Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
12 Pages123>»
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Zero2Cool  
#1 Posted : Monday, November 15, 2010 7:51:44 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 25,653
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,842
Applause Received: 1,994

http://www.cnn.com/2010/...curity/index.html?hpt=T2

Quote:
Los Angeles, California (CNN) -- In response to a video of a California man's dispute with airport security officials, the Transportation Security Administration said Monday it tries to be sensitive to individuals, but everyone getting on a flight must be screened.

The video, in which software engineer John Tyner refuses an X-ray scan at the San Diego, California, airport, has sparked a debate over screening procedures.

Tyner told CNN on Sunday that he was surprised to see so many people take an interest in his refusal and the dispute with airport screeners that followed it. But he said he hoped the video will focus attention on what he calls a government invasion of privacy.

"Obviously, everybody has their own perspective about their personal screening," TSA administrator John Pistole told CNN. "The question is, how do we best address those issues ... while providing the best possible security?"

Tyner, 31, said his hunting trip to South Dakota was cut short before it even started Saturday morning -- when TSA agents asked him to go through an X-ray machine.

"I don't think that the government has any business seeing me naked as a condition of traveling about the country," Tyner said.

Pistole said the agency is "trying to be sensitive to individuals issues and concerns," but added, "the bottom line is, everybody who gets on that flight has been properly screened."

The cell phone video Tyner recorded of his arguments with security screeners over the scan and pat-down they proposed had garnered more than 80,000 hits on YouTube by early Monday morning.

Tyner said that after he declined the body scan, a TSA agent told him he could have a pat-down instead. Once the procedure was described, Tyner said he responded, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested."

The dispute that followed, Tyner said, included police escorting him from the screening area and a supervisor saying he could face a civil lawsuit for leaving the airport before security had finished screening him.

"The whole thing just seemed ridiculous. ... I don't intend to fly until these machines go away," he said.

"Advanced imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers," TSA said in a statement released Monday. "Passengers who opt out of [advanced imaging] screening will receive alternative screening, including a physical pat-down."

But anyone who refuses to complete the screening process will be denied access to airport secure areas and could be subject to civil penalties, the administration said, citing a federal appeals court ruling in support of the rule.

The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says that "requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by 'electing not to fly' on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found."

The TSA's advanced imaging technology machines use two separate means of creating images of passengers -- backscatter X-ray technology and millimeter-wave technology.

At the end of October, 189 backscatter units and 152 millimeter-wave machines were in use in more than 65 airports. The total number of imaging machines is expected to be near 1,000 by the end of 2011, according to the TSA.

The agency has previously said that the new technology is safe and protects passenger privacy.

"Strict privacy safeguards are built into the foundation of TSA's use of advanced imaging technology to protect passenger privacy and ensure anonymity," the agency says in a statement on its website.

Images from the scans cannot be saved or printed, according to the agency. Facial features are blurred. And agents who directly interact with passengers do not see the scans.

iReporter: "Don't touch my junk" Tyner shouldn't fly

But Tyner isn't the only one with concerns about the new security procedures.

Grass-roots groups are urging travelers either not to fly or to protest by opting out of the full-body scanners and undergoing time-consuming pat-downs instead.

Industry leaders are worried about the backlash. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano met with leaders of travel industry groups to discuss the concerns.

"We certainly understand the challenges that DHS confronts, but the question remains, where do we draw the line? Our country desperately needs a long-term vision for aviation security screening, rather than an endless reaction to yesterday's threat," the U.S. Travel Association said in a statement after the meeting. "At the same time, fundamental American values must be protected."


I don't really care much about it, but why so much security? Lock the cabin down so there's one way communication from the cabin to the staff. Make it known no matter how many passengers are killed, the plane won't divert and no one will be allowed in the cabin. Hell, make the cabin pressure locked while in air it can't be opened.

Something. There has to be a better way.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Sponsor
Offline zombieslayer  
#2 Posted : Monday, November 15, 2010 7:56:28 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Ralph Nader said this years before 9/11 happened. Had we taken his advice, 9/11 would have never happened.

Now instead, we have the beginnings of a police state. What amazes me is that people would object if the government demanded nude pics of you yet they have no problem walking through this.

The TSA needs to be dismantled. Imagine the money we taxpayers would save.

Lock the cockpits and reinforce the door. There. Problem solved.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline Pack93z  
#3 Posted : Monday, November 15, 2010 8:15:57 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Posts: 12,752
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 380
Applause Received: 1,022

For records sake.. a look back on the subject.

http://www.packershome.c...finish=20/start=120.html

Middle of that page through the end of the thread.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline 4PackGirl  
#4 Posted : Monday, November 15, 2010 8:32:22 PM(UTC)
4PackGirl

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,252
Joined: 12/17/2006(UTC)
Location: illinois

Applause Given2: 150
Applause Received: 122

i don't get what a locked, reinforced cockpit door will do when someone brings a bomb on a plane but maybe that's just me.

jfc - people are so damn prudish & oh so 'worried' about their rights, it's just sickening. if you don't want to get scanned, don't fly. trust me, nobody's in the back room trying to measure your manliness or lack thereof.

everybody wants it all, wants it now, & doesn't want to be inconvenienced. it's impossible!! so yes if i have to be scanned to fly so the chances of my being blown up, shot, or stabbed in midair are lower, so the hell be it.

can't wait to hear the responses to this one. lol.
UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#5 Posted : Monday, November 15, 2010 8:33:00 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Posts: 12,752
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 380
Applause Received: 1,022

[youtube]sUnRz139hmI[/youtube]
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#6 Posted : Monday, November 15, 2010 9:06:52 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Posts: 12,752
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 380
Applause Received: 1,022

I said this in the other thread.. and personally how I look upon the topic. That said, I do think the "body Imaging" is probably to far over the line... metal detector not as invasive. Hell we subject ourselves to scanners leaving stores as Best Buy and Target daily without much thought about it.. for something as petty theft being the root reason for the scan. Granted it isn't an X-ray scan.


Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
An aircraft is one of the most delicate modes of transportation, and with the economy crunch I am not completely sold that the companies are keeping the aircraft as maintained as they should be.. stretching the limits of parts for budgetary reasons. Then add that fact that all a person really needs to do to severely jeopardize the flight is cause a breach in the cabin.. granted they won't be able to use it as was in 9/11.. but they still can cause what they want.. [size=18]destruction and fear.[/size]

I see the amount of nut jobs in this world, people that either are so far gone that rational thought escapes them or they just have twisted intentions. This isn't the American society of 20 years ago.. heck it isn't the same as 10 years ago... I don't like it, I would rather go back, but reality is this is the society we live in.

Combine those ingredients and you have a recipe for high risk.. one in which I don't feel comfortable with going back to the minimal security we used to have.

And I really am not worried about foreign terrorists.. they are very isolated.. I am more concerned with the nut jobs from within. Those looking for their 15 minutes of fame or attention.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline Wade  
#7 Posted : Monday, November 15, 2010 9:07:29 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,765
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 630
Applause Received: 648

Sorry, gotta disagree with you on this one, Julie. (Shawn doubtless remembers me disagreeing with him on the earlier thread. :) )

On several overlapping grounds, among them:
1. Unreasonable search under 4th amendment.
2. Invasion of natural right of privacy.
3. Restriction of natural right to travel.
4. Patriot Act should have been held unconsitutional.
5. Fear doesn't stop terrorism, it encourages it.
6. TSA has regularly adopted procedures that don't work; we should believe them this time because...?
7. If you have to presume that the average traveller is a criminal, then you've already lost.
8. Threatening a civil lawsuit if you fail to go through the screening? On what grounds, pray tell?

Me, I applaud the guy for being an obnoxious shit and standing on his principles. I wish I had the guts to refuse to fly under such conditions.

Zombieslayer: in one way we are worse than a traditional police state. Our society's shared belief in "social contract" democracy means we give the interferers with liberty a legitimacy they never have in authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. We forget that the ability to withhold "consent of the governed" doesn't disappear just because a majority says otherwise.
None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline zombieslayer  
#8 Posted : Monday, November 15, 2010 9:34:05 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Sorry, gotta disagree with you on this one, Julie. (Shawn doubtless remembers me disagreeing with him on the earlier thread. :) )

On several overlapping grounds, among them:
1. Unreasonable search under 4th amendment.
2. Invasion of natural right of privacy.
3. Restriction of natural right to travel.
4. Patriot Act should have been held unconsitutional.
5. Fear doesn't stop terrorism, it encourages it.
6. TSA has regularly adopted procedures that don't work; we should believe them this time because...?
7. If you have to presume that the average traveller is a criminal, then you've already lost.
8. Threatening a civil lawsuit if you fail to go through the screening? On what grounds, pray tell?

Me, I applaud the guy for being an obnoxious shit and standing on his principles. I wish I had the guts to refuse to fly under such conditions.

Zombieslayer: in one way we are worse than a traditional police state. Our society's shared belief in "social contract" democracy means we give the interferers with liberty a legitimacy they never have in authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. We forget that the ability to withhold "consent of the governed" doesn't disappear just because a majority says otherwise.


+1 to Wade. Wade gets it.

I guess most Americans would make good slaves. Of course, tell them that they're free and the grass is greener over here while putting them in chains. But alas, I think I've said all I'm going to say on this subject. Sick of this one now too.

What's really sad is those commie Europeans get it. I've been reading what they have to say about American airport security on Slashdot and they get it, Americans don't. Yikes.

From an economic perspective, we're losing a lot of European tourism (yes, it matters) and that's not good for my stock investments. Plus, European chicks are more likely to take their tops off on my beaches.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline Zero2Cool  
#9 Posted : Monday, November 15, 2010 9:36:42 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 25,653
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,842
Applause Received: 1,994

A locked cabin prevents the plane from being flown into a freaking building!

This might sound cruel, but I'd rather have had someone blown up those planes, instead of them being used as WEAPONS to destroy the twin towers.

If we had four Flight 93's we'd still have the twin towers and (conspiracy theorists will disagree here, ahem, missile) the pentagon wouldn't have been damaged.

Flight 93 was crashed in a field, but if it had been blown up in mid air with the other planes, we'd have suffered far less causalities.

Locking the cabin down while in air, no exceptions, no possible way of opening the cabin is only a part of the solution. But I think a good start.

As I said, I don't care if someone wants to check out my manberries, (they'll need a damn scope to see'em anyhow), but I can see how many people despise it.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline Pack93z  
#10 Posted : Monday, November 15, 2010 9:47:28 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Posts: 12,752
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 380
Applause Received: 1,022

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Sorry, gotta disagree with you on this one, Julie. (Shawn doubtless remembers me disagreeing with him on the earlier thread. :) )

On several overlapping grounds, among them:
1. Unreasonable search under 4th amendment.
2. Invasion of natural right of privacy.
3. Restriction of natural right to travel.
4. Patriot Act should have been held unconsitutional.
5. Fear doesn't stop terrorism, it encourages it.
6. TSA has regularly adopted procedures that don't work; we should believe them this time because...?
7. If you have to presume that the average traveller is a criminal, then you've already lost.
8. Threatening a civil lawsuit if you fail to go through the screening? On what grounds, pray tell?


First.. your unrestricted travel is your right, but flying on commercial transportation is not a right. Your ability to purchase a seat freely is a right.. but you are then governed by their policies and regulations.

Personally the US government shouldn't be charged with the security, however they decided that since there are hubs with multiple airlines flying out of each and the importance of air transportation to our economy, they stuck their noses into it.

But I fail to see air travel as a right.. hence #1 has little governing authority.. if you want to fly, you have to follow their guidelines.

2. I will agree, that forcing someone to a "Xray" scan is taking it too far. But they are allowing a passenger to opt out..

3. See #1.. they are not restricting your travel.. just the conditions for this type of travel.

4. Certain parts I will agree to..

5. Is the TSA fear tactic or a method to dissolve it?

6. I would love to see a list of failed policies to counter the fact that it hasn't been repeated 9/11 event. To be fair, we can't decisively say that the TSA has prevented one either.

7. If I walk into Best Buy.. I have to pass through their scanners to exit.. so should I be offended that I was treated the same as a shoplifter? The method is not the same, but the principle of the TSA procedures are the same.. a preventative measure.

Same as the last thread, list an alternative measure than the TSA.

8. Here I agree.. a civil lawsuit.. that is utter bullshit.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline Wade  
#11 Posted : Monday, November 15, 2010 10:24:48 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,765
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 630
Applause Received: 648

Going to respond just Re: #1. The unreasonable search argument has little to do with the right to travel argument.

It is about the right to decide when a body is restrictable/invadable. Even if I had no "right to air travel", I have a right not to be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures.

Yes, you can search me if there is one of several public purposes (e.g. public safety) justifying it. But your search must still be reasonable. And reasonable is more than just saying "people might die if we don't do it." Reasonable is establishing a relationship between the search and achievement of the goal to be achieved.

And the burden of proof -- and this is key, and almost always forgotten -- is ON THE GOVT AGENT SEEKING TO SEARCH. The burden is NOT on the person being searched.

And the GOVT AGENT SEEKING TO SEARCH is supposed to satisfy a significant part of that burden of proof BEFORE the search is authorized. That is why "having a search warrant" is the default.

And it is supposed to satisfy that burden of proof with respect to the individual being searched and the extent of the search. You don't get to get a search warrant against "all possible drug dealers" or "all possible terrorist" much less against "all citizens who fly."

The TSA engages in millions of searches each day. Millions of times that it fails to establish with respect to the individual being searched that it believes it has just cause to believe that said individual is breaking any law.

The state can *always* come up with a clear and present danger to justify use the police power. The 4th amendment is there because the founders believed that search of the individual demanded individual justification for search, not just a clear and present fear.

Terrorists may have weapons of mass destruction in their USA apartments. Drug dealers may be concealing their drugs in bodily cavities. Neither fact, however true it might be, gives the FBI or local law enforcement legitimate power to go door to door and search everyone's apartment. Neither fact, however true it might be, gives the FBI or BAT the power to stop everyone walking past a particular intersection in a particular town.
None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline Porforis  
#12 Posted : Monday, November 15, 2010 10:40:09 PM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,738
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 168
Applause Received: 333

To be fair, people usually pay ME to touch my junk, not fine me for not allowing them to touch it.
UserPostedImage
Offline Pack93z  
#13 Posted : Monday, November 15, 2010 10:42:50 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Posts: 12,752
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 380
Applause Received: 1,022

Wade.. the US supreme court adopted several similar independent rulings of to detain a citizen where "society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available".

See cases..

http://en.wikipedia.org/..._of_State_Police_v._Sitz

http://en.wikipedia.org/...tates_v._Martinez-Fuerte

http://www.law.cornell.e...SSC_CR_0440_0648_ZS.html

http://www.law.cornell.e...pct/html/02-1060.ZS.html

In all cases, they allowed for discretion less searches upon US citizens that haven't given any just cause other than being there on their own accord.

You purchase the ticket to get from point A to Point B.. which is your right to that ticket, but in my mind, once your agree to the exchange you in essence waive your 4th amendment right to travel using this method.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline DakotaT  
#14 Posted : Monday, November 15, 2010 10:57:35 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 7,251
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 622
Applause Received: 1,297

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
in one way we are worse than a traditional police state. Our society's shared belief in "social contract" democracy means we give the interferers with liberty a legitimacy they never have in authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. We forget that the ability to withhold "consent of the governed" doesn't disappear just because a majority says otherwise.


For as smart as you are, you can be worse than those dumbass hippies back in the sixties. Did the government go to for with the Patriot Act, sure they did? But something had to be done because this nation wasn't safe and still isn't. In my state the state capital is wide open and could be taken out at any time just like McVey did in OKlahoma, and if a person really wanted to, the Garrison Dam could be taken out causing billions of dollars of flood damage all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. And we're not even mentioning all the nucs we have in missile form out on the prairie.
I'll step up to the Xray every time I fly, not a big deal and I wouldn't admire the guy that was keeping me from my seat in a timely manner.
UserPostedImage
Offline 4PackGirl  
#15 Posted : Monday, November 15, 2010 11:00:20 PM(UTC)
4PackGirl

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,252
Joined: 12/17/2006(UTC)
Location: illinois

Applause Given2: 150
Applause Received: 122

zombie - just cuz you agree with wade doesn't mean he 'gets' it any more than anyone else. wait - that could be taken so many different directions. ;)

in another thread there was a discussion about how if you had a daughter, she'd be a slut & that would make you happy. ok, if she's a slut, do you not try to help her prevent pregnancy & teach her about responsible sex?

to me, having screenings is a preventative thing much like the condom, the pill, the iud, and/or the sponge.

lookie there - i somehow made this about sex - go figure. LMAO!!
UserPostedImage
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
12 Pages123>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Recent Topics
36m / Announcements / Zero2Cool

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / 68md

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / warhawk

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

6h / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / QCHuskerFan

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / StarrMax1

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / CaliforniaCheez

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules


Tweeter

Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.