Hey lawyers; is TSA violating ADA?

[island911]

Originally Posted by jyl

island says

"The technical side of dropping an airplane out of the sky is not a tough problem. Box-cutters and pistols will not (post 9/11) do it, on pax planes. "

Hmm, so a sufficient number of terrorists with firearms can't take down an airliner? Interesting theory.

Anyway, your desire is that our security should let through knives and pistols, but stop explosives? How would you design that system? Or are you now saying that explosives won't take down an airliner, so no need to check for those either?
...

I've flown a few times with a friend who flies as an air-marshal carrying a big glock w/o little fear of damaging the airframe, should a terrorist need to be dropped. That is, most places on a plane can take the hits from bullets w/o much concern for the structural integrity. --remember that Aloha air plane missing most all the tube section?

Now, otoh, one who knows where and when to shoot could cause problems BUT that person could cause the same problems w/o a gun.

The bigger point is; the screening is a bad joke. Measures to stop terrorists have to come from sources OTHER than a PATHETIC check point, designed to hassle the general public. Air-marshal carrying big guns is good. Even having the flight crew armed is good. But even MORE important is KNOWING who is a likely terrorist. This frequent flier with an artificial hip is one of the good-guys. If that isn't obvious to you, you're an idiot.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by Brando

As I see it, TSA is grossly violating fliers' 4A rights.

Bingo! Eventually this will stop but who knows when!

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by jyl

island says

"The technical side of dropping an airplane out of the sky is not a tough problem. Box-cutters and pistols will not (post 9/11) do it, on pax planes. "

Hmm, so a sufficient number of terrorists with firearms can't take down an airliner? Interesting theory.

Anyway, your desire is that our security should let through knives and pistols, but stop explosives? How would you design that system? Or are you now saying that explosives won't take down an airliner, so no need to check for those either?

Noah says

"why can't someone dressed in only a speedo go through security? Other than lack of good taste, why must he get fully dressed to go through security?"

No particular security reason why naked people shouldn't be allowed to fly. But its not unreasonable that people should be asked to be clothed when they fly - public facilities, public decency, and all that.

I can think of lots of businesses and facilities that would turn away a man wearing just underwear.

Maybe the nudist lobby is right, and we should be permitted to strip down everywhere, but I'm not sure the general preference for a clothed society really rises to the level of a constitutional crime.

True, many other businesses do require you to be clothed, but they are searching you before you enter either, at least most of them...

This frequent flier with an artificial hip is one of the good-guys. If that isn't obvious to you, you're an idiot.

He defends obama doesn't he.....

[jyl]

"I've flown a few times with a friend who flies as an air-marshal carrying a big glock w/o little fear of damaging the airframe, should a terrorist need to be dropped. That is, most places on a plane can take the hits from bullets w/o much concern for the structural integrity. --remember that Aloha air plane missing most all the tube section?"

I think you are avoiding the question. You're fine with passengers bringing knives and guns on planes, because you say a terrorist can't take down a plane w/ those. Weird idea, but you seem to think so. So, what is your proposal for a security system that stops bombs, but doesn't inconvenience those carrying guns and knives?

Or are you thinking we shouldn't have any passenger screening at all?

Or are you thinking we should identify all passengers who may be threats and screen just them? 300 million people in the US, boarding plans nearly 1 billion times per year.

How would you design a system that can anticipate which of those 300 million people are threats, so accurately and reliably that there's no need to screen the rest? You think it is "obvious" - so let's hear it.

[island911]

Let me ask you this, J; what is a more minuscule threat, x-ray damage from a backscatter machine, or the chance of a terrorist getting on your plane AND killing you?

Point is, smart people weigh risk. Whereas Pollyannas will grab their ankles quickly if they are told it makes them .000000001% safer.

btw, you never answered my Q (from another thread) would you be okay with you, or your wife dropping trou, and bending at the waist for some TSA official w/ a flashlight and a rubber glove? (prior to EACH boarding) ...being that it would only take 30 seconds or so. ...and SAFETY!

[Gogar]

Originally Posted by island911

Why, Gerry?

Do you not get that these people get the FULL search EVERY time?

There is a difference between attention whoring and pushing-back a statement of Enough!

Gwen, I understand the guy's plight, but he wrote "I Heart TSA" all over his body with permanent marker, then took some cameras down to the airport, took off all his clothes, and went through the line. And then he got the pat-down. What a shock.

It's like putting a bumper sticker on your car that says "Bad Cop No Donut" and then complaining about getting a speeding ticket.

Maybe you're right and he tried some more reasonable options first to help solve the issue. Or maybe he didn't.

[island911]

Aw crap - I really didn't intend to butcher your name (corrected in edit)

btw, it's more like a car that has a sticker that reads "I (heart) cops*" with a driver who will (seeing a cop) immediately get out place his hands on the hood with his legs spread.

I mean really, how much easier can he make the job for the TSA agent? ...That they played games with him is ridiculous.


*...maybe, in green text.

[island911]

Frankenbombers are 'new kind of terrorism': Al Qaeda hopes to surgically implant bombs into thugs

will those bombs have metal in them? Likely not. So what now JYL?

[greglepore]

Tobra- a technical quesion-why is it that he full length plate on my humerus doesn't present an MRI issue yet will set off the scanner?

[Tobra]

Metal is metal, it will set off a scanner, which is pretty low tech. Big hunk of metal on your arm will impact the quality of the image you get in an MRI, it does work using magnets after all. They can clean it up a fair amount after gathering the information though. Some of those MRI machines have calculating ability that would have a NASA engineer sportin' wood.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

[Tobra]

Okay Shaun, I give, what is the significance of the monitor?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

it's just a sad little Mac 512K I found today.

[jyl]

Island, you're still not answering my question, which was:


You're fine with passengers bringing knives and guns on planes, because you say a terrorist can't take down a plane w/ those. Weird idea, but you seem to think so. So, what is your proposal for a security system that stops bombs, but doesn't inconvenience those carrying guns and knives?

Or are you thinking we shouldn't have any passenger screening at all?

Or are you thinking we should identify all passengers who may be threats and screen just them? 300 million people in the US, boarding plans nearly 1 billion times per year.

How would you design a system that can anticipate which of those 300 million people are threats, so accurately and reliably that there's no need to screen the rest? You think it is "obvious" - so let's hear it.

I think you don't have an answer. You've talked yourself into saying that knives and guns can't take down a plane, so there's no need to screen for them. And you're now apparently saying there shouldn't be any checkpoint screening at all - instead, you say:

the screening is a bad joke. Measures to stop terrorists have to come from sources OTHER than a PATHETIC check point, designed to hassle the general public. Air-marshal carrying big guns is good. Even having the flight crew armed is good. But even MORE important is KNOWING who is a likely terrorist. This frequent flier with an artificial hip is one of the good-guys. If that isn't obvious to you, you're an idiot.

So, I'm asking you, Island, to explain how you would design a sufficiently reliable and accurate system for the government to determine which of the 300 million people in the USA and the 800 million US airline passengers each year are likely terrorists.

According to you, it is so obvious that even an idiot can figure it out. So, please explain:

Tomorrow, 12/7, someone named "B. Marshall" buys a ticket to fly from LAX to SEA on Alaska on 12/21. And 2.2 million other people buy tickets to fly on that day. You are the government. What are you going to do in the next 14 days to figure out if B. Marshall, or another of these 2.2 million people, is going to walk on the plane with a bomb. You're not going to physically screen B. Marshall or the other 2.2 million people - unless you've identified them as a likely terrorist, they're just going to walk right on the plane - so you damn well better be right.

What are you going to do, ISLAND? What's the plan?

[Eric Coffey]

Originally Posted by jyl

You're fine with passengers bringing knives and guns on planes, because you say a terrorist can't take down a plane w/ those. Weird idea, but you seem to think so.

Seems at one point you too were (rightly) peeved by the ridiculous security rules, and that was back before all of this new increased screening BS:

Originally Posted by jyl

This is a small thing, I supose, but as long as we are talking about airport security I'm going to gripe about no longer being able to fly with my Swiss Army knife. For decades, the thing was always with me. It even had to be sent back to Switzerland for an overhaul. Now I can't carry it, due to the threat that I could whittle my way through an armored cockpit door with the corkscrew, or threaten a flight attendant with the 2" blade. Seems like an overreaction. What is McGyver supposed to do?

(Oh, I agree a 2" blade could kill someone - a 1" blade could too, and maybe even the nail clippers that also can't be carried. But so could bare hands, or a fork, etc. Now that we have armored cockpit doors and pilots under instruction not to open them regardless of hostage-taking, seems like a terrorist with a 2" blade might kill one person before he's beaten to death by fifty others.)

What has changed your mind since then?

[jyl]

I think there is a little bit of a difference between barring the 2" blade of a Swiss Army knife, which I don't think is necessary, and screening for a 9mm pistol, which island doesn't think is necessary. And a bit more difference between that and not screening for bombs or indeed anything at all, which island seems to be advocating.

I would still like there to be a "TSA ok" Swiss Army knife - give it a round tipped blade, maybe. Heck, forget the blade, leave the corkscrew, screwdriver, etc. Oh, throw in a 9mm pistol, since island says they're no threat to aircraft.

[cashflyer]

I think every boarding gate should have the attendants issuing revolvers to the passengers as they check the boarding passes. That way, everyone on the plane will be armed.

The pistols can be collected by attendants when passengers deplane at the destination.

[Rikao4]

so do these clowns check the folks going to work on the flight lines each day..
for the lunchbox special...
like your luggage was clean when you checked in..
once on the other side...
thats were they often steal your stuff..
so giving you something
it would be so easy..

Rika