• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Anyone boycotting the TSA scanners tomorrow?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I never said they didn't cause cancer. <<3rd time now. Let's see how many I get up to.

There are plenty of people who are chain smoking alcoholics. And yet cigarettes aren't illegal. Neither is alcohol. And neither of these have any benefits at all! All they do is hurt you! No one is forcing you to use them, just like no one is forcing you to fly. If you don't like the security measures we have to take then use another form of transportation. Companies aren't being banned from making underwire bras but they cause breast cancer. Do you see the trend here? Things in our world cause cancer. Hell, people are afraid that using phones is dangerous to our health, but for some reason I don't see you throwing your Incredible out the window for it. If you don't want to take these risks than stay away from the things that are causing them, but don't try to get rid of them for those of us who think they are worth the risk.
 
Sweet Chaos said:
No one is forcing you to use them, just like no one is forcing you to fly. If you don't like the security measures we have to take then use another form of transportation.
Click to expand...

As opposed to a security alternative that does not violate your 4th Amendment rights?

Scenario - you're compelled to fly - mom's very sick, you can't drive.

You either reject the scanner voluntarily - or through no choice of your own - are pulled out of line.

Your 4th Amendments rights are trampled in an unreasonable search by law enforcement.

There's no third way.

Would you hold that airline security trumps your constitutional rights?
 
While I would feel bad that your mother is sick and that flying is your fastest way to get to her, you can still take a train, a bus, a boat, etc. However, I do understand what you are saying.

As far as being searched if you refuse the scanners, I don't think that's unreasonable. Sure, obviously the person could be refusing because they do not agree with the scanners, but the person could also be refusing because they have a bomb stuffed down their pants. I don't think a search up to and including a pat down by someone of the same gender is unreasonable.

Now, if they're taking you into a back room and... well you can finish that one yourself, then there is a problem, but that is a problem with THAT method of a search. If that is your arguement, then you should be protesting the advanced searches they use, not the scanners.
 
Sweet Chaos said:
If that is your arguement, then you should be protesting the advanced searches they use, not the scanners.
Click to expand...

Yes. Boycotting the scanners backs up and clogs the searches.

It's the searches I objected to and protested.

As far as the scanners - they denude you, and give some false sense of security - but as a taxpayer, you're being duped - they don't work and don't capture what you think they do.
 
I agree that advanced searches (which I view as cavity searches, etc) are unnecessary, unless a security officer has strong reason to believe they might find something (like if someone refuses all other security, etc). However, this is a seperate issue from the scanners. I support the scanners. I think if they stop just 1 person from being a bomb on a plane that would have otherwise made it on then they are worth it. How many lives would have been saved if just 1 of the two planes that crashed into the twin towers didn't take off?
 
You're fighting yesterday's war. The attackers took nothing illegal on the plane at that time.

The scanners don't work for a number of things illegal today - and don't work at all to stop the lethal threats you believe they do.

I pray it never happens, but I'll guarantee you that should another plane crash, the attacker will have gone through the scanner and had their carry-on searched.

And - again - this thread is long with arguments about refusing security as a justification to searches.

You're not addressing that in addition to useless scanners, you can be searched at random, just because.

Did you hear the one that hit the papers with the guy in the wheelchair who was covered in his own urine because TSA would not listen to him to not pat the bag with the catheter in it?

How about the youtube I posted about the TSA agent that put a young woman in tears when he pulled cocaine out of her bag - that was really instead just some inert powder he had because it thought making her scared was a "funny joke?"

This isn't sacrificing for the sake of security. This is giving up your dignity and your constitutional rights for a law enforcement agency run amok.
 
Sweet Chaos said:
No one is forcing you to use them, just like no one is forcing you to fly. If you don't like the security measures we have to take then use another form of transportation
Click to expand...

I might point out that millions of people travel on business and the train is not always an option. What happens if the TSA takes over train security after another attack? We use the bus? The train is slower and sometimes, people need to be somewhere fast. Tell your boss you refuse to fly because of the TSA and see how long you remain employed with that company.

People often attend funerals. Missing your fathers funereal, for example, would be bad and that could happen if you were forced to take a train because you do not like what the TSA forces you to do in order to take a plane.

Bob Maxey
 
If we waved a magic wand and everyone had to travel by train, all that would happen is terrorists would target trains. Same thing if we travelled by cars.

I have grandparents in their late 80s who live about 1700 miles from me. It's about a 30 hour drive (this per Google maps so I'm sure it's actually longer than that in reality). If one of them passes away I have the choice to either a) take a week off work just so I can drive there and back, b) take a 4-5 hour flight, or c) not attend my grandparents funeral. Now, do I really have a "choice" there?
 
A.Nonymous said:
If we waved a magic wand and everyone had to travel by train, all that would happen is terrorists would target trains. Same thing if we travelled by cars.

I have grandparents in their late 80s who live about 1700 miles from me. It's about a 30 hour drive (this per Google maps so I'm sure it's actually longer than that in reality). If one of them passes away I have the choice to either a) take a week off work just so I can drive there and back, b) take a 4-5 hour flight, or c) not attend my grandparents funeral. Now, do I really have a "choice" there?
Click to expand...

Amtrak
 
A.Nonymous said:
If we waved a magic wand and everyone had to travel by train, all that would happen is terrorists would target trains. Same thing if we travelled by cars.

I have grandparents in their late 80s who live about 1700 miles from me. It's about a 30 hour drive (this per Google maps so I'm sure it's actually longer than that in reality). If one of them passes away I have the choice to either a) take a week off work just so I can drive there and back, b) take a 4-5 hour flight, or c) not attend my grandparents funeral. Now, do I really have a "choice" there?
Click to expand...

Yes you do have a choice. You choose not to comply with the scan. So driving or not to go at all is left. Dont say you never have a choice.
 
Bob Maxey said:
I might point out that millions of people travel on business and the train is not always an option. What happens if the TSA takes over train security after another attack? We use the bus? The train is slower and sometimes, people need to be somewhere fast. Tell your boss you refuse to fly because of the TSA and see how long you remain employed with that company.

People often attend funerals. Missing your fathers funereal, for example, would be bad and that could happen if you were forced to take a train because you do not like what the TSA forces you to do in order to take a plane.

Bob Maxey
Click to expand...

How many times you going to say this same thing in this thread?

I think this dead horse is beat as much as its can be.
Think we can say everyone is on the left side or right side of the fence and leave it at that. No one is wrong as its what each person belives to be the right thing.
 
Dark Jedi said:
How many times you going to say this same thing in this thread?

I think this dead horse is beat as much as its can be.
Think we can say everyone is on the left side or right side of the fence and leave it at that. No one is wrong as its what each person belives to be the right thing.
Click to expand...

Until everyone agrees with me. Until I am e-blue in the e-face.

Bob Maxey
 
IOWA said:
THAT'S what we NEED.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There is no alternative to air travel. Amtrak is not only less convenient, but it's way more expensive. For example, I looked at how much it would cost me to travel via Amtrak to where my grandparents are. I looked up how much it would cost if I had to leave Thursday of this week since funerals tend to be on short notice.

Amtrak - $424 one way. I leave on Thursday and I don't get there until Saturday. I also spend 45 minutes on a bus. So we're talking $800 round trip. I also have to drive an hour to the nearest Amtrak station and the train leaves at the ungodly hour of 2 am.

Flying - $566 round trip. Flight leaves at 6 am. I get to where my grandparents are at 11 am the same day.

Now, of those two which is the better choice economically and time wise? Is Amtrak even a competitor here? No, it's not.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Agreed. There is no alternative to air travel. Amtrak is not only less convenient, but it's way more expensive. For example, I looked at how much it would cost me to travel via Amtrak to where my grandparents are. I looked up how much it would cost if I had to leave Thursday of this week since funerals tend to be on short notice.

Amtrak - $424 one way. I leave on Thursday and I don't get there until Saturday. I also spend 45 minutes on a bus. So we're talking $800 round trip. I also have to drive an hour to the nearest Amtrak station and the train leaves at the ungodly hour of 2 am.

Flying - $566 round trip. Flight leaves at 6 am. I get to where my grandparents are at 11 am the same day.

Now, of those two which is the better choice economically and time wise? Is Amtrak even a competitor here? No, it's not.
Click to expand...

Why the hell is taking a train more expensive? That doesn't even make sense.
 
IOWA said:
Why the hell is taking a train more expensive? That doesn't even make sense.
Click to expand...

It's been that way for decades.

We lost a lot of rail infrastructure over the years, and then there were wrecks while there was airline deregulation - and then there was ... AmTrak.

The American government's consolidation of rail transportation.

How much do you think it would cost to fly if the government owned an airline, and set up under the same plan AmTrak cost?
 
IOWA said:
Why the hell is taking a train more expensive? That doesn't even make sense.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I went to Amtrak.com and punched in the route from the closest station to me to the closest station to my grandparents. I actually can't get a train straight from here to there. I live in the mid-west and my grandparents are in CA. In order to get from here to there, I have to go north about 600 miles, then I can go west. Another option would be driving:

Driving - My car gets about 280 miles to a tank and costs about $30 to refill. I calculate I'd need to refill 12 times round trip which would cost $360. It's a two day drive there (30 hours) and two days back so you're talking 4 hotel rooms. Even if I get a cheaper room for $50 a night, that's an additional $200. So driving is going to cost me $560 which is about the same as flying and this is before I even eat. Throw in meals on the road for 4 days (which is a legit travel expense) and you can tack another $50-60 on top of that easily. Plus, you have to factor in that I have to take an entire week off work and if I fly I only have to take off 2-3 days (I can leave on Thursday and be back by Monday with no problems). Not to mention the fact that if you're grieving being behind the wheel of a car is probably not the safest place to be.

So, bottom line is that getting to a funeral across the country you've got four options for round trip travel:

Driving - ~$600 + a week off work.
Train - $850 + a week off work
Flying - $560 + two days off work, possible bereavement discounts might make this cheaper

Yeah, driving and the train are realistic options.
 
Sweet Chaos said:
Personally, I think every airport should have these scanners and there should be no opting out of them. Or there should be a seperate airline for people who don't want to go through the scanners. This is going to sound awful, but YOU can get blown up on a plane... I'd personally rather not.
Click to expand...

The terrorists would keep striking the "secure" one just to make a point. These scans and pat downs do not make you safe... they just violate your rights.
 
Here's the thing. If these scanners made us 100% safe and (possibly) violated our rights at the same time you might be able to make the argument that it was worth it. If they made us 90% safe and (possibly) violated our rights, then you might be able to make the argument that it was worth it. As it is, these scanners don't improve safety at all and that's been proven over and over again. So they are (possibly) violating our rights for no improvement in safety.
 
EarlyMon said:
You're fighting yesterday's war. The attackers took nothing illegal on the plane at that time.

The scanners don't work for a number of things illegal today - and don't work at all to stop the lethal threats you believe they do.

I pray it never happens, but I'll guarantee you that should another plane crash, the attacker will have gone through the scanner and had their carry-on searched.

And - again - this thread is long with arguments about refusing security as a justification to searches.

You're not addressing that in addition to useless scanners, you can be searched at random, just because.

Did you hear the one that hit the papers with the guy in the wheelchair who was covered in his own urine because TSA would not listen to him to not pat the bag with the catheter in it?

How about the youtube I posted about the TSA agent that put a young woman in tears when he pulled cocaine out of her bag - that was really instead just some inert powder he had because it thought making her scared was a "funny joke?"

This isn't sacrificing for the sake of security. This is giving up your dignity and your constitutional rights for a law enforcement agency run amok.
Click to expand...

What you are addressing here is thug-ish nature of the TSA. I think you have everyone on board with you there. This has little to do with sacrificing constitutional rights. If the TSA was held accountable for their actions there would be a lot less complaining about security screening.
 
Crude said:
What you are addressing here is thug-ish nature of the TSA. I think you have everyone on board with you there. This has little to do with sacrificing constitutional rights. If the TSA was held accountable for their actions there would be a lot less complaining about security screening.
Click to expand...

TSA - Thugs Standing Around
 
Crude said:
What you are addressing here is thug-ish nature of the TSA. I think you have everyone on board with you there. This has little to do with sacrificing constitutional rights. If the TSA was held accountable for their actions there would be a lot less complaining about security screening.
Click to expand...

If that accountability extended to unreasonable searches... then yes, I agree that there would be a lot less complaining.
 
byteware said:
If that accountability extended to unreasonable searches... then yes, I agree that there would be a lot less complaining.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to go there with you in particular anymore... Suffice it to say that if you want a ride in my vehicle you will be searched or you don't ride, period. And guess what, if you are hitchhiking, that search will likely not be on private property either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom