"Don't touch my junk!

@JaneDevin Said

Well, I suppose I could say this about that. In line about perverts and pedophiles I'm paraphrasing a TSA employee. He told me that he would feel like a pedophile if he ever had to frisk a little girl, and he was dreading the thought of what to do about colostomy bags, etc.

And I can see how the word pervert might annoy some unfortunate people.

I met a guy recently, who works for a security firm. Our dinner conversation consisted of him lecturing me about transportation security.

His company has been trying to convince the TSA that it should concentrate more on finding bombers. That might include concentrating on people who are more likely to be bombers.

For example, I'm a young, single female. I might have a bomb to carry on a plane without my knowledge like in the Lockerbie bombing.

People who look or act like Richard Reid or Timothy McVeigh might get extra attention. Young Arabic men might get extra attention.

Watching behavior could be important. Apparently people, who know they are going to die, behave differently than people who think they will live.

Anyway, maybe my dinner companion is correct. Maybe we should try more to find bombers, then we might not need to molest little girls.

@someone_else Said

Okay...let's look at this another way.

1) Pat-downs are done by an agent of the same sex as the passenger, so that guy will never have to frisk a little girl.

2) Colostomy bags hare a medical device and they have different standards for those people. Sounds like this guy needs to redo his training.

3) Searching people based on how they look or how they behave is profiling. They would probably have to endure a lot more lawsuits based on profiling.

4) Have you ever seen "Locked up Abroad"? A lot of those people didn't fit your 'profile'...they were hired as mules by drug runners. What about unscrupulous people who would use children to smuggle things, knowing that they wouldn't be searched?

5) Why does everybody seem to think that bombs are the only thing to worry about?


**ETA: Double points day and I got 2 points?

@JaneDevin Said

Speaking of redoing training. That's a good point. The training seems to have been inadequate.

About hiring mules. That was the first category on my list. I'm a perfect candidate to be a mule to carry at bomb on a plane.

Profiling. Profiling based on race, religion, etc might generate constitutional objections, but only because the TSA agents are government employees. If they worked for the airline, the constitution would not apply. Profiling based on behavior would not be unconstitutional.

Bombs v Bombers. Which is more important? My dinner companion says that the history of security in the United States has been about finding the bombs. His company wants to find the bombers.

@someone_else Said

Due to the possibility of hiring or coercing mules, profiling simply wouldn't work.

Profiling based on behavior may not be unconstitutional, but I can almost guarantee a lawsuit the first time they 'profile' someone with a mental illness because they were 'acting funny'.

My last point was not an issue of bombs vs bombers (objects vs people). It was about other harmful and/or illegal substances that a person might smuggle on an airplane.

@JaneDevin Said

I'm no expert in these things. You could be right.

I have a cousin who has FSH dystrophy, so she doesn't drive. Today when I took her to work, we listened to a local radio program, Handel on the News. (see www.kfi640.com) For several days now the host, Bill Handel, has been interviewing people who work in airline security. Today, he interviewed a man who works with security in Israel.

In Israel, they ask everybody questions before they board. The answers may or may not trigger more questions. They catch the bombers before they board the planes. As far as I know, the system here in the United States has never caught a bomber before boarding the plane.

I'd guess that no matter what the security people do, some people will have constitutional issues, but when Supreme Court deals with questions of National Security v religion, free speech, etc (I think transportation in this case would be free speech.), or search and seizure, the Court always sides with national security.

I'm no expert on the law either, so if you know a case that says different, I would like to know.

@someone_else Said

I don't know that any cases would go as high as the Supreme Court. I'm talking about personal lawsuits. We are a sue happy country. People will sue for discrimination, civil rights violation, you name it.

In fact, here's one against TSA for racial profiling:
https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2003839571_travelupdate19.html

@JaneDevin Said

As far as I know, the system here in the United States has never caught a bomber before boarding the plane.

@boxerdc Said

First, get a clue.
Second, know the context of why I said what I said, which you don't because you haven't been here long enough.
Third, it wasn't meant to be funny.
Fourth, who said anything about only fat women except for you?

Learn that there's subtext here between members, and until you understand that subtext, try posting on the actual topic rather than snarking at other members for what you perceive (wrongly) their motives are.

@fractal7221 Said

For one, I've been a member here longer than you have, so I'm not quite sure how you can say I haven't been here long enough. And you were the one that said you only see fatties complaining.

Very rarely do I bother responding to any of your posts however, because they almost always consist of insults and ridicule and almost never have an actual point. Instead of constantly reiterating that people don't get your context, perhaps you should more clearly phrase what you are trying to say.