe there is a government conspiracy or something? Also, I think it would be very difficult to achieve any kind of 1984-style Big Brother state, considering there are more than 313,000,000 people living in the States right now.

[PinkFloyd]

I travel by plane a lot. Like 9 or 10 times a year. I get randomly searched a lot. Keep in mind that I'm a white American teenager, someone who is not thought to be a terrorist. The TSA doesn't exclusevly search muslims.

[Manjusri]

Who was that directed to?

Anyone and everyone.

When you give authority absolute control and power over you, you end up having a "Brave New World" or "1984"-esque situation. Giving the state the power to take away your rights to privacy in the name of security is just asking to be fucked in the ass. I don't trust the TSA for that exact reason: because it exists for the government to reach its hand to somewhere it shouldn't. Airport security can easily go to contracted companies like private security firms which have no power to take away your personal rights.

Blah blah blah, that's my privacy you can't touch me, blah blah blah.

When are you going to get over it and realize that the pro's of airport security measures outweigh the con's? The government isn't invading your privacy just because they can, they're doing it for a more significant cause.

If everyone could deny a security scan because "they have a right to privacy as a citizen" then you shouldn't be allowed - or even attempt to - board the transportation system. When you're on a public transport system with numerous other people you need to be conscientious of the other passengers, not just yourself. Would you feel comfortable knowing that some people can board the transport without a security scan because "they have a right to privacy?" I know i wouldn't.

You can't come into a debate on security measures with a premise like yours. You are not thinking of the entirety of the security scan, just merely wining because they get to check you for bombs and that's in some ludicrous way against your rights as a citizen. Security measures are to ensure the safety of the passengers to the best of their ability. As i said before, with new advancements in technology comes easier ways to disguise a weapon or explosive. Therefore security scans need to become increasingly thorough to ensure the same amount of safety.

[Pipo]

What do you think of the TSA?....if you're not from usa, what do you think of the airport security in your country?

Do you think TSA is justified to do "random" searches on those who are muslim

TSA? the company that waste millions of dollars for security that is basically nothing but making people embarrassed and strip off their clothes in front of security?

ya I'd say their security sucks. If chances of getting bomb through the security machines are like 90-99% I'd say that is pretty much crap.

[Sugaree]

You ignored most of my last post. Would you be able to answer the rest of it?

I don't think your reasoning is particularly well explained and you keep avoiding the point I'm making that life-saving safety should come ahead of a number of people getting frisked/x-rayed every now and then. I think I'm just not understanding why you value minor privacy ahead of safety and security which really isn't very invasive if you think about it. Do you believe there is a government conspiracy or something? Also, I think it would be very difficult to achieve any kind of 1984-style Big Brother state, considering there are more than 313,000,000 people living in the States right now.

The only answer to the rest of your post, which was quite short, is that they have nothing to gain but the fact that they KNOW they can do it and they also know that YOU can't do anything about it.

No, I don't think there's a government conspiracy. I never mentioned it and to think there IS a government conspiracy is stupid. However, agencies like the TSA are stepping stones to make me, and plenty of others, think that the government has no problem trying to take too much control. Yes, we need to keep our airways and other means of travel safe; but we can't be sacrificing the rights of privacy, even very minor, to reach that end. The end does not always justify the means.

And if you think it's difficult to get so many people under the control of a Big Brother style government, you're wrong. It's clear enough in "1984" that if a few people in the population work feverishly enough, they'll convince everyone else to believe. That is what it boils down to. Getting just enough of a majority to go along with you to justify more power grabs. It's wrong, it's unethical, and it's dangerous to the lives of everyone in this country.

Anyone and everyone.



Blah blah blah, that's my privacy you can't touch me, blah blah blah.

When are you going to get over it and realize that the pro's of airport security measures outweigh the con's? The government isn't invading your privacy just because they can, they're doing it for a more significant cause.

If everyone could deny a security scan because "they have a right to privacy as a citizen" then you shouldn't be allowed - or even attempt to - board the transportation system. When you're on a public transport system with numerous other people you need to be conscientious of the other passengers, not just yourself. Would you feel comfortable knowing that some people can board the transport without a security scan because "they have a right to privacy?" I know i wouldn't.

You can't come into a debate on security measures with a premise like yours. You are not thinking of the entirety of the security scan, just merely wining because they get to check you for bombs and that's in some ludicrous way against your rights as a citizen. Security measures are to ensure the safety of the passengers to the best of their ability. As i said before, with new advancements in technology comes easier ways to disguise a weapon or explosive. Therefore security scans need to become increasingly thorough to ensure the same amount of safety.

If you're fine with the government taking its hand and directly going into your life in the name of safety, then move to another country. The United States government should not have that power because they are supposed to be limited by the Constitution in the 10th Amendment. The right to personal privacy is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but the 10th Amendment protects this right by default.

So, going by what you're saying, no one should be allowed to say "I'm an individual and I have the right to privacy as I see fit," and be required - nay, forced - into things like frisks and strip searches for "safety". Safety does not come from the inside looking inside, but from the inside looking outside. Also going by what you're saying, I shouldn't have the right to go into a debate like this and defend what I believe the Constitution says and what I believe the limits of government should be in terms of safety.

You DO know that the TSA never existed in the 90s, correct? The government had no issue with airport security until after 9/11, and 9/11 was a major event. If the government apparently cares so much for safety, why was the TSA only implemented after a major event?

Before 9/11, airport security was acquired from private firms and contracting companies, all of which did their jobs without strip searches and random frisks. Just a simple metal detector, wand swipe, and that was it. Now I have to take off my shoes, stand in long lines, go through a BODY X-RAY DEVICE, a wand swipe, and most likely a frisk if they think I'm up to something terrorist like. Of course the government has its own right to make sure the country is kept safe, but at what cost must we grant them that right? The citizen has a personal responsibility to make sure his or her government does not infringe upon personal rights. The TSA is nothing more than a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and I'm sure most airports around the country would tell you that it would be much easier for them to have a say in their security.

And if I don't have the right to come in with this apparently radical position, then you don't either. What you're suggesting is total submission to authority, and that just does NOT work for anyone. Go ahead and bend over, I'll keep giving them the middle finger and throw punches.

[Lights]

Yes, we need to keep our airways and other means of travel safe; but we can't be sacrificing the rights of privacy, even very minor, to reach that end. The end does not always justify the means.

And if I don't have the right to come in with this apparently radical position, then you don't either. What you're suggesting is total submission to authority, and that just does NOT work for anyone. Go ahead and bend over, I'll keep giving them the middle finger and throw punches.

I've picked out the key points I find interesting in your post. While in a number of cases you might be right about the ends not always justifying the means, I would have to fundamentally disagree with you here. Potentially, if it wasn't for the TSA security, some people wouldn't even have their rights to privacy - because they'd been killed in another plane hi-jacking or bombing etc. post to 9/11. Nonchalant attitudes towards air travel terrorism simply won't have much attention paid to them in this day and age. The danger terrorism presents to air travel is simply too extraordinary to be so lax about security measures.

I think the simple solution to your dilemma is: if you don't want to run the 'risk' of being frisked or x-rayed, don't use air travel, use railway travel or something instead. The majority's well being won't be sacrificed by a minority who don't want their privacy 'invaded'. For all we might know, one of those people who doesn't want to go through the security measures could be concealing explosives of some kind in their clothing.

The approach we're taking is not radical. The approach you're taking is very anti-American and despite what you say, you seem very paranoid about the US Government. I think the irrefutable point here is that if we ran security your way, it would be incredibly easy to smuggle on weapons and explosives onto aircrafts. It's easy enough for you to say you want security weakened - but what about when you are the victim of a terrorist attack, hypothetically speaking. It would be pure ignorance to take the stance: 'it'll never happen to me. Don't you think you're being selfish by putting your privacy - which in fact really isn't being invaded unacceptably or inappropriately - ahead of people's safety? I'm just not understanding how a secondary right such as privacy supersedes the right to life, in your view. And yes, it is a matter of the right to life because air travel is almost inevitably fatal when accidents and attacks occur.

[Manjusri]

So, going by what you're saying, no one should be allowed to say "I'm an individual and I have the right to privacy as I see fit," and be required - nay, forced - into things like frisks and strip searches for "safety". Safety does not come from the inside looking inside, but from the inside looking outside. Also going by what you're saying, I shouldn't have the right to go into a debate like this and defend what I believe the Constitution says and what I believe the limits of government should be
in terms of safety.

Going by what i'm saying? I'm sorry please direct me to where i stated that you should be /forced/ into being frisked. I directly stated that if you do not wish to be put through security scans in order to achieve a higher percentile of safety for all passengers on the transportation system - not just yourself - then you should find other means of transportation. Not once did i say you should be forced.

You DO know that the TSA never existed in the 90s, correct? The government had no issue with airport security until after 9/11, and 9/11 was a major event. If the government apparently cares so much for safety, why was the TSA only implemented after a major event?

While i see where you're attempting to go with this, it's entirely irrelevant. As i've said about 3 times now, as technology progresses the need for different security measures also increases. The TSA was implemented after 9/11 due to the noticeable increase in risks with each flight. Don't forget that there were security scans previous to 9/11, however they were only made more thorough after the incident. It's a perfectly normal evolution of the safety scans that were once "standard". Now however the security scans are more thorough to reduce the risk of danger to the percentile pre-9/11, that's called a new security standard.

Before 9/11, airport security was acquired from private firms and contracting companies, all of which did their jobs without strip searches and random frisks. Just a simple metal detector, wand swipe, and that was it. Now I have to take off my shoes, stand in long lines, go through a BODY X-RAY DEVICE, a wand swipe, and most likely a frisk if they think I'm up to something terrorist like. Of course the government has its own right to make sure the country is kept safe, but at what cost must we grant them that right? The citizen has a personal responsibility to make sure his or her government does not infringe upon personal rights. The TSA is nothing more than a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and I'm sure most airports around the country would tell you that it would be much easier for them to have a say in their security.

Once again, the evolution of security standards. There's nothing abnormal about the government implementing new security measures to ensure the safety of all their passengers. You're only whining about your rights and blowing them out of proportion. The government is doing a scan to view any harmful devices or weaponry on your person. They're not interacting with your social, business, or any other part of your life style. If the government checking you for harmful devices is against your rights then i'd like you to review your "rights."

And if I don't have the right to come in with this apparently radical position, then you don't either. What you're suggesting is total submission to authority, and that just does NOT work for anyone. Go ahead and bend over, I'll keep giving them the middle finger and throw punches.

That's a very constructive way to change security measures that you don't like. You keep doing that, let me know how it works out for you in the long run. :yeah:

[MattsyPad]

And if I don't have the right to come in with this apparently radical position, then you don't either. What you're suggesting is total submission to authority, and that just does NOT work for anyone. Go ahead and bend over, I'll keep giving them the middle finger and throw punches.

Yeah I usually throw down in the airport too.