What's Your View of Air Passenger Screening?

Protesting by refusing to go through the scanners is only going to inconvenience them and the others protesting. More than likely speed up my trip through the security checks.

Mike

As a woman, and probably the only one to contribute to this discussion, I find it extremely disturbing that I could be forced to submit to either being groped or having naked pictures taken of me in order to fly. I would hope that the men of the world, even if they are not bothered by such outrageous violation of our civil liberties, would want to protect us more. Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

I would guess you don't fly often....we who fly often don't even think about it anymore as those of us who fly a lot (my personal record is 9 European flights and one train journey in less than 3 days), are less bothered by being seen naked by security people, than being blown out of the air for no reason....

If you don't like the security for air travel, either don't travel or get in your personal plane or car or boat......

Don't bother posting back that they are all impractical, either you want to travel or you don't......your problem to fix, not mine/ours.

So because you travel more often and are not bothered by being groped and having naked pictures taken of you, you somehow feel more entitled than women who don't want to be subjected to this? Who do you think you are to tell me that I have to agree to this or lose my freedoms? I fail to see how these procedures ensure security anyway. Are you also willing to subject yourself to a full body cavity search because that is what is next. My advice is to stop living in fear and start caring about human dignity. It is a collective problem, and I certainly wouldn't expect someone like you to stand up to anything.

Firstly I can answer with 100% honesty that I have never been seen as a security risk in all the dozens of airports and other security areas and had a full body search.

If I was, I would just have to accept it (what doctors have done to me over the years was a lot worse and sometimes quite painfull - way past where a bomb could get!!!!)

If this has happened to you then you somehow make security officers worried.......its your choice as to how you look or act of course.......but changes may improve the situation.....

You obviously don't (want to) understand that a security check will/may require a feel of certain places. It would not be the first time that women have smuggled in their bras or other places......modern weapons/explosives have a low to zero metal content, so very hard to find with just a metal detector.......even these new scanners only show what you have on the outside of your body, not inside......and I am told that even some things on the outside will not be shown.

It won't be long before the Taliban get doctors to open people up and plant bombs inside them......could happen any day now........

Don't forget, if you are of Muslim origins or of a middle east appearance, whether you are a man or woman, you are going to get the works.....why? You should know that already......if you don't you are simply being stupidly obtuse......

Don't blame the security system, the people or the tools. Blame the terrorists.....when I first flew abroad in the early 60s, none of this security was carried out - NOTHING!!

I know that nowadays, if you refuse a body search when one is requested, you will not get on any aircraft today......and I find that a good thing for the us, the majority...

Surely you do realise that you have already lost all your arguments as soon as you book a flight nowadays......nobody is going to listen to your thoughts, arguments or anything that you have mentioned here.....

Hopefully for you (and everyone else!), some machine will get invented that can cover all security risks perfectly.

Till then you are stuck with being groped!!!

If rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it......

I won't be posting again here as I know that security will always win, even if someone like yourself thinks its unreasonable......you can warble on here as long as you like, it will change nothing at all.....

You can complain at the airport, send emails to the President or post on CR4 even - it will change nothing (except maybe that you will be seen as an even bigger security risk - even more body searches maybe? Head down is better......)

If you cannot accept reality in 2010, maybe you should go and buy a few new cups for the cupboard!!! It might help!!

You almost had a decent post that made sense.

The rape comment was completely uncalled for, but since you won't be posting here anymore.......good riddance.

Its a British joke/saying:-

It means that what you can't alter, you should just ride it out.

Non Brits don't always understand it (and some other things like "its Brass Monkey weather" for example which it is right now in the UK)......I forgot that......you are definitely a non Brit!!!

Some US humour is very hard to understand (that its humour I mean!) too......all of Jerry Lewis for example......

I got it after I posted..........probably not the best choice of words though, since you were responding to a female. Thanks for clearing the air.

Does anyone notice any type of commonality in the 911 terrorists? And no, I am not anti Islam. I am anti coward murderous terrorists.

'Commonality....'

Yes.

Four right off the bat.

Narrow set eyes

Big ears

Bushy dark eyebrows

All appear to be male.

Thats why I LOVE being Blonde......

I hated it as a child.......the headmaster always picked me out at 500 yards distance.....then I wanted to have black hair!!!

I have dark hair and slightly olive skin, I suspect that if they were to take a more common sense approach, I would be subjected to further scrutiny when flying, which would be understandable.

On top of the violation of rights, and at least as important, this is another case of government putting things in place that are going to further cripple the airline industry, which is barely making a profit now. Maybe they're being targeted for a take over.

This is my logical right wing view not the view of this site

because I am sick to death of this PC attitude.. If Muslim's want to fly.. let them fly on Muslim airlines..We have the capability to provide them, if they want to blow themselves up, then that is the best place for them. we as Christian quaker Jain Hindu Buddhist etc can chose to fly with them or not as the case may be but that is our choice. At the minute we have none.. the needs of the one (Muslims) should not take precedent over the many..(the rest of us) There are pure Muslim airlines Pakistan Saudi Syrian etc.. lets help them expand their routes to include hubs in Europe and the USA there will be fewer flights but there would be none at all if they follow their ideology. And lets get this right.. it is an ideological religious dogma that causes Muslims to blow up themselves and others, to achieve WHAT?? Everything the devout Muslim wants to impose on us we did centuries ago.. Women with no voice we did that walk behind us we did that clothed from head to toe we did that veils we did that separate places of worship etc etc..Do not mention or question what is in the book..Put to death those who would not convert and Killing those who did not agree with us yes we did that but that was in the distant past and we can not go back there. Muslim religion wants us to return to the 17th century..

Do quakers want to blow me up? Not as yet..Armish? any other religion not that I know, but you out there can tell me I will take precautions

I have decided to post this anon I do not fear reprisal for myself.. man with big stick etc.. but for my family..

We would have a lot more 9/11's if we followed your examples here.......that would be like arming the Taliban with some nice big aircraft......

"Don't forget, if you are of Muslim origins or of a middle east appearance, whether you are a man or woman, you are going to get the works.....why?"

That isn't the case, there isn't profiling taking place. Instead, "Janet Incomopitano" and the godlike powers that be, in their almighty wisdom, think the threat is in little girls and 80 year old nuns; and the young Arab men go through without any extra scrutiny.

You are correct when you say the terrorist is the culprit. And we have to now take precautions not normally taken in the past. The question is, what works? This current plan has been instituted by a bunch of people who are incompetant, to say the least, and do things without thought about what results or benefits their procedures can hope to bring, or the negative infringement on the rights of the public they are supposed to serve.

Your statement about rape is asinine, stupid and ill spoken! There are things that aren't joking matters no matter how crude and ignorant you are.

...another one who did not understand the meaning behind the sayings of Confucius.........the US is full of them it would seem!!! Guys, they are a form of humour!!!! Should I shout out loud next time?

Now the ones who have little or no humour are even standing up and being counted!!!

Also, someone else had already "interpreted" it for for the uninitiated (I forget who it was, but thanks anyway), but so many people are obviously also not reading all the posts, but still feel able to make asinine comments anyway.

It smacks of the type of strange reasoning that caused such an uproar that many had when Janet Jackson displayed something in public that almost every kid in the world gets shoved in its mouth (if its lucky), shortly after birth!

Her nipple!!!!

Remember "Nipplegate" and the news sensation it caused, but only in the USA!! The rest of the world stood around amazed at just how small minded many people (still) are!!!

Pennsylvania rules!!!!

Here in the UK we do not react quite so hotly to such things, no matter how attractive they can be to real men!!

Nipples are simply not considered good enough reason to hit the newsline on page one, we generally reserve a complete page 3 in many papers here for pictures of pretty young ladies showing both of them.

You can view all the girls on this "Page 3" site, in full length detail if you wish:-

http://www.page3.com/girls_home.shtml

But its not the place to go if the female form, in a very natural way, offends you at all, really not.........spare your blushes by NOT clicking on the link if that is the case.

But it does show the one of the major differences in attitude between the US and many European countries quite dramatically I feell, the UK was just the first.

By the way, there are still some educated/knowledgeable people around and they seem to know and understand more about Confucius and his so-called sayings. I believe its a US website too, look here about 6 or 7 down for the saying in question:-

http://www.yelp.com/topic/garden-grove-confucius-says

OK now? Fully understood?

I'm not sure where you are from, but I am mildly confused by most of your comments. Firstly - this is is no way a gender-specific issue. The world has advanced well beyond the days when it was the job of men to protect women. Secondly - I think that it is an extreme extrapolation / exaggeration to use the words "groped" and "naked pictures" - both of which have sexual implications. This is not the point of these procedures at all. Thirdly - the point of these procedures is to try to protect everyone. Is it not more important to protect all people from a possible terrorist attack on an airplane than to protect individual people from a pat-down or full-body scan? This seems to be an easy choice for me. It must be a cultural difference between Canada and where you are from.

Excellent points.

You wrote, "I think that it is an extreme extrapolation / exaggeration to use the words "groped" and "naked pictures" - both of which have sexual implications. This is not the point of these procedures at all."

This is true, but not necessarily how things always work out. We may want to ask if we have opened a Pandora's Box here. For instance, we have many policies that are enacted for the greater good of our people, but that has not stopped people from subverting these policies or even tools for nefarious reasons.

You can give a child a telescope under the Christmas tree that they could use to explore the heavens and open their minds. That same tool of exploration, coupled with a camera could be used by another for child porn.

While it is not the point of these procedures to invade our privacy, the result is that we have invaded our privacy. I understand that there is an issue of safety, but has the government made a clear case that this is necessary and why?

Case in point, how do you tell your young child it is wrong for an adult to touch you "there", yet they get "groped" by some TSA agent? Can you explain that to a 3 year old?

Ask yourself, even if you were willing to submit to such a search, would you freely want to put your child in that position? Is the choice still so easy?

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I just think that all of the concerns about these searches, either by pat-down or by the full-body scan, are bordering on paranoia. We already know that people have carried concealed contraband weapons onto planes, so the reason to have these searches seems obvious to me - I don't think that the government needs to justify them any further. To me, the mild invasion of privacy is far outweighed by the benefits regarding potential avoidance of tragedy. To be sure, there are possible negative uses of virtually everything that is beneficial in our society, but that doesn't mean we stop using the beneficial things.

As for your last point regarding children, I would have no problem explaining any of this to even a very young child. (BTW - I do have 4 children.) There is a big difference between secret inappropriate touching in private and a search that doesn't even involve direct contact with inappropriate body parts, in a public place, by a person in uniform, with your parent standing right there. Children understand at a very young age about "bad guys" and it would be easy to explain how these bad guys sometimes pretend to look like good guys, so the workers need to check everyone. It would be even easier to explain the full body scan, and most kids would probably think that was cool.

Thank you, as well.

Two thoughts...

One, the need for the sudden and extra security screen has not been explained, at all. The response has been we need to do it and if you fail to comply you may face arrest and/or fines.

Two, I have an issue with children being searched in this fashion (TSA telling them it is a game) and there has been evidence that some children are not taking this well. The possible resulting emotional damage is not something that is trite. As adults we have learned to view the world much differently than a child, and in spite of all of us having been through childhood, it is surprising how little we understand about it as we get older, but the effects of these things can be devastating and I rather not tell you how I know.

I don't think that it is a sudden need for extra screening. I wouldn't be surprised if this is just how long it took to get these things in place as a follow-up to 9-11.

I do understand that some children would not react well to a search (and I am sorry for whatever happened to you in the past). It definitely should NOT be portrayed as a game. It needs to be portrayed as something serious and something to protect them. For example, taking away their teddy bear for screening should be explained as necessary to see if some bad guy has hidden something bad inside their toy. Then they could be shown the screen to be reassured that it is safe. After that, it may be easier to explain how the other searches do the same for their clothes, although that might not work. The full body scan would be easier, since it wouldn't be much different to them than the old simple metal scanners. In the end though, the policy that those under 12 shouldn't need to be searched is probably the best.

Clearly, the level of screening has gone up and it has gone up considerably.

The end result is a much higher level of screening than prior to the new machines and "pat downs".

I think you should start reading newspapers and watching international TV news more ofte, children are being used as bombers already, even real babies in prams are being used....

Read the following links:-

http://www.welt.de/english-news/article3152902/Mother-of-the-Female-Suicide-Bombers-speaks-out.html

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8clfa_taliban-recurit-6yr-old-child-to-su_news

http://suche.freenet.de/video/detail/?thmbnl=http%3A%2F%2Fyts.video.search.yahoo.com%2Fimage%2F25ef5f1f1&refurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJ-QjRyap0uY%26feature%3Dyoutube_gdata&domain=www.youtube.com&objecturl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fv%2FJ-QjRyap0uY&hits=218&title=Child+suicide+bombers+recruited+in+Pakistan+by+taliban.+Sharmeen+Obaid-Chinoy+investigates.&query=+suicide+children+bomb+&view&duration=560&height=0&width=0&format=&qrstr=%3Fquery%3D%2Bsuicide%2Bchildren%2Bbomb%2B%26page%3D1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIBNRVgq59Y&feature=youtube_gdata

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqXzilaslEo

Do a search on YouTube with the following words:-

"arab suicide children"

People who believe that children need to be left out of the equation, failed maths completely.......

I post only because I am a woman, a frequent traveller, have gone through the new scanners, and have had full pat downs.

I don't care. I've been groped worse on the subway.

Given the choice, I will pick the full pat-down to minimize exposure to even these low levels of radiation and the chances of my sillouette showing up in some newer, crueler version of the People of Walmart. But not if I'd have to wait any longer.

As for privacy, I'm more upset about my financial transactions than my less than buff physique.

Well don't really mine the scanner. I do think that TSA(Homeland Security) is in for a rude awakening. I do not think they are as concerned about the airlines well being. Or the national economy that has depended on air travel. The images are a negative and it is what can be done with those. With today's digital imaging sooner later one will turn up on the internet. Say of a well known actress and all **** will break lose. Women will refuse to use air travel will have a spiraling effect on the economy. Maybe not as bad as 9-11, still another hiccup in an already poor economy. Just like most government decisions there is no foresight. All the repercussion are felt by the people not by the bureaucracy.

I do not travel much. My next trip is this Thursday.

I'll be thinking of all of you as we board our plane. No standing in line, no TSA or other security checks, no baggage claims, or waiting at the terminal for us. We fly private planes. The only thing we have is to do the preflight before takeoff.

As far as the screening goes, the memos I have seen indicate that there was/is a credible threat that initiated this extra level of security. That much is now clear.

What isn't clear to me is whether the extra security is more for public safety or more for protecting the reputation of the government officials.

You might want to cut down on that unnecessary overhead.

;-) Puts flight time on the logbook.

I guess you can make the case that all private aircrafts are unnecessary when their is a public (commercial) transport system available.

However, where do we draw the line? Who decides when someone has racked up too much unnecessary overhead and what power or powers give that someone the authority to tell us what to do in our life?

How much external control do you want in your life, assuming you are willing to surrender all self control?

Thanks for the tip. Will get my terrorist buddies to charter private planes cos they are also not too keen on letting strangers see their naked butts. If people really are against body scanning/stricter body searches, then protest in hoards. If there are enough of you, then you will bring change. If it will inconvenience other travellers, then so be it, it may be a sort of collateral damage that others will have to endure. If they feel strongly against your actions, they can complain enmasse to the authorities. Regardless, there should be ample news for the media networks to report

If the terrorists charter small airplanes they cannot inflict the mass coleteral damage.

Guess that makes that avenue not worth while.

One airport terminal I used had a large sign above the entrance to security "No joking or laughing in line, Security is Serious". At least they will not be allowed to laugh at my "junk"..._{Or Will they?...}

Really?

Are you also prepared to do that everywhere in public upon demand of some authority?

If so, would you mind if they first sheared you so they could get a better look? ;-)

Sure. You see, I spent a lot of time in the military. You get over those hang ups real fast.

You also have the right to bear arms. Does that mean you can take your favortie bazooka with you on a commercial flight? No, and you will have to get over it too.

My argument and point was right on and you know it. Your patent analogy however has much to be desired. I would be interested to hear your solution to the issue of terrorists blowing up innocent people on commercial flights. If you have one let's hear it.

Anyone who is willing to give away his freedom for the illusion of security gains neither. I do not where you are from, but your attitude is part of the problem. Someone says this is for you own good and like a good little socialist robot you jump. The people making these demands are the same one who will then, when you comply with their security theater not be responsible for your safety when something happens. Before you answer, yes I am very familiar with how things work in the military, I am retired career military.

My freedom is within. Socialism may be your evil twin in the shadows but it is not mine. The small sprinkling of "socialism" you see at every turn is no where near a bona fide socialism. You think you understand my "attitude"? You should be so lucky. Every tiime those of your ilk smell the least bit of regulation you cry like babies how your freedom is being taken from you. Grow up.

You wrote, "You think you understand my "attitude"? You should be so lucky."

Well, that has been the problem. Up until now you have done little to explain your position.

My postition is quite clear to anyone with a thinking apparatus. You simply ignored a request for an alternate solution (if you have one). Your personal attacks don't get you off the hook.

Of those innocent passengers fighting with people carrying pack knives and not afraid to use them on 9/11.....

Not a lot has been said (because the facts are not fully known and never will be) of the flight that was brought down early by brave passengers tackling those Arabic A*******S in hand to hand combat......may they burn in hell next to Stalin and Hitler....

Those brave passengers (that the shy lady would NOT probably been among them!!) probably saved many innocent lives on the ground......the target destination has not been revealed I believe (please someone correct that if the target is known).....

I salute such braveness........

But prevention is still better than cure, therefore the best method of the day must be used.....however embarrassing for some.

Hi AH,

you know that generally speaking, I am a fan of your posts. In fact I am not against most of what you say here except for part of point 3., this (quality) intel is some of the hardest intelligence to get. Many operatives have been killed in trying to get better infos, if you are anywhere near "intel" yourself, you know that even better than I......

My point is that because intel is so difficult and so costly in terms of human lives, we must be stronger and stricter with regards to security.

Don't forget, every time something happens (those bombs recently found on planes in the middle east, for example, and a cargo plane that was thought to have been used as a test bed, killing the crew!), the security people somewhere get the blame.....so of course they are trying to prevent such deaths.......the public sees the terminal security as being the weak link.....

I don't agree that this intel data is "(relatively) low cost" when looking on the whole front.....peoples lives cannot be changed into $$$$ I feel.

The rest of your post demonstrates a good understanding and "feel" I personally believe, many thanks.....sorry to be so "picky"......

You wrote, "I don't agree that this intel data is "(relatively) low cost" when looking on the whole front.....peoples lives cannot be changed into $$$$ I feel."

Ah, I see I made an error in communication. You raise a good point!

It's not the cost of getting the intel that I was referring to, but the cost of reacting to that I meant. In this case, the negative impact to erring on action is not as costly as the error of neglecting to act.

You are absolutely right about the cost of getting intel. It is very risky in many situations on a number of dimensions. However, at the current level of data cultivation we still need to push forward with getting better intel and improving on how we make sure that intel is valid. It is a continuing improvement process and my opinion is that we should invest more in that arena.

You wrote, "...sorry to be so "picky"......"

No, thank you for a good catch! I appreciate your comments very much.

A single good pointer I feel as to the difficulty of good intel is the simple fact that Bin Laden is probably (75% at least!!) still alive........at least no conclusive proof that he is 100% dead......

The Israelis have placed many spies in Arabic situations over the last 40 years or more,, few of them live long......they do not get killed either slowly or painlessly.......

Hi AH,

Unfortunately, we have a case of multiple and overlapping blogs going simultaneously regarding airport screening.

Since you seem somewhat familiar with what's going on, I'll ask you.

We have credit card readers already, everywhere. Why is it that the US government can't implement a system, where people could, "voluntarily", go through a basic background check and pre screening, and be issued a photo ID card that can be scanned at the airport, and have those individuals be fast tracked past the lines?

This would cut way down on wait times and I think frequent travelers would be happy to do it.

The government obviously doesn't care about how much money they spend on bad ideas. But the cost of this new system in time and dollars, not only to the airlines, but to the individuals and companies for which air travel is a necessary evil, is astronomical.

The terrorists have succeeded in one thing for sure. At least economically speaking, it looks like the US is in self destruct mode, led by the government, and it's been going on for some time.

You wrote, "Why is it that the US government can't implement a system, where people could, "voluntarily", go through a basic background check and pre screening, and be issued a photo ID card that can be scanned at the airport, and have those individuals be fast tracked past the lines?"

My answer - no reason.

We do this in a number of other fields. For instance, concealed weapon license is just such an example that grants individuals special privileges. However, only 1% to 3% of the qualifying adult population take advantage of that and the out of pocket cost to the individual is not trivial.

I really don't know the cost of implementing such a system nor the vulnerabilities of such a system. You could spend billions with some form of national check system that is voluntary, but have it easily compromised, rendering it useless. How that could happen is open to speculation, but it is a big concern.

Another concern is the potential for a safe-fly individual being used as a proxy.

There is also the public perception of that system. It works great for frequent flyers, but could be aggravation for others that do not opt into it due to infrequent flying.

Also, it may be easier to prove a negative in this instance than to prove a positive. By that I mean the relative size and complexity creating and maintaining a safe-fly database may be far more difficult and problematic than creating a smaller no-fly database.

Given that the current no-fly database is already problematic, we may not have much confidence in a safe-fly database at all. However, it is a good thought that you brought up.

Shortly after the no-fly lists came out I was targetted by the system. I got tremendous hassle for about a year, with no explanation as to why. Eventually I was told my name was the same as another person and they just kept verifying I was not the other person. It seems rediculous to require a passport to travel within your own country that you were born and raised in.

When does a free country lose its freedom? When do we start accepting travel papers are required for its citizens within its own borders? When does it become unreasonable?

Whoever said that the USA is a free country? Its certainly not and hasn't been for many, many years.

Germany is not a free country either, but I chose to live here and accept its sometimes stupid laws. My choice.

What is seemingly silly is that I as a UK Citizen, do not need an ID/Passport card to live in Germany, only if I took German citizenship would I need one!!!!

There is another form ("Right to live in Germany" is a loose translation) I carry around, but no legal requirement to have it on me, but it helps me if I need to talk to the German Police......if I am away from home, I usually carry my UK Passport as well, which is always acceptable.....

To my mind the UK is the last westernised truly free country.

My method of deciding if a country is free or not is to look at a few things:-

1) Must I be registered to say where I live? UK not. Germany Yes, USA ?

2) Must I have an ID card? UK does not have one, though it was being considered for those who would like to have one.

Germany (for its citizens) its a must.

USA its a state issued driving license nowadays, though a Passport card is needed for travel inside the USA according to Wiki. Which I find quite strange personally....I guess in the case where someone has not got a driving license and wants to travel in the USA....though I am not certain on that point...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_identity_card_policies_by_country

This is from the following Wiki site:-

"United Kingdom: The introduction of voluntary cards began in 2009 (under the Identity Cards Act 2006). The Identity Documents Bill 2010 was introduced to cancel the scheme."

The Bill that has been brought in to cancel ID cards in 2010 is described here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Documents_Bill_2010

The ID/Passport card (another name for an ID card really) is for me the "killer" question on freedom.

No ID/Passport card requirement is very, very seldom around the world today, especially in Westernised countries..........The Wiki link is quite good....

I am sure that many US citizens will be upset by my comments (the truth should not cause anger against me personally, its a simple fact!), but if so, please direct your anger to YOUR Government, not to me......you Guys voted them in, I didn't.....

Also, it wasn't the current US Government either I believe.....this time Obarma is off the hook....

"USA its a state issued driving license nowadays, though a Passport card is needed for travel inside the USA according to Wiki."

If you are a US citizen, that would be true if you wanted to fly and did not have a driver's license. However, you are free to travel anywhere in the conterminous USA without documentation as long as you are not the driver or pilot. You will not be able to leave.

If you are not a US citizen, you can travel into or out of and anywhere within the US without papers.

Many thanks for clearing that point up, but still restricting I feel.

To travel around the UK, between all 4 countries, you don't need any documents as a passenger.......and only a driving license if getting behind the wheel....

Here in Germany, as a citizen, you need an ID card as well.....all the time!!

I am not upset by your comments at all. Discussion is the start of understanding. I am a US citizen and I have traveled a considerable amount including the countries you mentioned. As far as I know if you are a US citizen there is no requirement for a passport within the US, but as always if you are not a citizen of the US you need to have your passport ect. available just as I needed to have them available when traveling in the countries you mentioned above. Anyone citizen or not does need to have identification available in the US and most other countries I have visited. Normally a state drivers license or other ID is acceptable. This has been true for as long as I have known about such things.

You wrote, "but as always if you are not a citizen of the US you need to have your passport ect."

There are 12 million non-citizens in the US that don't need papers. ;-/

actually most of the "non-citizens" have some sort of improvised documentation

the lack of security for various types of identification paperwork is part of the reason to go with a point of use security model being employed at airports. there is a similar outcry over moves to improve the security of state issued ID's

you can't compare the methods used by El Al, the number of travelers they carry is is a very small percentage of what the US carriers do

what is El Al's cost for security per passenger boarded compared to other systems?

I'm sure the minimum requirements for their security personnel would also prove to be a barrier to the US adopting a similar model

the scanner technology has been in the works for years, probably since not long after 911

of course there was a push to get it in place before the holidays, as a gesture of perseverance in the face of the continued threat either real or imagined

WOW!, that many!!!!!

According to Wiki, if you don't have a driver's license in the USA - even if only suspended I expect, (if you don't happen to have it on you for any reason) - and you want to move around the US, you need the Passport ID.....or a proper passport.

I suspect that provided the car you are travelling in doesn't get pulled over, you will be OK, but if the police want to identify you???? I think you might have some problems without it!!!

I somehow believe that if you are out of state, he might just lock you up until your identity has been proven to their/his satisfaction.......and no possible case for wrongful arrest, if you are without any form of identification!!

you are expected to have a state ID if you are an adult in public, though there is probably some exceptions such as Amish buggy drivers :D

You mean I can't take YOU with me???

You are my favourite Bazooka!!!!

Everything was nice and we all were a happy lot of people- UNTIL - a few bad people in the society with crooked minds became terrorists. They may be even 0.001%, but in an attempt to screen out - good, nice people have t bear with inconvenience. Moreover as Wiki leaks have revealed - it is the double standards of US (CIA encouraging some bad elements ) during the cold war era. USA- has always been seen as having money minded pure business outlook and never a trusted friend. After all US today(after 9/11) is afraid of terrorists from a region at least 10,000kms away- whom US only has encouraged.

Body scanners may to be even x-rays (whether some human rights ;like it or not) - as I read somewhere- these bad people are going in for under the skin surgically implants. See what fear can do to good people? Who started or created it first of all- do introspection now. We all - over the world have to bear it now.

"USA- has always been seen as having money minded pure business outlook and never a trusted friend."

Perhaps, based on your profound statement, the USA should return to a policy of isolationism. I for one, am terminating my contributions to any charitable organization with international concerns, it is the least I can do as an American citizen with a "money-minded pure business outlook".

"Please mister USA man. I need/don't need your help!

The fear and the 'investment' (in dollars, and more importantly in curtailed privacy/freedom) in defence against that which we fear is misplaced.

Consider just the enormous amounts spent on the equipment and staffing the TSA. How many airline terrorist related deaths occur per year? How much is this per death? Wouldn't this amount be better spent on researching cures for more significant risks?

Perhaps you are vested in the idea of the need and effectiveness of these proceedure. Perhaps you consider a dollar per airline terrorism death analysis of just the TSA flawed because you believe it reduces the associated death rate.

If so, you need only look to the decade prior to the vast increase in 'security' measures. Worldwide deaths from all forms of terrorism (this should provide a significant margin above the US only airline only rate of terrorism to account for statistical variences) from 1990 to 2000 was less than 2500 people, not annually but for the entire decade.

More people die in auto accident in some busy holiday week than occured from terrorism that entire decade.

The answer is not more government involvement. The less the gov't attempts to help, the less harm is done.

It wouldn't be nearly so authoritarian if they didn't also tell you that you had to have clothes on everywhere else in public.

To whom do these bodies actually belong, if their exposure or concealment is not governed by the consciousnesses residing within?

Is there an editor in the house?

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/14769/Should-Airline-Passengers-be-Full-body-Scanned

Good point Garth......Oh well, I'm not going to copy and paste on all of the screening blogs.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/14854/What-Airport-Scanner-Technology-is-Best

Useless for security, but very good for training formerly free people in obedience.

The Israelis, who've been fighting terrs for a lot longer than we have, don't use full-body scanners. They use profiling, security interviews and sniffer dogs. If our public servants really wanted to protect us, they would do the same. But that's not what airport harrassment is for; it's to make us meek and compliant.

It makes me very angry, and quite determined not to fly to or from any US-controlled airport until this stops.

At my age/weight, I don't think anyone is interested in looking at my naked body. However, I still object to these scanners.

They cannot detect explosives shaped to conform to the body and taped on. They cannot detect anything inserted into a body cavity to be removed inflight.

In other words, they are an expensive, inconvenient, and unconstitutional (4th amendment - illegal search and seizure) means of accomplishing nothing of value.

Yeah, it gets a bit like that when people are given the freedom to question authority.

Have you seen the video.

Is it a fake or has it some reality in it?

http://www.pedaltothemetal.com/index.php/news_story/plane_crazy_tsa_breast_milk_screening_when_will_it_end_video.html

Regards

https://tsajobs.tsa.dhs.gov/tsajobs/

You couldn't get paid enough if you were the security guard who had to screen Brave Sir Robin's hairy butt.

I bet its only Guys and maybe some Ladies who are "undernourished" in certain key areas who are complaining.

"He who walks slow with a big stick" will have no problem either way.......

I am just going to turn up in a mankini al BORAT wth my unworn clothes in a bag, see if I get arrested for LEWD conduct...

Brilliant and very funny. LOL!!

Will you get "everything" all packed in????

Yes I think I can "Micro- Manage" the goods..

Provided there is no hard drive on the system, you scan you observe you let go, keeping records of who has artificial limbs pacemakers, Breast implants and so on is another recording and tracking system for the Big Brother program - harmless keeping records??

OK go to your doctor and tell them you suffer depression this is now on a government accessible record, and can have you refused residency in countries and certainly citizenship because you are a heath burden and a safety risk, that is an actual fact. Under the new Nazi terrorism laws they can use anything against you and call it safety measures. There is only one real truth - every judge in the world will tell you the same thing - there is no crime a terrorist could commit that was not covered by standard criminal laws pre 911 - and all new laws only affect non terrorists as a control measure by big brother. It is a good exercise for those sick of the over-patriaotic "capos" (Nazi lackeys who though prisonors to the system like us,do whatever they are told) simply ask them to name one crime a terrorist could commit that was not already a law before 911.

Our world needs Warriors not scared Cowards or Nazis using scare tactics to enslave nations. Let them have the scanners regularly checked to ensure there are no cabling to outside links, no modems - or hard drives- They get what they want and we retain our privacy and freedom, otherwise make em suffer (if we suffer so can they with an unusable system) - ask before you get scanned if they can store more than one or transmit an image

Pretty shocked to see so many people so willing to throw away their right to privacy. If I have to fly, I have to fly, but that doesn't mean I won't make my case to the electeds in this Country. This thing is stupid, and it's dangerous. Did anyone hear about the screener caught masturbating to the images? Now, DirtTech reports on the advice by head of TSA that we should teach our children that the pat downs are some kind of "game". Are you kidding me?

My point exactly -The whole thing is a waste of time really, soo the terrorists will be as smart as normal people.

EG: fireman's suit with oxygen tank filled with liquid nitrogen, goes into hanger, climbs onto top of plane with maintenance stairs lready there, sprays around tail section and hit with lump of 4x2, tail get hairline crack- next day plane takes off as soon as pressure is great tail falls of plane lands in Queens _ no that could never happen

EG: Copyig a transponder is the same as copying a phone sim card - plane takes off already cleared - palne shot down with missile over ocean so no radio message - new copy of plane takes off at same time further down the radar loop and turns on transponder - plane flys to LAX last minute overshoots and lands downtown LA.

PUUUHLLEEAASE people there are 100 ways around this rubbish for a terrorist, this is only good against everyday idiots with a grudge not someone wth any intelligence.

Whatever system or proceedure designed by the US Government I could beat it in the same day if that's the best they can come up with

I don't know if anyone has since said - but providing 'solutions to circumvent security' - be they stupid, or not, - is 'not clever' - nor proof of 'how clever you are' - on an international, guest accessible forum.

Do give some more thought to what you type

That happens if security is not tighter than hell.....tight security is the only answer at this time......I see no other way to go, sadly.

Hopefully there are some better methods in the offing.......

The use of sticky metalic tape with the "screw you" message under your clothes would cause some interesting results I bet...

Hilarious. So much for reasonable discourse.

This is nothing but security theater that is only giving the illusion of make you safer while, at least for American violating your fourth amendment rights. Anyone who has any real idea of security knows that this theater is actually putting people at greater risk by making a large group of people wait in an insecure area just prime for a suicide bomber or any other Muslim nutjob. I, for one who has traveled a great deal by air in this country and many others have never seen such BS anywhere else until now. I will not be flying on ANY airline until this BS stops. There are better ways that actually work. Before you answer remember this, the TSA has already admitted that the type of bomb that the Christmas bomber tried to use can not be detected by theses scanners and several Doctors have come forward and put on the record that the radiation you are being exposed to is a risk. Do what works scan the people who actually pose a risk. Those who are willing to give up their freedom for some safety have neither.

Anyone here who is railing against the methods used in airport security should consider :-

He/she who lives in a town, village or any other place where their are possible targets/police/FBI or equivalent/supermarkets/petrol stations/schools/theatres/cinemas/etc.. = modern living.....driving to work burning Arabic petrol/diesel... cooking on imported gas.......buying fruit/veggies/meat imported by aircraft, clothing imported by aircraft etc etc....should also think about the safety of the flight crews as well as the passengers.......security is needed. The best available at the time.....

Remember, not everything can actually come by sea or road due to various reasons....usually the main one being time!!

The only ones who can truly shout about overdone security etc. (but don't actually ever need it) are those who live way out in the wilds with no electricity, only self cut wood for heating/cooking, does not use gas/diesel for anything, rides in a buggy or cart pulled by horses........shoots his own meat and grows his own veggies.....drinks only home made wine and beer and water from his own well!!!

If you want the "bells and whistles" supplied by modern living, then you have to accept some of the negatives - laws, taxes and security for example.....you cannot pick and chose.

In the airports from which I have flown recently, people are randomly selected to go through this process. I personally think that it should be standard practice for everyone getting on a plane to go through the full-body scanner. This would speed up the whole process of getting through security. Anyone who wants to opt for the more time-consuming pat-down, should just be sent through a separate line-up, and take their chances of not making it to the plane before take-off. This would give each person the choice without inconveniencing others. It's a simple matter of natural consequences.

In my opinion, the mechanism here is "dramatic" martyrdom, as, to cause damage to an aircraft from some point outside the aircraft (from ground to air) would not be as dramatic and would require that the perpetrator(s) commit suicide after the fact. We are talking deviation from basic survival instincts offset by flawed thought processes, possibly linked to genetic defects.

The organized terrorists are going to find a way to do what they want to do. Only intel will thwart them. These latest TSA measures only weaken our credibility abroad.

What would stop a person that was willing to die from having his scrotum surgically removed and replaced with a sealed gel pack of explosives? Would a pat down catch that? Don't think so.

And please don't jump on here and tell me I'm giving them ideas........these people think of ways to get us 24/7. It's been thought of.

While we're scrambling around, arguing, and subverting people's rights and privacy, the terrorists are working on the next big plan.........and it probably won't involve airplanes.

For those of you that are angry now, how are you going to feel if this goes through?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/nov/napolitano-may-exempt-muslims-airport-pat-downs

Just because we can't stop the suicide extremists who are willing to go to these ridiculous measures doesn't mean that we shouldn't do what we can to stop people bringing weapons onto planes.

You just made my point.

Even if a person was able to get, say, a box cutter on a plane. The passengers themselves, (post 911), would quickly have that person disabled, or possibly much, much worse.

As far as I know, access to the cockpit is no longer possible on any flights.

My friends, I remember when they were wiping every item you had with an explosive detector patch. How much did those cost the TSA? Now, they say they cannot afford new gloves every time they touch us sexually. That means is someone has not bathed, your genitals are touching theirs. Or, you can subject yourself to a backscatter machine that subjects you to hundreds of times the radiation they say it does. Not to mention the images ARE saved and ARE leaked (Another lie) and a naked image of your body can be posted just about anywhere. I feel sorry for the pawns who say it is "Necessary". Our own government is bringing down our country one right at a time. Here in California they haven't been able to ban guns, so they are limiting every citizen subject to 50 rounds a month, fingerprinted on every ammunition purchase starting next month. These are not conspiracies my friends, these are facts.

Sticky metalic tape with an appropriate message like "dont nuke my junk" under the clothes perhaps?not visible to public.