A
female
age
41-50,
*arymomnwife
writes:ok. who was watching cnn this morning? airports are bringing in some new security measures and its getting personal. i watched (on cnn) an employee run her hand between and right under a female passengers breasts. they touch your butt and quickly run their hand up your inner thigh and bump your crotch. am i crazy or does that sound like a hot date?! come on people cops cant even go that far during their frisking technique. we have red light cameras, mechanical 'flies' that can land on the trunk of your car and pick up your conversations inside your car. the government can google earth and view almost any place on earth with the ability to get a close and clear enough image to read the brand name on a cigarette. now with the new security measures at airports (the 'fill you up' frisks) crosses the line with me. i feel this is a violation of your personal space. we are letting the government use the 911 attacks (god bless all the lost souls) to take away your privacy. the only private place now is in ur mind
View related questions:
breasts Reply to this Question
Share |
Fancy yourself as an agony aunt? Add your answer to this question! A
reader, anonymous, writes (30 October 2010): I agree quiet echo. THe news can be quite depressing.
A
male
reader, dirtball +, writes (29 October 2010):
 The "penis" article was intended to illustrate the maturity levels of some of the individuals we're trusting to look at naked images of us. The saddest part to me is that they continually harassed their co-worker till he snapped and beat one of them. The focus on his penis by his fellow TSA agents caused his meltdown. FWIW, that report made national headlines when it came out. The link I provided was the first one that popped up when I searched it this time. It is a few months old now.
I don't believe for a second that Law Enforcement Officers are trying to whittle away my rights. Really it's the lawmakers that are slowly removing rights. The majority of LEO's are very honest individuals who are doing their best in a situation where they are trying to help people who view them as opposition regardless of the fact that they're trying to help. I'm friends with a few cops. It's not just anyone who could do that job. It's amazing to me how composed many of them can stay given what they face each day. LEO's get a very bad rap most of the time because of a few bad apples and sensationalist media.
Maybe that's what's going on here too. That still doesn't change the fact that all this increased security makes me feel uneasy and violated while at the same time not making me feel any safer. Sometimes you just have to go with your gut to tell you if something is right.
I don't want to argue either as I don't think our views are as different as they seem. Really, they're just people doing their job, I just wonder why this has to now be part of their job.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (29 October 2010): Look, I'm not going to argue with you. You need to read 49CFR and US code to understand the FACTUAL differences and limitations on authority among law enforcement officers in the US. TSA is a sub agency under DHS, and they do not need probable cause to conduct safety searches. Huffington Post...Smoking Gun? These are online tabloids...news aggregates...not peer reviewed or revered publications or reports...do you believe it if they say aliens abducted Elvis? I didn't think so. A legitimate news source would not focus on the size of a guys penis for God's sake.
You'll get no arguement from me that some people charged with enforcing laws and rules in our country misuse this authority and commit crimes. But you seem to be suggesting that enforcement officers have some ability to stretch rules or even make them up as they go along with the mere intent of whittling away at peoples rights. I'm saying if you understood the foundation of these rights and the codes that limit and control enforcement, you'd understand that is not the case, and it is paranoid to assume it will progress toward some kind of fascist state.
...............................
A
male
reader, dirtball +, writes (29 October 2010):
What's really happening to the images?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/body-scan-images-from-sec_n_670170.html
Like in relationships, trust is earned. I have very little trust in the people in charge of these machines.
...............................
A
male
reader, dirtball +, writes (29 October 2010):
I've never been in the military. I appriciate every soldier who sacrifices their time, effort, and sometimes their lives and limbs defending the freedoms I hold very dearly. I just feel that part of defending my country is defending those rights they are fighting for against things that would slowly whittle them away in the name of anything. Be it security. Be it justice. It doesn't matter. My feeling is that if the police can't search me without probable cause, why can a privately run security company?
I tolerate it just like everyone else, but to me, that's part of the problem.
With regard to the scanners. These are the people we're trusting with this? They can't even be considerate of their own agents.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/06/rolando-negrin-full-body_n_566465.html
Part of the problem with them is I don't REALLY know what happens to the images. They aren't supposed to be saved, but that's been shown to be false. They are supposed to blur certain things, but it's questionable if they actually do.
I really just wonder when enough will be enough. Will it be enough when we don't have any right to privacy left?
This is a bigger issue than just airports, they're just in the forefront of the discussion because their security is the most extreme.
...............................
A
female
reader, Tisha-1 +, writes (29 October 2010):
 I was on one flight between New York and London during a particularly high terror alert phase and they rechecked every single person including pat-downs. I'll tell you what, I felt as though I was on the most thoroughly screened aircraft that day.
It was annoying, yes, it was intrusive, yes, was it necessary? On that particular day, the authorities we put in charge of keeping us safe and secure decided it was. If I had a problem with that, I could simply have chosen to stay home, but I elected to go through the more rigorous and privately intrusive screening.
I'll tell you what, people get hysterical about things that have a fairly low probability of harming or killing them. It's a bit ironic to hear parents freak out about possible kidnappers while they blithely feed their kids MacDonalds' artery clogging meals. What's more like to harm that child? The answer is the obesity the parent is doing nothing about, and in fact is actively contributing to by feeding them packaged processed junk food. Or they worry about school shootings while letting their kids ride without their seat belts on, or surf the internet without supervision, getting to meet all kinds of interesting folk.
Further, I have never heard of a school becoming a airborne missile. Has there been a school district that has requested frisking of everyone entering the school? If there was, I missed that news story. I didn't hear about the anal searches either, have I missed something?
If you can't tolerate the screenings, you have the option of flying yourself via charter to whatever your destination may be. There's the train, and of course, you may drive if it's close enough. I'm not willing to fly on a plane that hasn't put people through the state-of-the-art security procedures, personally.
If you disagree with the measures a school district might elect to impose to improve security, it is my understanding that children are now attending cyberschools or are home schooled. I think kids are more likely to be bullied than shot, though, these days. But that's another worry for another day.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (29 October 2010): It's very common for people in the United States to feel they have limitless rights. What they often forget is that, as a citizen of this great country, we also have certain obligations to directly or indirectly protect our country and citizens. Our rights are clearly spelled out in the Constitution, civil laws and Code of Federal Regulation. These "rules" are meant to protect the citizens and very country you live in. So NO, it is not a violation of your rights to submit to searches from a trained DHS member who is abiding by the CFR, and NO, strip searches are not illegal just because you dont like them. Do you REALLY know what happens to images? Do you REALLY know what the effectiveness of these measures is? Or are you going off what's on the 6 o'clock news, CSI or The West Wing?
I don't know if you've ever had to defend your country, but I'd personally rather do it with strip searches, dollars spent on security and a little inconvenience than expending the lives of innocent people because we chose to do nothing in the name of protecting a little "privacy".
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
...............................
A
male
reader, Jmtmj  +, writes (29 October 2010):
 We're not talking about attacks in airports, we're talking about the potential damage and loss of life that can occur on or with a hijacked plane. You make it sound like the person doing the frisking is a sleazy old pervert... they're nothing but professional when it comes to frisks in my opinion and don't seem to be getting any sick pleasure in doing them. I've been frisked more thoroughly by bouncers at a club than by airport staff, hell, riding on a train during peak hour is more invasive in my opinion..
You make it sound like they grope your boobs/nut-sack and then go off to the bathroom to jerk off :P
...............................
A
female
reader, MonksDaBomb +, writes (29 October 2010):
 I agree with some people on here. Yes, Kenj - some people have to ruin it for everybody. How about the man that had explosives in his shoes. For that, now we have to take our shoes off. And I agree with the female anon from Michigan that, while I don't like being frisked and everything, if that's what has to be done to be safe on a plane, then so be it.
I have only been frisked once - I was flying home for Christmas and had a hoody on. Didn't think to put a t-shirt on underneath and the security person asked me if I had anything on underneath. I said "no" and he called a female over to frisk me. It takes seconds and I honestly didn't think twice about it when it happened.
...............................
A
male
reader, serenity80  +, writes (29 October 2010):
Being felt up aint so bad, just close your eyes and use your imagination. You could end up wishing it lasted more than a second.
...............................
A
female
reader, marymomnwife +, writes (29 October 2010):
marymomnwife is verified as being by the original poster of the questionthis is to all who think what airport security is doing is right or ok. if the only way to protect people during flight is to touch areas where when ur a child are deamed YOUR PRIVATE PLACES what happens when the school officials decide if it works 4 airports then it would work for us too. there have been more school violence (shootings and bomb threats) than attacks in airports killing more than 2 people. where will this so called protection end? if there is a way to bypass security then its gonna happen. is the next step in security an anal search?
...............................
A
male
reader, Jmtmj +, writes (29 October 2010):
How about airlines do what restaurants used to do by having a non-smoking area and a smoking area... except offering flights with security screening and flights without.
Doesn't take a genius to guess which ones are most likely to be targeted by troublemakers... I know which one I'd choose.
Quit whinging or don't fly, its that simple.
...............................
A
male
reader, Odds +, writes (29 October 2010):
 Not exactly a dating question, but interesting anyway.
Besides the feeling up, there's also the full-body scanners that give a wonderfully detailed 3d map of your naked body to a security guard. Supposedly the electronic copy is erased afterwards, but then, that's what a lot of girls' boyfriends have said, too.
The best part about the frisking and the scanning, taking off your shoes and X-raying your stuff? None of it works. The ability to smuggle dangerous things onto airplanes will always quickly outpace the ability to detect it. And, every time a terrorist spends a few hundred bucks on homemade explosives, then gets caught with them by security, our economy loses a few billion dollars on new security measures, as well as several person-minutes of time for every single passenger from then on. Think of all the productive time lost on security.
They don't have to blow up planes if they can do that kind of damage to our economy and privacy. And yet the only thing that stops them is when a handful of guys on the flight jump the terrorist and beat him senseless, no thanks to security. Check the news, a new report comes out about two or three times a year about some reporter or security analysit who manages to smuggle something onto a plane just to prove the measures don't work.
The measures are a waste, they are ineffective, and they do not deter anyone willing to die during the attack. Gotta face it that nothing we do can work short of arming every single passenger with knives and counting on them to outnumber the bad guys.
...............................
A
female
reader, dmartin89 +, writes (29 October 2010):
 I have been in the position when I have had a hand down my cleavage and a hard pat on my genitals to make sure I am not a terrorist...This amount of security is ridiculous and unnecessary.
...............................
A
male
reader, dirtball +, writes (29 October 2010):
"Laws are designed to keep us all safe. In the current atmosphere of terrorism, it has to be accepted."
True, but by changing our fundimentals aren't we giving the terrorists just want they want? Our fear.
...............................
A
male
reader, dirtball +, writes (29 October 2010):
I wonder why people are so eager to give up their personal freedoms and privacy for a sense of security. That's all it is, a sense of security because these measures won't stop someone who's really determined. I fly at least a few times a year and it would be easy, even with these new measures, to sneak something onto an airplane if you really wanted to. I've been frisked, puffed, and probably in the near future scanned. If you ask me that's the worst. Random TSA officer gets to see me naked. Great. That's called an illegal strip search the last time I checked. Also, with the reports coming out about the maturity levels of TSA employees around this equipment... No thanks! They save the image. Can print it, send it, do whatever the hell they want with it. It's an invasion of my privacy that really doesn't make me any safer, it just takes away rights.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Ben Franklin
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (29 October 2010): From someone who is trained in doing searches, including strip searches, the rule is "up to the bra line"...has been for some time. Inner thigh search does go to the crotch, but should not "bump" genitals in any way, unless there is cause, in which case it should be in a private room with a witness of the same sex present.
4th amendment rights to privacy or "personal space" do not apply in this case for 2 reasons...first, 4th amendment rights (against wrongful search & siezure) only apply when the inspector is a state or Federal official. Privately run security agencies do not fall into this category, and second, the practices they are using ARE probably appropriate as long as they are trained properly.
Laws are designed to keep us all safe. In the current atmosphere of terrorism, it has to be accepted.
...............................
A
female
reader, eyeswideopen +, writes (29 October 2010):
 Better a few embarrassing seconds than an eternity spread over a Pennsylvania corn field.
...............................
A
female
reader, dmartin89 +, writes (29 October 2010):
I totally agree with you on this.They already have full body screens, why this?!If someone is going to make an effort to hide something, I'm sure security aren't going to be able to find it by touching under breasts and on the trouser of the crotch.Why don't they just get out the rubber gloves and lube?
...............................
A
female
reader, CindyCares  +, writes (29 October 2010):
 No, they take it very seriously in Europe too. I have been frisked very thouroughly in Zurich and Frankfurt airports. Both times the search was performed by a female security officer. I can't remember well now, but I don't think it was a coincidence- I think they normally use female security for body search on female passengers. And in any case, you CAN request to be frisked by a female employee.
As for me, I was in Manhattan that Sept.11th 2001, and I have vivid recollections of what happened that day. If tighter airport security may help to prevent something similar from happening again, I am happy to show every nook and cranny of whatever they need to be shown to
any security person anytime.
...............................
A
female
reader, marymomnwife +, writes (29 October 2010):
marymomnwife is verified as being by the original poster of the questionthe airports have handheld scanners, walk through metal detectors and video cameras in the most unusual places. why in the world would we think that a terrorist would be stupid enough to go back to airlines and highjack another plane when in the last 9yrs security has doubled and r on high alert. we really need 2 focus on the next weak link of our country
...............................
A
female
reader, marymomnwife +, writes (29 October 2010):
marymomnwife is verified as being by the original poster of the questionthe airports have handheld scanners, walk through metal detectors and video cameras in the most unusual places. why in the world would we think that a terrorist would be stupid enough to go back to airlines and highjack another plane when in the last 9yrs security has doubled and r on high alert. we really need 2 focus on the next weak link of transportation
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (29 October 2010): Yeah it sucks, but what else are they going to do? People keep trying to attack plans. I am from Michigan about 45 minutes from Detroit and i use the Detroit airport. just last Christmas that man that set himself on fire going to Detroit was very scary to me. I don't want to be frisked, but if thats what they have to do in order to stop crazy people from setting themselves on fire then, so be it. A friend of mine and I went to Florida a couple months ago and we both smoke, she put a lighter in her carry on bag and they didn't get it in the X-rays, so there needs to be something more done.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (29 October 2010): They always ALWAYS frisk u inbetween and under the breasts and on ur bum, it happens and is finished in seconds. I don't consider it a violation directly onto me as airport security do not have the pleasure of choosing whom they frisk, so it's not like they're thinking 'corr she's alright let's give this lassie a feel'. It's not like that at all so don't make it such an issue.
...............................
A
female
reader, Tisha-1 +, writes (29 October 2010):
How would you propose people be screened in order to prevent terrorists from getting weapons or chemicals on board a plane?
...............................
A
male
reader, Kenj +, writes (29 October 2010):
 From what I have observed some airports take it more serious than others. Flying from the UK for example is very easy compared say flying from Logan, Boston.
I do think that US airports take it far more serious than europe, but events such as 9/11 made it that way. Flying could never be the same from that date on.
Unfortunately it’s the same old story where a minority spoil it for the majority.
However I really dont think there is a need to have this level of frisking espically if the full body scanners are also being used.
It’s a very controversial issue but but if a terrorist got something onto my flight I would not be happy.
Its now a case if you dont like it then dont fly.
...............................
|
