Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by CptStern, Apr 18, 2011.
everybody's potentially a terrorist
that sounds like a complaint to me. report to Conference Room B for body cavity search
**** that. I'll just drive to Canada for vacation.
Seriously. Screw the TSA.
But what if I'm concerned about them seeing my willy!?!
their Security Oath prevents them from laughing at your willy
For real. If I ever wanted to go to the west coast or something, at this point it would probably be less hassle to drive to Canada and then get a flight from there.
ffs every time there's a problem in your country you guys think the solution is coming to canada. well we're not your pitstop on the road to life. starting tommorrow morning we're putting machine guns on the walls of the border
lol the irony is that many canadains travel across the border to seek out cheaper flights to the US
this makes perfect sense. The only people who would against having their kid's genitalia fondled would be the terrorists who have installed tons of c4 on it or in it.
Still better than dealing with the TSA.
Have any of you actually dealt with the TSA? Please tell me of your awful experiences.
When I went to China I had zero issues, nor did I witness any other issues while in line. I didn't have to have a body search, neither did anyone else I saw (at least 100 people in total), and I didn't even have any problems in customs on my return.
The media and certain incidents have made the TSA out to be way more evil than it really is.
Besides, who cares about this. Only assholes complain about things that they can't do anything about. I'd be happy to see some guy get searched extra for being a dick to the people who are just doing their job.
Good, because I have a joke about scaffolders tattooed on it.
From what I've heard, some airports have millimeter wave detectors and/or irradiate your balls off aka Backscatter detectors at some terminals. If you decline you get groped. I'm not sure how much I
would really care but I wouldn't want them touching my younger brother. Going to goddamn Chicago in a couple months, will see what happens.
lol that sounds awfully familiar
When you're at the airport, you have to go through TSA inspection. You can't do anything about it. What's the use of complaining and making a scene?
I hate TSA
TSA, I suppose, exists for a reason. I could barge into the cockpit and kill both pilots with a tube of toothpaste and a bottle of shampoo, provided that I could nerve myself to do it.
The TSA just assumes that everyone is a psychopathic terrorist that is capable of utilizing various liquids and sharp objects to kill people. A fair assumption, methinks.
It'll all come back to haunt you in your later years.
Well, that is rather silly. But then security procedures all too easily end up forgetting what they are searching for and instead screening for things like disobedience, non-compliance, Looking At Me funny, etc. In this case it seems like whoever is making the rules has simply stopped thinking. Or perhaps someone has some kind of reason why complaining about airport security (rather than say, being quiet and unobtrusive) would be an indicator of terrorism or criminality? Do you know how many people get angry when confronted with authority?
Anyway, while I've skipped over most of this thread with a hand over my eyes and my fingers in my ears singing LA LA LA LA because I don't want Portal 2 spoiled for me, I did accidentally see and could not unsee Vegeta's post, so here are my experiences with TSA. They were pretty benign, really - just a bit weird.
Immediately on arrival I got interrogated by an angry bald man who angrily and baldly insisted that I was in fact visiting America to get married. "What are you here for?" he demanded. "To see my girlfriend, I just graduated so I'm staying with her for a while." "Yeah? You gonna marry her?" "I have no plans to." "Gonna propose to her? You got a ring in there?" "I don't have a ring with me." "You sure? Sure we won't search this and find a ring hidden in there?" "There is no ring." "You gonna propose to her? Where's the ring?" I wasn't really sure what worried him. I thought about how cops will ask you if you've got anything sharp on your person before they search you; maybe he was worried that if he stuck his hand in my back he would slip his finger into the ring and that'd be it, we'd be eternally bound to each other. "How long are you staying here for?" he said. "89 days," I admitted, sheepishly. "Is that some kind of a joke?" It was not The limit of a tourist visa, you see, is 90 days. "You trying to be funny?" "No sir, 89 days." "That's an awful long time. Not gonna disappear on us are you?" "I'm not, I've got a plane back to catch." "Sure you have. Sure. In 89 days." I tried to assure him that I wasn't a smartass or a criminal pushing my luck; that was just how the bookings had worked out cheapest. Anyway, he sent me off to wait for a while until I was joined by a Barney-Calhoun-looking bloke whose manner was so firm yet friendly that I couldn't understand if he was a work of parody or not. He asked me to sit down while he went through absolutely everything in my bag. He explored clothes and flipped through notepads. He asked me to explain pages of notes I'd made about Braid for an article I've yet to write. He rifled through love-letters and chuckled to himself while reading them, "aw, that's cute". He reviewed my academic documents, letting out a low whistle. All the while he asked me questions and eventually he regarded me very seriously. "Mr. Dodds, you're clearly a very intelligent young man with a bright future ahead of you" (I scrutinised him for hints of irony and found none; it seemed an earnest compliment) "as well as a very obviously happy and fulfilling relationship" (thanks, friend). "So please don't be offended when I ask you this question, I just have to ask it, and I certainly don't mean to call you stupid. Are you planning to disappear once you enter the country or try to get married and stay here?" I distilled my instinct to scream "NO!" into a much quieter assertion to the same effect. "Fair enough," he said. "Then I really hope you enjoy your stay." We got my bags and the whole thing took about an hour all told. That is my story.
That's not benign, that's highly annoying and insulting. I can guarantee that an avarage romanian going through the same thing you did would've been at wits end, and start screaming in the guy's face. Yep must be a terrorist then. CAVITY SEARCH!
Benign probably isn't the right word. My point is that I didn't feel threatened, they didn't really attempt to intimidate me, my person wasn't violated. I think they took my fingerprint and obviously they took my photo. I definitely objected to having my life pried into in that way, just someone looking through my everything and taking upon himself the right to interrogate my private business in case it has some public dimension, but on the whole the experience wasn't traumatic. I don't think I'd be happy with idea that people who aren't quite as easygoing and/or timid as me should be considered security risks when they respond less amiably to similar treatment. Or rather: someone getting angry and abusive is a risk, but only an immediate one, and I see absolutely no reason to subject her to further and potentially invasive security measures like cavity searches or detainment. Doing so would reek of punishment rather than prevention.
TSA is ****ing ridiculous.
ya you dont want to do that
white people are suspicious of people with accents. even british accents
Too many movies with british sounding bad guys me thinks.
I blame this guy
Huh? What post? What did you not want to see? I posted exactly what my experience was.
Your experience sounds fine to me, I wouldn't have minded if it had happened to me (am I the only one who enjoys answering the questions of a suspicious person when you know you're innocent?). Unless of course you were in a hurry, but that's why it's important to give yourself adequate time when making flight reservations.
And you didn't make a scene even though you wanted to shout near the end, because you knew it would only cause trouble and wouldn't help a thing. Which reinforces the second point I made, which apparently baffled Eejit to the point of idiotic laughter.
I want to make it clear though that this doesn't mean I agree with the theory that people who make a fuss should be scrutinized. I'm just saying it shouldn't really be an issue to a normal person who doesn't have anger issues or something.
Oh if that's what you meant by it ok. However in a broader sense "don't complain if you can't fix something" is a superbly stupid point to make in all sorts of ways.
Government and paranoia work so well togethor.
And this is one reason I'm glad I don't fly very often at all (So far, 26 years in, 1 round trip)
What the **** is the logic here? Do they really think terrorists would openly complain about security moments before blowing themselves up? You'd think they would keep a pretty low profile.
ITT: Vegeta works for TSA.
What Monkey said, this strategy is pretty illogical.
Though perhaps they'll hope it will serve as a deterrent? People who might otherwise make a fuss will probably reconsider when they know it's going to cause further inspection.
Shut up and search my butt for explosives! D:
"Keep your opinions to yourself or we're going to grope you."?
Expressing your opinions during the process isn't going to help anything. If you want to change TSAs policies you don't do it at the airport while going through the TSA scanning.
Seems like the airport is basically saying "when we feel you up, don't cry".
Certainly grants the securities the privilege to search extra long in some people's packages.
Interesting article by Ben Goldacre showing that sniffer dogs are extremely influenced by the unconscious actions and prejudices of their masters. It does make you wonder what other forms of airport security might not actually work as well as the companies who make them would like to pretend.
There are a few reasons to be broadly suspicious of airport security.
Firstly, it doesn't make an enormous amount of sense. A truly committed terrorist would if necessary be able to bomb the airport itself, bomb the queues that security checks produce. There are many alternative targets and in the meantime security procedures have a great effect on a huge number of people, from anxiety through lost hours to miscarriages of justice. I am not saying it is a completely useless exercise but I think the politicians who put it in place may be severely overstating its utility. This suggests it may be more political theatre than anything - "look how safe I am making sure we are" - and with the possibility that it is being implemented for purposes other than rational utility comes the suspicion that this might inform the actions of individuals working within that system and influence them to take actions which have little rational utility. As above, so below.
Secondly, it is clear from other evidence that airport security is used for political grandstanding and moreover that there is a large 'security-industrial complex'. New Labour politician John Reid, former Defence Secretary and long-serving Home Secretary, was appointed after leaving office as a consultant to security company G4S. While in government Reid was a truculent champion of invasive and comprehensive security procedures, the war in Iraq, long detentions for terror suspects, and perpetually high terror alert states. Towards the end of his political career he concentrated heavily on the push for ID cards - a long-running debacle in which the government's retreat through a series of flimsy claims like "it will prevent identity theft" or "it will stop terrorism" (retreating to new justifications each time an old one was rubbished or knocked down) indicated a profound dishonesty in disclosing their real reasons for the measure. Immediately after leaving office he accepted a number of speaking and publicity engagements from firms providing computer services that would be essential to the scheme. And not long afterwards, the old security bulldog was interviewed by the BBC aggressively claiming on the basis of his long government experience that Britain's safety absolutely depended on scanning machines which his employer G4S operate. Indeed, G4S provide the security at Heathrow Airport (although it does not always go well). Another interesting coincidence: one of Reid's big plans on being appointed was to expand prison provision. G4S is heavily involved in the private prison industry which has expanded drastically in the UK since Labour's election in 1997.
Thirdly, both anecdotal evidence that has reached my ear and my own reading in the national press enforces the impression that airport security often ends up intimidating innocents more than anything else. Officials pounce on any hint of the uncertainty, fear and anxiety which are perfectly natural in the face of intense security. Last year the Ministry of Defence announced it was perfecting a machine that can notice and target fear, picking out nervous individuals from the crowd. If a lot of power is given to individuals who operate under guidelines not formed by rational utility but infected by other concerns, the trend will likely be towards punishing people who make those people's lives difficult rather than catching people who need to be caught. We see this pretty much ubiquitously in police forces and, often enough, in other institutions. And in the meantime there is a focus on making it more and more difficult to be calm, more and more difficult to gracefully accept what's done to you. The story that began this thread is almost innocuous on its own but when you combine it with a lot of other things (pouncing on fear, fear-detecting machines, lie detectors, etc) you end up suspecting that too much of security is guided by a distorted inversion of the principle that 'you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide' - that is to say, 'if you fear, you have something to hide', or indeed, 'let's induce as much fear as possible to weed out those who have something to hide'.
I was joking about my own pretence of not reading the thread due to Portal 2 spoilers - sorry if that was unclear.
I wasn't in a hurry, I had contrived to have about three and a half hours layover. I found the experience disconcerting (and am unsure if they should have the right to read my private correspondence) but not violatory.