5 ms·

I'm hoping that this is finally the straw that breaks the camels back and people start to push back on these "security" measures. Not traveling via air is an op

I'm hoping that this is finally the straw that breaks the camels back and people start to push back on these "security" measures. Not traveling via air is an option for some people but for most when they fly they aren't any reasonable alternatives. Making these invasions a prerequisite to flying means you are going to have strangers looking at you naked regularly or being groping (which I'm presuming is meant to be as invasive as possible to encourage use of the scanners). The alternative to this is turning down a job away from anybody you would like to see regularly, or any job that requires frequent travel or going to college in another state etc. And boy is your life about to suck if you travel with kids or someone elderly.

davidcuddeback 16y ago
I sincerely hope that enough people push back to make a difference. I think for a lot of people, it's easier to just stop flying---and some people already have---than it is to protest the security theater. If it's clear to the airlines that they're losing a significant number of passengers due to the security measures, I would expect them to lobby against the security measures. Whether or not they will have an effect is another issue entirely. I for one love travelling but hate flying. I see two options for people who enjoy international travel but don't want their privacy invaded by TSA. 1. Travel by boat. You can hitch a ride on a cargo ship to just about anywhere in the world: http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/how-to/how-to-travel-by-cargo-ship/ http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/how-to/how-to-travel-by-c... It's more expensive than flying and takes longer, so this is probably not an option for most people. 2. Depart from another country. I recently traveled to New Zealand, and when I flew home from the Auckland airport to San Francisco, I had to go through an extra security screening because it was a US-bound flight. I was left with the impression that airport security in the rest of the world is not as draconian unless one of the endpoints of the flight is in the USA. So I suspect if you can drive or take the train to Mexico or Canada, you can avoid an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Last year, I took an Amtrak train from Vancouver to Seattle, and the border crossing was a piece of cake. Edit: Does anyone know how airport security in Mexico or Canada compares to the US?
- swombat 16y ago
  London is pretty bad too, but we don't have intimate pat-downs yet.
  - StavrosK 16y ago
    The most I saw in Heathrow was that they made me take off my shoes, and they wouldn't really make a fuss about it if you didn't do it. The only time they made me take my shoes off was when they found a swiss army knife in my hand luggage (I absent-mindedly took it, along with 15 kg of stuff, from my checked luggage because they were too heavy). Even with a pretty large knife in my luggage, what happened was that I had to go through the metal detector with shoes off, and then I had to wait for the police for 20 minutes. They were very polite and told me that there would be no problem if the knife wasn't a "locking" knife (no idea why that's a problem), but they just kept it and let me go. However, I imagine I didn't look like the typical terrorist, with four bags bursting with clothes as hand luggage.
    - eru 16y ago
      Locking knifes are probably forbidden in Britain.
      - StavrosK 16y ago
        The police said they are illegal, but I don't know why they make a distinction. It wasn't some sword, it was just one of the large swiss army knives.
        Waywocket 16y ago
        If it has a blade longer than 3 inches, then you need a 'good reason' to be carrying it in public. If not, then under normal circumstances (rule 7 applies) it's fine so long as the blade is capable of folding. A locking catch is fine, but a fixed blade isn't. It seems safe to assume it's just the fact that you were planning to carry it on to a plane that made them unhappy.
plusbryan 16y ago
Agreed. I've just taken the last half hour to write to my senators in hopes it will gain some attention. This will be a hard issue to battle though - no senator wants to sponsor a bill that might be blamed for a terrorist attack.
tswicegood 16y ago
@duke_sam: If this article from Jeffery Goldburg is to be believed, there are TSA officials on record as saying the groping is directly intended to push people through the other scanners, all the while ignoring any cavities which could hide plenty of explosives or other contraband. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-...
- Vivtek 16y ago
  I just find it really hard to believe that there isn't going to be some kind of pushback to this kind of thing.
jacoblyles 16y ago
It's hard to remember that a mere ten years ago the TSA did not exist and now it is already groping our grandpas. It is a good thing we are so much safer now.

davidcuddeback 16y ago

I sincerely hope that enough people push back to make a difference. I think for a lot of people, it's easier to just stop flying---and some people already have---than it is to protest the security theater. If it's clear to the airlines that they're losing a significant number of passengers due to the security measures, I would expect them to lobby against the security measures. Whether or not they will have an effect is another issue entirely. I for one love travelling but hate flying. I see two options for people who enjoy international travel but don't want their privacy invaded by TSA. 1. Travel by boat. You can hitch a ride on a cargo ship to just about anywhere in the world: http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/how-to/how-to-travel-by-cargo-ship/ http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/how-to/how-to-travel-by-c... It's more expensive than flying and takes longer, so this is probably not an option for most people. 2. Depart from another country. I recently traveled to New Zealand, and when I flew home from the Auckland airport to San Francisco, I had to go through an extra security screening because it was a US-bound flight. I was left with the impression that airport security in the rest of the world is not as draconian unless one of the endpoints of the flight is in the USA. So I suspect if you can drive or take the train to Mexico or Canada, you can avoid an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Last year, I took an Amtrak train from Vancouver to Seattle, and the border crossing was a piece of cake. Edit: Does anyone know how airport security in Mexico or Canada compares to the US?

swombat 16y ago
London is pretty bad too, but we don't have intimate pat-downs yet.
- StavrosK 16y ago
  The most I saw in Heathrow was that they made me take off my shoes, and they wouldn't really make a fuss about it if you didn't do it. The only time they made me take my shoes off was when they found a swiss army knife in my hand luggage (I absent-mindedly took it, along with 15 kg of stuff, from my checked luggage because they were too heavy). Even with a pretty large knife in my luggage, what happened was that I had to go through the metal detector with shoes off, and then I had to wait for the police for 20 minutes. They were very polite and told me that there would be no problem if the knife wasn't a "locking" knife (no idea why that's a problem), but they just kept it and let me go. However, I imagine I didn't look like the typical terrorist, with four bags bursting with clothes as hand luggage.
  - eru 16y ago
    Locking knifes are probably forbidden in Britain.
    - StavrosK 16y ago
      The police said they are illegal, but I don't know why they make a distinction. It wasn't some sword, it was just one of the large swiss army knives.
      - Waywocket 16y ago
        If it has a blade longer than 3 inches, then you need a 'good reason' to be carrying it in public. If not, then under normal circumstances (rule 7 applies) it's fine so long as the blade is capable of folding. A locking catch is fine, but a fixed blade isn't. It seems safe to assume it's just the fact that you were planning to carry it on to a plane that made them unhappy.

plusbryan 16y ago

Agreed. I've just taken the last half hour to write to my senators in hopes it will gain some attention. This will be a hard issue to battle though - no senator wants to sponsor a bill that might be blamed for a terrorist attack.

tswicegood 16y ago

@duke_sam: If this article from Jeffery Goldburg is to be believed, there are TSA officials on record as saying the groping is directly intended to push people through the other scanners, all the while ignoring any cavities which could hide plenty of explosives or other contraband. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-...

Vivtek 16y ago
I just find it really hard to believe that there isn't going to be some kind of pushback to this kind of thing.

jacoblyles 16y ago

It's hard to remember that a mere ten years ago the TSA did not exist and now it is already groping our grandpas. It is a good thing we are so much safer now.