# Flying?  New "Security Theater" Policy in play in US.



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 27, 2009)

> *Electronic devices:* cannot be brought into the cabin of the plane on international flights to the United States.
> *Patdowns:* Required, for now.
> *Items on laps: *No blankets, bags, suitcases, purses, etc on your lap during the last hour of flight. Your hands must be visible at all times.
> *No potty breaks:* Passengers cannot get out of their seats for the last hour of a flight.



I feel safer all ready.  Wonder what the penalty is for pissing on the floor?

New Plane Security Rules: No Electronics, No Getting Up Last Hour, 1 Bag [Business Insider]
TSA orders pat-down of all passengers during boarding [Elliott.org]
Full text of SD 1544-09-06 authorizing pat-downs, physical inspections [Elliott.org]
The New, Terrifying, No-Electronics US Flight Security Rules [Gizmodo]


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 28, 2009)

The first time a five year old had to pee in the last hour of flight, this rule is suddenly going to have an exception.


----------



## xJOHNx (Dec 28, 2009)

or someone with incontinency...


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 28, 2009)

Dog & pony show. 

I'm not going to allow anyone to pat me down without probable cause, and simply flying abroad is not enough to illicit suspicion IMHO.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2009)

What this translates to is "_We can't realistically stop them at the door, so we're going to make you jump through hoops so it seems we know what we're doing and you can feel safe and secure in ignorance._"  

I can see a future headline "Police called over kids potty break, family charged with attempted terrorism over wet seat. Hazmat called.".


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 28, 2009)

Some how the train seems like a really good alternative to short haul flights.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 28, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Some how the train seems like a really good alternative to short haul flights.



I take the train whenever I can.  Not always realistic, but when it works, it works well.  If I can't take the train, I drive.

My MiL just had a nice Chrstmas in Cape Cod, MA.  We dropped her off at the Amtrak in Rocky Mount, NC and picked her up there as well.  She was met in NYC by family who drove her up to Cape Cod, but in the past, she has taken the train to Boston; both work.

Now from Detroit, where I live normally, the train is great if you're going to Chicago or points west.  Going east, not so much.  You can cross the border and take a Canadian train, I'm told, but I haven't tried that yet.  Actually, I'd kind of like to try it at some point.

Amtrak can be very relaxing and cheap and comfortable.  However, it takes a different mindset.  Delays are not uncommon - and with only one set of tracks, a major delay is only a yahoo driving his car under the guardrail somewhere in front of your route away.  You can't be on a strict timetable with the train, it won't work.  Arriving 'on-time' means the same day you planned to arrive.

Still, I'm not dissing the train.  I love it, personally.  I always meet interesting people.  And by that, I mean 'loony'.  But it's fun.  And security consists of showing your ID before getting on the train.  No wands, no pat-downs, no this that or the other.  At least for now.

I encourage people to give the train a try if they never have.  It's a hoot, but it's not for everyone.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 28, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Dog & pony show.
> 
> I'm not going to allow anyone to pat me down without probable cause, and simply flying abroad is not enough to illicit suspicion IMHO.


Then you won't be flying...  They don't need probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion (which is all that's required for a pat down in the US).  You aren't denied anything if you can't fly; flying on commercial air carriers is not any sort of right.

And trains?  Right now, except for a few routes that are heavily traveled and well served, is much more expensive.  I looked into travel for my wife & son from the DC area to Kansas City, MO, and it was on the order of $600 -- each way.


----------



## Flea (Dec 28, 2009)

xJOHNx said:


> or someone with incontinency...



Or various disabilities.   This won't last long.  

Honestly, ever since Rigoberto Alpizar was gunned down like a dog a few years ago I'm terrified of flying.  Not because of the flight itself, but because of the security measures. They're supposedly watching people for "odd" behaviors.  This makes me nervous, which probably reflects in my body language. Oh, no! Now I'm acting like I'm nervous, so they probably think I'm up to something.  The stakes have proven to be life and death, so of course the nervous mentality and body language threaten to become cyclical ... are they gonna shoot me yet?  I really need to switch to Greyhound.

None of the TSA folk seem to notice that the last few terror attempts were made by perps _from their seats_.  So what is this really about?


----------



## MJS (Dec 28, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I feel safer all ready. Wonder what the penalty is for pissing on the floor?
> 
> New Plane Security Rules: No Electronics, No Getting Up Last Hour, 1 Bag [Business Insider]
> TSA orders pat-down of all passengers during boarding [Elliott.org]
> ...


 
I often laugh whenever new 'policies' come into play.  Happens all the time in the workplace.  It lasts for all of a few days, maybe a week or 2, and then right back to the same old way that it was before.  

This is no different than the 'heightened' security that we saw after 9-11.  Can't do (insert laundry list here) anymore.  But wait....its been a few years since 9-11, nothings happened, so, ok, we'll go back to the relaxed state we once were in...until the next bad thing happens.  

Rest his soul, but I'm sure the late, great George Carlin would have quite the routine worked up, with all these new 'changes' that're in place. 

So, someone suddenly starts to feel ill on the flight and feels like they're gonna puke, crap their pants, whatever, and now they can't use the bathroom?  Hey, I'm not saying to be relaxed and have no policies in place, but dammit, make sure they're resonable.  I for one, would rather have someone, who is feeling sick, head to the bathroom to puke, rather than do it in the middle of the plane.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 28, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Then you won't be flying...  They don't need probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion (which is all that's required for a pat down in the US).  You aren't denied anything if you can't fly; flying on commercial air carriers is not any sort of right.



True that.



> And trains?  Right now, except for a few routes that are heavily traveled and well served, is much more expensive.  I looked into travel for my wife & son from the DC area to Kansas City, MO, and it was on the order of $600 -- each way.



Nah, I think you maybe missed out.  Amtrak is cheap.

I did a quick plot round-trip on Amtrack just now.  Washington DC to KC, MO and back, round-trip, one adult, one child.  $198 for two reserved coach seats.  I just plugged in some future dates at random: Wed, Jan 13, 2010 to Thu, Jan 28, 2010.  Of course, YMMV.

Now, if you want a room (sleeper), it adds $426 each way.  However, I've done both.  The room is nice, not necessary.

And, you can save a bunch using AAA, or if you qualify for other discounts.

In addition, I always recommend people take a visit to 'www.flyertalk.com' and check out the Amtrak 'codez' for discounts.  For whatever reason, Amtrak does not publicize their discount codes.  People find them out and share them, and some can save %30 or more, for real.

To get the best prices, you have to book well in advance, and check out prices on middle-of-the-week fares, which are usually better than weekends.  You have to be flexible to save money, but it can be done.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 28, 2009)

MJS said:


> I often laugh whenever new 'policies' come into play.  Happens all the time in the workplace.  It lasts for all of a few days, maybe a week or 2, and then right back to the same old way that it was before.
> 
> This is no different than the 'heightened' security that we saw after 9-11.  Can't do (insert laundry list here) anymore.  But wait....its been a few years since 9-11, nothings happened, so, ok, we'll go back to the relaxed state we once were in...until the next bad thing happens.
> 
> ...



To be efficacious, security must actually do something and not be window-dressing.

However, setting that aside...

I was a road-warrior for seven years.  I quit doing it in 2004, so I was well aware of how things were before and after 9/11, including the days when pimple-faced teenage national guardsmen clenched machine guns in airport terminals and eyed everyone as if we were going to burst out in ululations and summarily explode.  I quit doing the road warrior gig in part because I no longer wanted to travel by air - it sucks and I hate it.  I also got tired of having my property stolen from me at least once a month.  And the TSA and airlines lie if they say it is not happening.  (Yeah, I'm a little bitter, and I hate the TSA with an undying passion. I would not p*#@ on an agent if he was on fire.  They are just thugs and juvenile bully-boys with badges.  Law enforcement?  They're a joke.)

Anyway, my thought way back when was that this was all going to end with passengers naked and shrink-wrapped, loaded on the plane like rolls of carpet.  And I still think that's where we are headed.

I don't fly anymore.  Not because I fear terrorists.  Because I hate and distrust the airlines and the TSA.  May they all rot in hell.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 28, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> *Then you won't be flying*... They don't need probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion (which is all that's required for a pat down in the US). You aren't denied anything if you can't fly; flying on commercial air carriers is not any sort of right.
> 
> And trains? Right now, except for a few routes that are heavily traveled and well served, is much more expensive. I looked into travel for my wife & son from the DC area to Kansas City, MO, and it was on the order of $600 -- each way.


 
Exactly. 

No skin off my back. Sucks for the air lines though...

And it is a right for me to be able to go about my business without being harassed as long as I'm not doing anything that would indicate that I'm doing something wrong. 



			
				The Bill of Rights said:
			
		

> The right of the people to be *secure in their persons*, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 28, 2009)

> *Electronic devices:* cannot be brought into the cabin of the plane on international flights to the United States.


 
Canadian airlines may like this. If I was traveling from Europe to Canada and could not bring my laptop on board to do some work, I think I'd seriously consider a connection in Canada.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 28, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Canadian airlines may like this. If I was traveling from Europe to Canada and could not bring my laptop on board to do some work, I think I'd seriously consider a connection in Canada.



The other fun bit that they're not mentioning is that the airlines do not cover stolen electronic equipment from your checked luggage.  Catch-22, you lose.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2009)

This is why I drove 3 days rather than fly for 12 hrs.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 28, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Exactly.
> 
> No skin off my back. Sucks for the air lines though...
> 
> And it is a right for me to be able to go about my business without being harassed as long as I'm not doing anything that would indicate that I'm doing something wrong.


Not really the place for an extensive discussion of the Fourth Amendment -- but the real key word is "unreasonable."  The relatively minimal invasion of your person, papers, and effects involved in security screening is considered reasonable in light of the risks and concerns involved.  And, again, you are not being subjected to it so much as choosing to undergo the screening to be able to travel in the fashion you've chosen.  Much like how some clubs will do a magnetometer and pat down of patrons as they enter because they've had too many problems...  Don't want to be checked, no problem.  Go somewhere else.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 28, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Not really the place for an extensive discussion of the Fourth Amendment -- but the real key word is "unreasonable." The relatively minimal invasion of your person, papers, and effects involved in security screening is considered reasonable in light of the risks and concerns involved. And, again, you are not being subjected to it so much as choosing to undergo the screening to be able to travel in the fashion you've chosen. Much like how some clubs will do a magnetometer and pat down of patrons as they enter because they've had too many problems... Don't want to be checked, no problem. Go somewhere else.


 
Hate to sound redundant but... exactly. 

The air lines are going to suffer, not me. Perhaps the tourism industry as well...

The point is it's a dog and pony show and not really having any appreciable impact on detering terrorism. 

So, a rational person is prompted to ask, "What's the _real_ motive?"


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2009)

To look like they are doing something of course.  To fool the easily controlled.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 28, 2009)

After Richard Reid tried to blow up his shoe bomb, we have to take off our shoes, this guy's bomb was in his underwear...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2009)

Hey, I wear Crocs, New Balance with Gel inserts and Dr Scholls sneakers. Guess what you can't wear and fly according to regs?

After reading how they forced a woman to remove her nipple rings under threat of arrest a while back, I wished nothing but rapid unemployment to all TSA employees.

Deputized crooks and worse, them all.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 28, 2009)

Big Don said:


> After Richard Reid tried to blow up his shoe bomb, we have to take off our shoes, this guy's bomb was in his underwear...


 
It was molded to his body.

The problem is that people *want* to fly, they *want* to be safe flying but they don't want the inconvenience of security but if there's no security they will moan like hell plus they will die in terrorists attacks.
Everyone is saying this is wrong, that's wrong so what is right? How will you keep passengers safe and make sure the security isn't restrictive in their eyes?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2009)

1- Make our luggage secure, and restore our trust in the handling and transport system.  Heavily punish those who steal from us.

2- Stop the sensationalist crap like "no outside liquids over 2oz" crap. The only people you're harassing are the honest ones. The terrorist knows how to hide what he needs.  Figure out how to detect that and leave the seniors and goths alone.

3- Stop lax "secure area" access.  Its too easy to sneak into these areas. 

4- Screening should be done at the entrance to the airport. 1 suicide bomber at the screening booths will shut the place down for weeks.

5- Use common sense and stop trying to frighten us into sheepishness.  Most of these policies are pushed in reaction to something. Stop reacting. Start responding and work on better screening BEFORE people get on the plane.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 28, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Hey, I wear Crocs, New Balance with Gel inserts and Dr Scholls sneakers. Guess what you can't wear and fly according to regs?
> 
> After reading how they forced a woman to remove her nipple rings under threat of arrest a while back, I wished nothing but rapid unemployment to all TSA employees.
> 
> Deputized crooks and worse, them all.


 
I once witnessed a pair of Navy pilots having to remove all metal from their uniforms while being subjected to a 'search'. WTF?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2009)

Security Theater.   Obviously being cleared to pilot an F18 in combat doesn't count to an overweight, poorly trained idiot with a license to be a jerk.

(Yes, I think the TSA, the screeners, and the whole lot are an incompetent at best group of nincompoops, and if any are reading this I strongly suggest you get someone to help you with the big words before you go off to bully some 95 year old grandmother and strut about it)


----------



## xJOHNx (Dec 28, 2009)

If they find one terrorist who has put his bomb into his ....
What will they do then to uphold safety?

Only've been once to america by airplane. I was suprised by the fear that most of the 'guards' show in their body language.
Also, very unfriendly people. One got angry because my 4 year old sister didn't keep her hand long enough on the scanner... She could have been a terrorist or worse!


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 28, 2009)

On the "probable cause/4th Amendment" thing. People throw that one out as often as Bob probably get's the "WHAT ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH!" gripes on this board.

Those Amendments limit what the GOVERNMENT can do. They really have no impact on what a private enterprise/business can require. That's why security can search you before going into a concert/ball game etc.

If you don't like it, you don't get to "do business" with them.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 28, 2009)

I'm not impressed with a lot of the people working for TSA that I've encountered...  For example, my wife and son recently flew to visit her family.  At the airport here, there's a checkpoint before the real checkpoint/security station.  You're supposed to have a boarding ticket to pass that point (or, apparently, a gate pass).  Well, I don't have either (I got to stay home and take care of the dog...) but I figure it's obvious my wife's hands are going to be a little full.  There's no line, no crowds, so I discretely present my badge & ID to the genius at that checkpoint, and ask if it would be OK to go to the screening point with my wife...  "What's that?"  He ain't got a clue that I'm a cop presenting my badge of authority; he gives me the canned speech about gate passes.  OK, I understand; I was asking for a favor.  And I have no hard feelings that he said no.  It's the cluelessness that he showed about it that scares me!

Or there was the time I'm flying out, and I put my wallet & credentials in my carry-on bag.  My badge ends up showing on the x-ray... and they have to stop the whole line to identify what it was!


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 28, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> If you don't like it, you don't get to "do business" with them.



If these are Federal regulations we are dealing with, then it simply isn't possible to choose another carrier that doesn't force it's customers to do all of this crap.  I think we need to understand that any choice we may have had in the matter was curbed before we ever had a chance to make the choice.  Thus, we are left with an option that is falsely presented as the only option, "if you don't like it don't fly."

It's not that simple.  Clearly many steps were taken that cracked down on liberty in order for us to arrive at this point.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 28, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> If these are Federal regulations we are dealing with, then it simply isn't possible to choose another carrier that doesn't force it's customers to do all of this crap.  I think we need to understand that any choice we may have had in the matter was curbed before we ever had a chance to make the choice.  Thus, we are left with an option that is falsely presented as the only option, "if you don't like it don't fly."
> 
> It's not that simple.  Clearly many steps were taken that cracked down on liberty in order for us to arrive at this point.



While that may be true. I still don't see it as a Constitutional Law issue. You consent to search or you just don't fly. Like you consent to not bringing beer into the football stadium or you get booted out.

Although I must provide a proviso that if the search results in the discovery of contraband and consequent arrest I can see where there may be a 4th Amend issue.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 28, 2009)

..then again. I may be wrong. Check this out.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/court-says-trav/



> U.S. airline passengers near the security checkpoint can be searched any time and no longer can refuse consent by leaving the airport, the nation&#8217;s largest federal appeals court ruled Friday.



If TSA is now considered a "federal LE agency". I can see this going to the SC sometime in the future.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2009)

Funny how there have been what, 4, 5? "stopped threats" the last few days.......


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 28, 2009)

It's time we realize that blowing up the plane is not necessarely the goal. Curbing our rights and damaging our economy is. Flying is becoming a major hassle.  I work for a company with offices in Toronto and Montreal. We regularly fly between cities for meetings. If it becomes too much of an inconvienence, we'll just use video conference a lot more. If more people do that, it's going to hurt the airlines. It's going to hurt the car rental business, the cabs, hotels, restaurants, etc.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2009)

So....the terrorists won.


----------



## Flea (Dec 28, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> ..then again. I may be wrong. Check this out.
> 
> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/court-says-trav/
> 
> ...



It's an affront to travelers  everywhere with common sense, but ... this story is kind of funny in its way.  What kind of boob carries meth and a glass pipe into an environment he _knows_ is going to be crawling with cops?!

Of course it's going to be taken out on the rest of us and that's not funny, but ... shee.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 28, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So....the terrorists won.


 
They are well on their way. They are forcing us to give up our liberties and to live scared.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 28, 2009)

The terrorists "win" when we think they have won. See any Brits stop taking the bus or the metro?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> The terrorists "win" when we think they have won. See any Brits stop taking the bus or the metro?


Well, it seems that they're getting close.
- Nonsense rules and laws to give the illusion of safety while causing delays, and not actually making anything safer when flying or traveling.
- Hundreds of photographers, reporters and journalists harassed, intimidated, and sometimes assaulted by law enforcement, government agents and rent-a-goons citing 9/11 or non-existent laws.
- Increasing restrictions on various freedoms and rights such as assembly, speech and the press in the name of "security".
- Unheard of extensions of powers to law enforcement, real and imagined.
- New scanners in airports, soon to be deployed to government buildings and other transit points that literally strip you naked while exposing you to large amounts of potentially unsafe radiation. Mobile units rumored to be ready to deploy.
- US Combat troops authorized to deploy on US Soil.
- Etc.

All has been discussed here.  It's worrisome. 

I choose not to fly because I don't want the headaches. I don't want some TSA 'random bitbrain' to fondle my dirty underwear while some min-wage bagage bum checks my luggage for his "bonus". I don't feel like having to listen to some airport rent-a-cop tell me its illegal for me to have a camera (it's not), to have to present ID every 5 feet to any uniformed idiot who asks (even though I just showed it all to the person next to them), to have to carefully check my clothing to ensure that my socks aren't on the "banned stuff" list, to worry that they will decide they like my cell phone and so keep it, or let them search around my laptop's hard drive because they feel like being nosy, and being detained and rubber gloved if I sigh wrong so they can let me know "who the boss is" while being threatened with arrest once the "Real Cops" arrive.

Not to mention, I get to go through all that abuse, just so they can lose my luggage, bump my flight, cancel it, or take 3 days to find a plane with a working rubber band to get me home.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 29, 2009)

Got this from Randy Gage. It and the blog are interesting reads.


> Dear Bob Hubbard,
> 
> So what's the point of all the harassment the TSA and other
> government agencies around the world are giving to passengers now?
> ...


From the blog (bold is mine)


> So now, what has the TSA done to make travel safer in light of this latest threat?  Well of course they&#8217;re stonewalling everyone and not telling travelers anything that would make it less inconvenient or allow them to prepare for travel better.  But Joe Brancatelli was able to get a copy of the directive sent out to airlines by Gale Rossides, the acting administrator.  They include:
> 
> 1. Passengers must remain in seats beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
> 2. Passenger access to carry-on baggage is prohibited beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
> ...


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 29, 2009)

While I agree with your concern Bob and think that we need to seriously look at what our gvt. is doing...there really is nothing "new under the sun". 

Remember:

-Suspension of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War?
-American citizens rounded up and placed in internment camps?
-Food and fuel ration stamps?
-Scrap drives?
-Air raid drills?
-etc, etc?

Not that it minimizes the importance of your points, but I find it funny how many Americans think Armageddon is coming while they surf the internet while eating their junk food, watch their cable television with a beer in hand and go to the movies, shop and live an otherwise normal life yet think that "big brother" is going to put an RFID chip in them. It seems that our threshold of toughness and ability to "carry on" in the face of danger/uncertainty had degraded over the generations. 

I wonder what our ancestors thought as they went through the Civil War/ WWI-II/etc? Were they willing to declare defeat when they had to change their day to day lifestyles?

Again. Not that what you are saying inst true or concerning. It's just a strange turn of "defeatist mindset" that I see more often than not.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 29, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> While I agree with your concern Bob and think that we need to seriously look at what our gvt. is doing...there really is nothing "new under the sun".
> 
> Remember:
> 
> ...


 
I can only speak for myself, of course, but it's not so much a "defeatist" mind set as one of "quit stalling and let's get this over with already". If it is, really, in fact,  necessary for the Bad Times to come in order to shut up these Orwellian types, , let them come now, while I'm still young enough to fight/survive, so I can live the rest of my life in peace if I'm lucky enough to survive.


----------



## MJS (Dec 29, 2009)

I still dont understand why people complain so much and constantly talk about their 'rights' being violated. Sorry, but there are things in life that we have to do that we may not like, and if we dont do them, then we wont be doing what it is that we wanted to do. Its really that simple. I mean, it goes back to the damned if you do, damned if you dont situation. Dont screen people and something happens, people ***** and cry. Do something when something bad happens, and people still ***** and cry. 

Dont blame the people working the airports for doing their job, and yes, I know they're not always the brightest bulbs but still....no, instead, blame the **** bag, ******* terrorists, who make it necessary for all this BS to happen.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 29, 2009)

I'm no big fan of the TSA myself nor the wannabe types I have seen working the CP's. But these people are only doing what they are paid to do. The individual screeners are not the people who made up the policy.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 29, 2009)

I don't think the issue is the government doing whatever is in its legally allowed power in order to keep us safe.

The issue is that they aren't really doing anything to keep us safe, at least not on the domestic front. Just a bunch of ridiculous activities so they can say, "Hey, look, we're doing something. Vote for me next year"

Reminds me of the Stuart Larkin character on MadTv:  "Look what I can do!"


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 29, 2009)

Then maybe the TSA and all others wandering around in an airport or train station need to be better educated on things such as the law, local regulations and their own organizations regs.


----------

