New pat downs at the US airports

Seems you'd have to be somewhat a perv to sign up for that job....do they search children?

That's not what I was talking about.  I was specifically answering this section:

"They were pointing out that if a person other than the government were to do this they would be charged with a felony and end up with prison time."

and pointing out that THIS is a bad argument.  Regardless of the rights and wrongs of what is being implemented, this is a bad and illogical argument, for the reasons I listed above.  If you want to protest this successfully, you need to find an argument against it that holds water, and the one I quoted simply does not.

I don't understand how it's a bad argument though, mostly because you didn't really list any specific reasons other than 'There are a huge number of things the government does that non-governmental groups aren't allowed to do'.  That doesn't justify anything.  I mean, I understand (sort of) what you're saying, but I think it is a completely relevant argument. 

It points out the fact that under any other circumstances this would be completely unacceptable, and the laws set in place by our government would punish any person or organisation who conducted themselves in such a way. 

But since the very same government that would punish it, is claiming that it's necessary in this instance, then the fact that it is a deplorable thing to subject an individual to can be overlooked.

From the Jon Stewart show the other night...

http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/11/17/lewis-black-on-airport-security-groin-searches-touching-his-j/

 

I don't understand how it's a bad argument though, mostly because you didn't really list any specific reasons other than 'There are a huge number of things the government does that non-governmental groups aren't allowed to do'.  That doesn't justify anything.  I mean, I understand (sort of) what you're saying, but I think it is a completely relevant argument.  

What he means by 'bad argument' is the physical construction of the statement itself. Rhetoric, public debate, argumentation & such...not that your idea is bad just that the way you phrased it was improper interms of argumentation & debate.

Personally I think it's pretty pathetic to nitpick into something that not everyone would be familiar with. IMO This is a discussion forum to express ideas & opinion, not a place to teach argumentation techniques.

What he means by 'bad argument' is the physical construction of the statement itself. Rhetoric, public debate, argumentation & such...not that your idea is bad just that the way you phrased it was improper interms of argumentation & debate.

No, that's actually not what I meant.

Personally I think it's pretty pathetic to nitpick into something that not everyone would be familiar with. IMO This is a discussion forum to express ideas & opinion, not a place to teach argumentation techniques.

I'm not nitpicking at all and I'll thank you not to call me pathetic.

There are many valid reasons for being opposed to this procedure:
It invades privacy
It causes humiliation
It actually does very little to increase security
It's very expensive for the results that it achieves
It's a classic example of trading freedom for security, and we all know what Ben Franklin said about that.

"It would be illegal if someone other than the government did it" isn't a good reason.  It doesn't make sense because it's true of so many things.  My point is that people who oppose this procedure should focus on effective arguments, not silly ones.

This is crazy.  I remember awhile back when they were testing the machines but it wasn't mandatory yet.  I'm not a big fan of either procedure.

I flew from Manchester in March and they didn't do the scan (don't even remember seeing the machine anywhere) or a patdown.

They are randomly selected and they won't do pat downs in the UK.  If you refuse it, you go home. 

A lot of the motivation for the new procedures comes from this incident:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml

Last year a suicide bomber attempted to kill a member of the Saudi royal family who is also the head of counter terrorism for Saudi Arabia.

To get his bomb into this room, Abdullah Asieri, one of Saudi Arabia's most wanted men, avoided detection by two sets of airport security including metal detectors and palace security. He spent 30 hours in the close company of the prince's own secret service agents - all without anyone suspecting a thing.

How did he do it?

Taking a trick from the narcotics trade - which has long smuggled drugs in body cavities - Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum.

I understand the arguments against the scanners and patdowns, and I agree that most of the security theater doesn't actually make anybody safer, but what do you do to detect the bomb that's hidden inside someone?

p.s. Self-promotion alert:  I edited the story you see if you click on the video link on the left side of the page. 

A lot of the motivation for the new procedures comes from this incident:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml

Last year a suicide bomber attempted to kill a member of the Saudi royal family who is also the head of counter terrorism for Saudi Arabia.

I understand the arguments against the scanners and patdowns, and I agree that most of the security theater doesn't actually make anybody safer, but what do you do to detect the bomb that's hidden inside someone?

p.s. Self-promotion alert:  I edited the story you see if you click on the video link on the left side of the page. 

The problem is that every security measure like this just bolts the stable door after the horse has run.  The security people are always working on the last threat.

A determined enough terrorist won't be deterred by body scans and pat downs, he or she will just find another way to do what he or she was always going to do.  Without putting everyone in a medically induced coma, stacking the bodies on the plane like cordwood, and revicing them at the other end, someone's going to figure out a way past any security setup.

This doesn't mean we don't try to make airports secure, it just means we get smarter at security.  The body scanners and pat downs are Big Dumb Security, and terrorists know how to beat Big Dumb Security.

I’m flying out of EWR tonight, I wonder if they have these.  It will be interesting to see if there are health effects in the future, and that could change my opinion.  I have been patted down in several countries in very intimate ways.  I would have given anything to be able to walk through a scanner.  If I must be scrutinized in that manner, I would much rather it be hands off. 

One of my co workers just told me that one of her friends believes that it is a government conspiracy due to the 14th planet?  I can't pretend to understand that one. 

As an aside, when I was leaving Jordan there were tents for men and women so that no one else could see the pat down.  Maybe it was also for women who were completely covered so that they could take it off in privacy.  Didn’t make it any less uncomfortable.

Doesn't the fact that they are 'randomly selected' open the door for contraversy on it's own? 

"We randomly select people that look Middle Eastern by coincidence."

In regards to the government implementing something that would be illegal if someone else did them...what else is new?  Isn't there a clause somewhere in the Constitution that says something along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing) "Most of your rights can be taken away from you in the interest of protecting the country"?  Can they classify this as a national security issue...which basically means they can do whatever they want to?   

Not saying it's right...just pointing out that they cover themselves for these type of issues.

This doesn't mean we don't try to make airports secure, it just means we get smarter at security.  The body scanners and pat downs are Big Dumb Security, and terrorists know how to beat Big Dumb Security.

You're preaching to the choir, but nobody seems to have figured out what "smart security" is (or at least not a smart security that they're comfortable implementing, as E2W's post alludes to).  

Part of the problem of security measures is the bureaucracy knows that the fingers of blame will start pointing before the smoke clears from the next incident, so you wind up with a government that implements lots of flashy big security measures that they can point to in order to reassure the population that they're doing something about the problem.

Without putting everyone in a medically induced coma, stacking the bodies on the plane like cordwood, and revicing them at the other end, someone's going to figure out a way past any security setup.

I used to joke that the next step after body scanners is we'll all fly naked, duct taped to our seats like victims of a mass kidnapping.  I hadn't thought of the coma idea though.  My guess is the airlines would love it because it would allow them to put more people on one airplane.

{edited to add}  Just saw an interesting quote about this:

"If you look at all the recent terrorist incidents, the bombs were detected because of human intelligence not because of screening ... If even a fraction of what is spent on screening was invested in the intelligence services we would take a real step toward making air travel safer and more pleasant."

 -- Marijn Ornstein, chief of security, Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam

With regards to security theatre: two articles written by Jeffery Goldberg
2008: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/7057/ and
a fortnight ago: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/

Seems you'd have to be somewhat a perv to sign up for that job....do they search children?

In the US, at least, yes.

I can understand why no one wants to be patted down, on the other hand flying is not a right or a necessity. 

I am conflicted. 

In the UK and (I haven't been there but I believe) elsewhere in Europe, it's easy to get from one side of the country to another without flying. In the US, not so much. Have you ever tried to take a train from, say, SF to Chicago? It takes a week. Driving is 3-5 days, depending on whether or not you, you know, sleep. And that's not even halfway across the country.

If I thought any of this - including the 3-1-1 stuff about not taking liquids or powders and having to take your shoes off - any of it in any way helped actually make people safer then I would say we have to suck it up. But that is demonstrably not the case. The only thing, <i>the only thing</i> that has made flying safer is that people know that we have to stop someone who is trying to hijack a plane. That's it.

Another good take on the cavity bomb problem:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/why-cavity-bombs-would-make-the-tsa-irrelevant/66849/

All a terrorist needs to do to bring the American transportation system to a catastrophic halt is to detonate a bomb while waiting on a TSA line. No need to conceal such a bomb in your rectum, of course -- you could join the pre-screened line with a bomb in your knapsack. Or in a shopping bag. 
 
Where does all this lead? Back to the observation -- again, one made incessantly in this space -- that by the time a terrorist conspiracy matures to the point that it is ready for execution, it is, generally speaking, too late to stop it. If a cavity bomber reaches the airport without detection, he will have a high-likelihood of success in carrying out his mission. Which means, obviously, that much of the money we spend on airport security could be better spent on intelligence collection, and on the breaking up of terror cells overseas.

A friend of mine works for the TSA.  Her comments a few weeks ago?

Yeah, people don't like the patdown. The people who are doing the patdown don't like the patdown.

They aren't pervs getting off on feeling people or seeing them "naked" on scanners.  They are doing their job. 

This is one of probably a hundred skits on TSA.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20023579-503544.html