seems to me there is a violation of a person who has to pay not to be assaulted. where are the law suits???
Posted by mamameow at January 12, 2007 06:44 AMWell said. Beyond the necessity, the process is so demeaning I always wonder whether that is intentional, to replace the old-fashioned notion of American independence with a new world more manageable submission to govt. maechanism. Let's face it, flying always carried with it a spirit of freedom. On paper it may not appear to be stripping away civil rights but it always feels that way when one is forced to stand in front of a crowd of strangers and be patted down.
Posted by mainsailset at January 12, 2007 07:12 AMFederal ID. Electronic imprints on a wallet card or driver's license. The law is already on the books. 2008.
Posted by suds at January 12, 2007 07:14 AMLet's face it, flying always carried with it a spirit of freedom.
A spirit of freedom?
For those who could afford it maybe.
The people who are enjoying that freedom have already paid for it. They bought it. And when they did that they entered an agreement where they assented to be subject to certain security measures.
There are plenty of problems with the way airport security is conducted but let's not pretend that being subject to security measures before boarding a plane has anything to do with the 4th Amendment.
Air travel could be made a lot less of a hassle if they eliminated carry-ons except for a single personal item. Like a hand bag or briefcase. And seriously enforced it.
Five years after 9/11 and every airport I go to it still looks and functions like they just established these new security proceedures last week. That's an embarrassment.
Posted by snark at January 12, 2007 07:24 AMSnark, hey, don't shoot the messenger. I was simply alluding to flying vs driving for 14 hours straight through- flying is a luxury and when one can afford it and doesn't get airsick, it can be uplifting!
Posted by mainsailset at January 12, 2007 07:51 AMmainsailset,
I didn't mean any offense. Reading your comment and the reference to American Independence followed by 'spirit of freedom' I took 'freedom' to mean in the civic sense. Not in the 'liberation from 14 hours in a car sense'.
I have no problem with the airport security measures. Just with their implimentation. Air travel is gonna keep growing and it seems we're woefully unprepared to deal with the logistical problems that are coming.
Posted by snark at January 12, 2007 08:03 AMI'm continually fascinated by the way that, although hundreds of thousands of people a day are being forced to take off their shoes, there has been no provision of convenient, respectful chairs for these people after the scanners, so they can put their shoes BACK ON. It's a little twist of the demeaning knife, a little way of saying, "We're not only going to invade your privacy, we don't even spend a few seconds considering you as a human being, or being courteous about it. Go ahead, hop on one leg, or park your butt on this ledge after walking in socks across the hall. That'll teach you to wear supportive shoes for your long walk to your gate!"
I see it as part of a social engineering effort that is training regular Americans to forget that they are supposed to be on top of our political system, not the bottom.
Posted by biggerbox at January 12, 2007 08:08 AMFlying always gives me a feeling of dread, but then, I'm a chicken.
And I have no problem with whatever safety measures the airlines put on passengers, if only they were consistent, fair and realistic. Anyone hear about that group of baggage handlers that stole a bunch of luggage and ripped off the valuables, then dumped it? I don't have much trust in the airlines these days, really.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 12, 2007 08:12 AMI completely agree with the poster. I am an inveterate traveller having been to 45 countries and no where have i encountered such nonsense than in the US.
Take Houston for example - I'm in transit from the UK (get that - NOT GOING TO GO OUT OF THE AIRPORT) and not only do i have to queue with everybody else for immigration I get asked `why are you coming to the States?` (I'm not just passing through buddy) `Where do you live? What do you do there? Why are you coming from London when you live near Mancester?) What the fuck is it to do with them when I'm travelling through to Mexico.
They even take retina scans and fingerprints.
You then have to pick up your luggage as if Houston was your final destination and take it to the airline employee. Indeed I have to complete visa waiver forms!
(note - I felt that although these things were protecting me in some way I felt that the overall desire was to protect the United States - why? Because there was no-one standing round the bags at the carousel ensuring that the one taken matched the name on the boarding card! - whereas at Mexico City I did feel protected as they did check my bags with my name and passport before I left the airport).
After this you go through hand luggage checks and take off your shoes.
All this by the way I've done at London Gatwick. What on earth do they think a British traveller will be doing in between these times that hasn't been noticed already. If they don't trust the British system (I note with some enmity that US citizens DON'T have to fill out a form just to transit to Europe) then they shouldn't accept flights from there.
All this has confirmed my belief that the US is still truly fucked - Dem congress or not. They simply don't trust me.
So with the new laws (I suspect the practices still exist) of snooping on travellers emails and credit/debit card details you can be sure where I WON'T be travelling to or through next time I go to Mexico!
BTW - when I got to Mexico City airport I had none of this trouble - I was welcomed with warm smiles and a have a nice stay. Now that's what I CALL a special relationship.
Posted by littlejohnuk at January 12, 2007 08:30 AMI have major problems with the airport security thing and as an airline employee, I see all sides of this exercise in futility.
Anyone with an IQ greater than a single digit can smuggle "contraband" through airport screening.
While screeners are bogged down with the thoroughly debunked "binary fluid" bomb, opportunities abound, from non-screened checked baggage to holes in the system itself, starting with "trusted" therefore excluded from screening, personnel.
It is a daily horror show. Thank god for government employees as screeners. Bruce Schneier has a pretty good rundown of the idiocies on his blog.
I found it pretty interesting that as soon as we started with RFID in passports, some kid found a way to download the information (including the photo) from a remote location.
Airport security is pablum for the masses. Poking it reveals that, indeed, it serves very little useful purpose, otherwise.
Posted by Sky-Ho at January 12, 2007 08:41 AMI think the whole experience of flying any commercial airline is more about herding than any thing else. While in line I always have the thoughts of a cow being led to the slaughterhouse, passively following the line cosigned to my fate. It gets no better beyond that point, as I'm further herded onboard the plane with all my fellow cows, and finally find my assigned pen. I look around and see me and my fellow cows pressed shoulder to shoulder in nice neat units of 2's, 3's, and maybe 5's for those long transoceanic trips. I then start to think about those other transoceanic trips that Africans had to endure on their way to slavery in the bowels of a ship, and notice the seating arrangements couldn't be more similar. The same germ infested quarters, the occasional slop masquerading as food. The occasional trip around the cabin to loosen up a bit, til I'm told by the overseer(attendant) due to federal regulations I'm not allowed to stand in the aisleway during international flights. Should I get uppity, I get branded once I return home as a troublemaker making the whole process even worse. So I saunter back to my pen, and think at least this will be over in a few hours, and maybe if I ask nicely I can get a whole can of Coke to wash down the feed(pretzels).
Posted by kdub at January 12, 2007 08:51 AMNow here's a great topic for heated discussion.
Yes, the screening is idiotic. Yes, the screening is ineffective (several tests have shown that determined individuals can sneak stuff in anyway).
The only plus I'll give the TSA is that they are generally more polite than they were at first.
Shoes -- when I travel in the UK the security screeners laugh at Americans who take their shoes off reflexively.
Liquids -- The recent liquids ban was beyond belief. I arrived at my hotel planning to buy a small tube of toothpaste only to find out all hotels and airport shops had been sold out because of the idiotic toothpaste ban. Then there was the rule that even after passing security any overpriced drink you bought in the airport had to be poured into a cup by the retail clerk, and even then you couldn't take it on a plane. Security value of all these rules: zero.
But perhaps the worst is the TSA luggage screening. I rarely check bags, but on one occasion where I did (we were moving out of state) my bag was chosen for inspection -- I even had a slip of paper inside. Unfortunately, the inspector stole my daughter's medications that I stupidly put in the checked baggage (I'd wanted to avoid long questions about them if my carry-on bag was opened). It was incredibly difficult, with the 30-day insurance rule and being in a new state where we hadn't set up doctors, to get replacements. I tried report the theft but the runaround was extreme -- no one wanted to take responsibility, including the police, who said it was TSA's juridiction, but TSA said it was the responsibility of the 3rd party contractor.
Certainly gives me high confidence in our luggage screening if 3rd party contractors can walk away with stuff from your luggage an no one is interested in this fact. I wonder how hard it would be for them to put stuff IN your luggage?
Posted by Frequent Traveler at January 12, 2007 08:56 AMThe shoe thing, the liquid thing.....its all about reminding everyone that they should be scared. Scared and only Thy Saviour Bush can save them from the nasty Brown Men. I'd love the Dems to call an investigation on exactly how many shoe bombs have been found, and then cancel that stupid shit.
Posted by T2 at January 12, 2007 09:15 AMI'm sure with a little priming of the pump from the travel industry lobbys, the Democ-rats might visit this issue...for a small contribution. And if the money they got from big pharma is any indication, it doesn't take much to put a Democ-rat congress weasel in your pocket.
It's not really paying for your 4th Amendment rights when you consider that you have to pay for a legislator to do anything. The American people truly are the American cow herd. And Democ-rat congress weasels are the rodeo clowns. There is little connection that can be made between the two.
Posted by phidipides at January 12, 2007 09:52 AMI think the whole experience of flying any commercial airline is more about herding than any thing else.
While in university, we used to line up at the cafeteria during peak hours to get to the vittles. For giggles, quite a few of us got into the habit of mooing (like cattle being herded into the milking pens) during our time in line.
I wonder how TSA would react if a bunch of people started doing that while waiting for their personal space to be violated by airport security?
For the record, I think I have only flown twice since the towers fell, and not at all since we illegally invaded Iraq. And I would much rather have a cross-country drive with my own entertainment/provisions then use any commercial transportation any more. Just wait - the same type of "security" you get these days at the airport will be coming to the bus and train stations very soon (if it isn't already there).
Posted by (: Tom :) at January 12, 2007 10:17 AMA touching family conversation overheard by a fly on a cave wall:
"Grandpa Osama, what is your fondest memory of your attack on the American infidels?"
"Little grandson, I think it was when I saw the airport officials on the CNN trying to remove the shoes of the loud New York Jewish grandmother in the wheelchair, and she bit them and was sent to the Guantanamo."
Posted by TIKI AL at January 12, 2007 11:06 AMBecause the purpose of airline searches is to prevent airline disasters—and prosecuting people is an afterthought—the 4th Amendment as interpreted by the Court would provide very, very little protection.
Considering the nature of the threat, and the comparatively low level of invasiveness (they aren't doing cavity searches [yet]), these searches are pretty clearly not unreasonable. A pain in the ass? Yes. A prohibited search/seizure? No.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 12, 2007 11:12 AMFor the record I don't mind security checks that are real and logical - I understand that air passengers have to be protected. The problem is that it's obvious the TSA are going way over the top with transit passengers. Picture it after a ten hour flight - having to go through a procedure that takes another two hours just to get to the next plane and the same procedure was done at London.
I guess they think the less passengers the better? Well let me help them out - Air Canada, Iberia, Air France here i come!
I wonder what happens with transit passengers in the UK with US passports?
Posted by littlejohnuk at January 12, 2007 11:47 AM