Goatman's question is answered.

I've said it before, I don't like flying commercially anymore, due to the TSA, so I don't.

But if I ever do fly commercially again, I'll be sure to keep my eyes down, and avoid looking at TSA people, and I'll pat my chest.

Goatman's question is answered.

Yes it is. I asked what people do differently to get on a plane today than they did 20 years ago. 20 years ago I had to provide ID. Today I provide the same ID.

So the answer is: No difference.

But -- OMG! -- they are watching my face! LOL

I'm glad I don't live in such a paranoid world as some of these pants pissers. The answer for people like you, l_r is: Don't fly. No one will ask for your driver's license or *gasp* look at you. Problem solved.

I'm glad I don't live in such a paranoid world as some of these pants pissers. The answer for people like you, l_r is: Don't fly. No one will ask for your driver's license or *gasp* look at you. Problem solved.

#3 | Posted by goatman at 2009-11-24 02:49 PM

If you are ever pulled to the side for "Extra Screening", you may feel differently.

They are very invasive. Patting you down like a criminal. Searching through your wallet, and any carry on baggage you have with you. If you have children with you, they will subject them to the same.

FYI, we're not talking about highly train elite security people here.

If you are ever pulled to the side for "Extra Screening", you may feel differently.

I've been through it before -- especially when I don't fly Continental. That is my usual airline and they see me every two weeks.

But even then, I don't really care. I guess I'm weird. The issue however, wasn't the extra screening, it was privacy issue. In those extra screenings they never ask for any more information than what is on my DL -- same as it always has been.

I guess I'm weird. #5 | Posted by goatman

Once I flew to California and brought some personal weed in my pocket.I had absolutely no metal on me at all,even down to a plastic zipper on my shorts.I went through the metal detector and it went off.I knew I'd been profiled.Worked out ok though.

#2 goat
I'm glad I don't live in such a paranoid world as some of these pants pissers.

Many issues with your theory Goat:

First, you aleady conceded that you had voluntarily handed over your DOB previously while the Secure Flight program was voluntary. So you are insincere when you stated you simply provided ID.

Second, the "secondary screening" isn't the same as what this story is describing. Did you read the story? In 2008, 9,854 were questioned by local police. 813 were eventually arrested. In an e-mail correspondence with AlterNet, Davis could not say how many of the 813 arrests led to convictions -- or for that matter, whether any terrorists were caught.

I've asked a simple question twice that you choose to dodge and deflect with a two screen dissertation. May I try for a third time?

What privacy data do you give today that you didn't 20 years ago?

Since you won't answer, I will for you. None. It took a drivers' license to identify yourself today just as it did 2 years ago. No more privacy data is required. Please correct me if I'm wrong

I provided the simple solution to pants pissers who don't like showing their driver's license:

Don't fly.

As pointed out here, I live in the real world

Me too. I show my driver's licence, I board the plane -- just like I did 20 years ago. That's my real world. What is yours? What other privacy data do you have to share that I don't? And I wonder why you are treated differently than me?

#9 goat
Speaking of dodging, you just did a 900 degree dance of everything stated in #8. In the process, your question was answered ad nauseum infinitum (not really, I could have supplied thirty links to other stories).

#9 goat

...

P.S. How did you like your naked picture?

#12 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-11-25 12:35 AM

The one Goat posted before on DR of him barebutted strolling into the ocean surf?

Or the one of him you posted in your #8 above --

cali

texas?

bout timeu woke up

where

rode

CAliChris,

I'm not sure exactly how many, but it has increased and it is announced to be coming to EVERY major airport. Houston is one of the newer installations.

Rode --

cali

texas?

bout timeu woke up

where

rode

#14 | Posted by RODEGLIDE at 2009-11-25 01:16 AM

Rode -

I did see your question before asking me about moving to Texas and told you (in a song I linked lol) when I responded but it was on that other thread. Guess you missed my answer by the time I put it up. My post to you was kind of long so I'll just link that other thread below for you to read it.

See post #85.

cali

texas?

bout timeu woke up

I sure hope I'm making the right move, Rodeglide.

Sometimes I wonder if I should give it more thought, but I guess Texas will be okay.

Good night, all. Finally!

sa

san ann has a bad gang prob. get yr packin permitt asap.....

dont pay attention to ucr reports they r skewed to protect prop values

austin is a better choice

rode

P.S. How did you like your naked picture?

You know what they say: The camera adds 10 lbs.

Still can't admit there is no more privacy data collected on you now than ten years ago, can you? LOL

Flying, 2000:

"May I see your ID, please? You are Mr. Goatman born in 1955 and you live in the red barn on FM 2145"

Flying, 2009:

"May I see your ID, please? You are Mr. Goatman born in 1955 and you live in the read barn on FM 2145. Our scanner shows you have a size 13 shoe"

The difference doesn't bother me, L_R. I don't know why you let it bother you. There are worse things in life than being embarrassed about your big feet at the airport.

When this detection device comes to the U.S., I'll be more than happy to sacrifice five seconds of my dignity on the outside chance I could end up dead at the hands of some nutcase with a grievance.

Arrive alive is the only thing that should concern a passenger.

When this detection device comes to the U.S..

My first encounter with one was in Cleveland last August. I kind of joked with the TSA woman about her seeing through my clothes. She said, "Oh, no sir -- don't worry. It only sees big things". She turned red as a beet and nervously laughed as soon as she realized what she had said. LOL

At any rate, who cares what they see? Should I be embarrassed if they see I have a penis and a couple of testicles? BFD

GOAT

I lived at a nudist resort for fifteen years and I've seen it all.

I can guarantee you that it's the guy or gal who has to look at these images all day long are the ones who are being violated.

They're going to need a strong stomach and some really thick skin.

I can guarantee you that it's the guy or gal who has to look at these images all day long are the ones who are being violated.

They're going to need a strong stomach and some really thick skin.

LOL That's true. I can't imagine looking at fat business men's outlines all day long

#23 goat
TSA woman about her seeing through my clothes. She said, "Oh, no sir -- don't worry. It only sees big things". She turned red as a beet and nervously laughed as soon as she realized what she had said.

A happy slave you are, but you still get the Funny Award of the day.

Do you believe their cover story that the person that sees it is in a different room, then it is deleted immediately. Nope, nobody is getting off on these pictures. Will you take your grandchild/grand-niece with you on your next trip through Cleveland, Goat? And, of course, you are arrested if you are caught with a bath photo or even a shirtless picture of them for your cute family album.

Twin,

I can appreciate your nudist perspective. In many cases it indeed can be a very gross experience.

The issue isn't whether someone has the right to experience nudity in a voluntary setting.

A happy slave you are

Did you get a driver's license in order to comply with laws for operating a motor vehicle? Did you get a passport to travel abroad? Do you register your vehicle to comply with the law? Do you own liability insurance to comply?

My, another happy slave! LOL

Back to the point. It's not just Goatman's denial that is of issue.

But if the 2008 data is any indication, even trained officers cannot easily differentiate between a person who is acting nervous because he or she is, say, afraid of flying, and a nervous person who is armed and dangerous. (Even Ekman's Washington Post article described a "fidgety" man, "slumped in line, staring at the ground," who was occasionally gripped with a "momentary look of anguish." He was taken aside and questioned by Boston police, who discovered that the man was no terrorist -- his brother had just died unexpectedly, and he was on his way to his funeral.)

"Real life is not like in a spy thriller where people can magically perceive the people who have something to hide," says Stanley. "When people are asked to detect wrongdoing based on overbroad signs," he adds, "the usual result is racial profiling."

Some blowhard with a badge has the authorized privilege to harass or profile anyone because they are the new thought police. They KNOW who is a threat just by looking at their face. Are you P.O.'d because you just get a nasty divorce or you have a new expense to regularly fly your kids around because of a nasty custody decision gave both parents 50-50 custody? The TSA is here to make your day even better. Don't you feel safe NOW?

Are you P.O.'d because you just get a nasty divorce or you have a new expense to regularly fly your kids around because of a nasty custody decision gave both parents 50-50 custody? The TSA is here to make your day even better. Don't you feel safe NOW?

I, nor no one I know who flies regularly (and that's a lot of people) have never encountered these issues. Like everything, an anecdotal example can be produced, but until this becomes an unacceptably invasive policy, I'll continue to show my driver's license and march through the metal detector like I always have, albeit now shoeless.

If you feel your privacy is being invaded by the TSA, don't fly. I wouldn't.

Goat -- I fly 20-25 times a year. Since I am a one person company, I make my own reservations on line. About 3-4 months ago TSA started requiring your birth date when you make the resevations -- the airline collects each time you make a reservation. That and the restrictions on carry-on liquids and knives, etc., and no non-passengers beyond the screenig areas are about the only significant changes I've seen in my 30+ years of flying.

About 3-4 months ago TSA started requiring your birth date when you make the resevations

The original point was that they want no more "privacy data" now than they did 20 years ago. I had to produce a driver's license then as I do now. My license has always had my DoB on it.

As far as non-privacy issues, you are absolutely correct. We now have to take off our shoes, pull out laptops, limit liquuids in bottles etc. whereas we didn't have to do this 20 years ago.

"As pointed out here, I live in the real world"

Contrarian

No you don't. You live in a cartoon universe that was created in 144 hours and you piss your pants daily over Catholics attacking the true 'Christians'

What a tremendous waste of money.
It's all to get us used to being well policed. They'll have this shit set up at mall entrances pretty soon.
"Do you have your papers, Citizen?"
God forbid if you had a rough day and you're not smiling pleasantly, that'll be a full cavity search and possibly an arrest.
Feel safer yet?
No?? Well, then we'll have to take more of your rights and privileges away, after all IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.

ahhh Fascism.
It's good to have a government that CARES.
Brought to you by the corp- er, the people that claim to hate big government, with the help of FEAR, a product of Media Corpse.

I was flying a trip when a Muslim man wanted to be able to use the galley floor to pray. We didn't let him because it would be too stressful for the passengers watching. We were nice about saying no. If he feels like he was being profiled, too fucking bad!! He should have prayed before getting on the plane.

As far as non-privacy issues, you are absolutely correct. We now have to take off our shoes, pull out laptops, limit liquids in bottles etc. whereas we didn't have to do this 20 years ago.

20 years ago we didn't have laptops and the only liquid we carried onboard were those little bottles of booze.

I fly every week and the TSA generally drive me nuts. Contrary to what this story offers, I sincerely believe that they do the 'anti' profiling. This generally consists of leaving anyone who appears to be moslem or middle eastern and targeting the most harmless people they can find.

If you are over 70, male or female you are a prime target. Small children are particularly suspect. A nun is a favorite. The few nuns I have seen flying in the last 9 years have all been searched (I think of my poor aunty).

these new TSA requirements seem invasive but I wish they would have used these on 9/11. If you don't like the rules and don't want to live by them then you can get in your car and drive across the country. Pull out your calculator and figure out what that costs compared to your plane ticket. That is another subject for another thread.

Finally, it's ok to profile again.

who to check, who to check.

You old woman come here...no not you nervous looking guy wearing bulky clothing on a hot day... you can go ahead.

#33 booji
Wouldn't your displaced childhood temper-tantrum be better served attacking an actual enemy? By the way, if it makes you feel any better, I did answer your question if you wish to go back and look.

The same drama queens screaching about government "fascism" will be the first ones to talk about how incompetent our screening process is at airports the next time a plane gets blown up.

Can't have it both ways. I'd rather err on the side of not being on a plane that explodes. I can remember years before 9/11 I was travelling with a laptop and a screener randomly pulled me aside to look at the think. Guy apologized the whole time but I thanked him and told him he shouldn't apologize to anyone for doing his job well and that I really don't understand why anyone would be allowed on a plane with a laptop that hasn't been inspected.

The inconveniences at the airport are relatively minor if you are competent enough to get to the airport with sensible lead time before your flight. And yes, I have been singled out by the TSA since 9/11. I *gasp* cooperated with them and was on my was in a couple of minutes.

#34 perineum
They'll have this shit set up at mall entrances pretty soon

good propheteering or you've monitored the news headlines? Smart comment either way.

#37 booji
Contrary to what this story offers, I sincerely believe that they do the 'anti' profiling. This generally consists of leaving anyone who appears to be moslem or middle eastern and targeting the most harmless people they can find.

If you are over 70, male or female you are a prime target. Small children are particularly suspect. A nun is a favorite. The few nuns I have seen flying in the last 9 years have all been searched (I think of my poor aunty).

Absolutely agree with your observation. It's not contrary. Profiling was just one application of the abuse of power.

#38 bph
If you don't like the rules and don't want to live by them then you can get in your car and drive across the country. That is another subject for another thread.

Not really. Did you read #8; you may run into them elsewhere or at a military DUI-checkpoint. I don't blame you -- the portion of the story explaining the expansion was erased by the powers that be when moving this up to FP.

So mister contrarian, my barbs to you aside, does any of what I offered in our other conversation resonate? Pique your interest? Can science be an objective path to an understanding of the awesome creation in concert with the guidance of scripture?

There, no cussing, no insulting. Purely an objective query.

#41. Yup Sully. Perfect solution. Change the perception from addressing the root of the problem with law enforcement and intelligence TO assuming that millions of travelers are terrorists until proven otherwise. No inconvenience is more important than catching those pesky terrorists at the airport - - and soon to be -- at the mall, concert, sporting event, 'church?', other public venues. Actually, if you think about it, Sully, this new perception is everywhere and has become society's new norm.

When you decry those who detect and detest fascism based on our founding principles, you are actually willing to give up your liberties for this farcical solution?

NASA and Consumer reports have studied the TSA and both concluded they are not making us any safer.

Shrub immediately classified the NASA study.

What a ridiculous wate of time and money.

Its all bullshit and its bad for you.

#45 booji
Rather than pollute this thread, I'd prefer to take this up on the old thread, or write a new one.

simple yes or no.

"Profiling was just one application of the abuse of power"

Human intelligence boils down to recognizing patterns and predicting future events based on those patterns.

Profiling - at a high level - is recongizing a pattern and predicting likely future events based on that pattern. In many countries "profiling" is just called police work. I'm not saying it can't be abused or that it is a foolproof but I also don't understand why it has become a dirty word in the context of law enforcement with the one exception being the profiling of serial murderers. Serial murderers fall into certain patterns but hijackers don't? Nobody would be stupid enough to voice such an opinion but political correctness has us operating as if we believe that is true.

Profiling was just one application of the abuse of power.

It's been going on for centuries. Whenever a violent crime is commited, who do they go looking for? A man or a woman? Right -- sexual profiling. But don't dare profile a nationality whose citizens commit 90% of a certain type of crime.

Back in 1979 I worked nightshift airport security for 2 weeks. My buddy and I had this brilliant idea that we would do this as our summer job between freshman and sophomore year in college. Work all night, surf all day. yea baby.

The boredom was mind numbing. I would entertain myself saying 'Bags over here! Bodies over here!' And if hot chicks came through that was nice. But from 11 PM to 6 AM you didn't see a whole lot of them.

Back then, the protocol was for the FBI from time to time was known to plant a phony gun or bomb in the baggage scan. On this particular night, I didn't necessarily see anything, but asked that a bag be opened and checked, really don't know why I did. Low and behold, there was the phony bomb!

The shift director was so excited! They had missed it at our gate the last 3 times!

Later on our coffee break, my buddy and I were sitting there smoking cigarettes. We looked at each other and said 'fuck this'. Turned in our red white and blue striped ties and double breasted navy blue coats to the shift director and went home.

Slept about 12 hours.

"But don't dare profile a nationality whose citizens commit 90% of a certain type of crime."

Not true. Profiling might be OK. First you come up with the profile then you decide. Profiling is OK if the profile ways 90% of the people commitig a certain crime are white middle aged dudes like with serial killers. But we can't hurt anyone else's feelings.

#45 booji
I'm not ducking, but of the three questions posed, one is far from a yes/no question. To the third, an arm-twisting quick answer would have to be 'No' because of the phrasiology of "with the guidance of scriptures".

Bummer, It all fits together so easily to me. I wish folks like you could get there. Want to go back over to the old thread and have a civil conversation?

Sully, you've taken two huge steps in the opposite direction without answering the question posed in #46.

Perfect solution. Change the perception from addressing the root of the problem with law enforcement and intelligence TO assuming that millions of travelers are terrorists until proven otherwise. No inconvenience is more important than catching those pesky terrorists at the airport - - and soon to be -- at the mall, concert, sporting event, 'church?', other public venues. Actually, if you think about it, Sully, this new perception is everywhere and has become society's new norm

You jumped into profiling, hypothesizing that "in some countries profiling is just called police work" so it must be ok. Then you take it a step further-- "If the statistics match up, it's ok". Whoa, Nelly! Besides the absurdity that you/Goat suggest that a middle-aged white man may be profiled based on the statistics, did you forget we live in a Constitutional Republic? What is relevant about other countries do and how their laws permit this? You've bought into the norm that ordinary citizens should be be assumed guilty.

No, I was speaking of actual detective work based on sweat-evidence. Not the lazy-man's approach of wait until they come to us and try to get on a plane.

#30 goat
an anecdotal example can be produced, but until this becomes an unacceptably invasive policy

I've provided anecdotal evidence and anyone could produce umteen pieces in addition. But to goat, anecdotal evidence is only relevant to what has happened to him. Since he's already mentioned that "he's weird" that these things don't bother him, then by his definition they are also NOT an invasion of privacy. When is it "unacceptable invasion policy"? Not the naked scans. He jokes he hopes it's a nice woman looking. Perhaps if they can catch Goat on a really bad day, profile him as suggested, he argues with them and gets a mouthful of teeth, then just maybe Goat will say 'enough'!

Several times in our history a president has suspended civil rights due to a war. The difference with terrorism, is when do you say conclusively that the war is over? That we can go back to a normal set of rules that do not violate constitutional rights?

Couldn't tell you.

All I can say L_R is if it bugs you, don't fly. It's that simple. Me? I'm not afraid to give the TSA the same information I give to a merchant when I write a check. We all have our personal demons. This is one of yours, but it's not one of mine.

Enjoy the bus

Every second they waste pretending to be concerned about security threats from non-Muslims is wasted time.

sa

san ann has a bad gang prob. get yr packin permitt asap.....

dont pay attention to ucr reports they r skewed to protect prop values

austin is a better choice

rode

#19 | Posted by RODEGLIDE at 2009-11-25 01:56 AM

Heavy gang presence can destroy a town after awhile. I've seen it happen here in Van Nuys, Pacoima, and other formerly nice suburbs (outside of downtown L.A.) until the illegal alien gangs took over. They move in and their families move in with them. Their families (parents and such) may be nice people but the gang members themselves can wreak havoc.

Every town has it's "bad sections" but when gangs literally take over a town then you've got problems. The homes one by one all start to put those black security bars on the windows, no one wants to send their kids to any of the schools in the area, and property values plummet 'cause no one else wants to live there.

My town, and the one next over from me, are separately incorporated cities and not part of the City of Los Angeles (but are in the County of Los Angeles). They have a separate fire dept. and police dept. and the cops here kick out all signs of gangbangers they see. We even have a "graffiti hot line" where you call up any time you see new grafitti put up and the town literally has it erased the next day. Keeps the gangs from claiming territory.

People pay thousands of dollars to put their kids in private schools rather than put them in schools in the LAUSD due to the gangs and violence (which just gives me another good selling point for my house as we have a separate and good school district). Hey, even my plumber told me he paying $25,000 a year for EACH OF HIS TWO KIDS to put them in private schools rather than attend Los Angeles schools and he does it for their own safety.

You say Austin? I hear it's more expensive to live there, though. Guess it's a tradeoff. I've lived around gangs as a town's border doesn't stop them from coming in, but so as long as they mostly stay on their own turf in their section of the city I don't much care. But if all of SA is becoming heavily saturated with gangs/crime then I may give it a second thought. I'll check it out some more. But thanks for the word of warning.

Rodeglide

Los Angeles is the gang capital of the U.S. -- over 100,000 members. I figure if I can survive here, then I should have no real problem living anywhere else.

Just need to make sure I move into a semi-decent neighborhood if I do move to SA. Besides, I'm only going to rent at first anyway and check it out for six months or so to see if I like it there. I can always pack up and move on if I don't. And who knows, maybe I'll have changed my mind about where to move by the time I've closed escrow.

Or I could always just throw a dart at a map of the U.S. and see where it lands. That's the kind of mood I'm in now, anyway.

Hey I wonder if they will use this on Unruly kids. You know sort of like scared straight program where they pull the kids aside and threaten them by telling them if You don't straighten up I am sending You to club GIZMO.where all the bad little boys and girls go for being bad at the Airport. Gotta make sure You make Club GIZMO look like a scarey place too.

Tel Aviv has done this behavior cop thing for years.

#63 | Posted by coolforsale126

Stop spamming our site dude!

Dayummmmmmm Me likes the Tipsy Murphy Lots.

Larry

All I can say L_R is if it bugs you, don't fly. It's that simple. Me? I'm not afraid to give the TSA the same information I give to a merchant when I write a check. We all have our personal demons. This is one of yours, but it's not one of mine.

Enjoy the bus

#59 | Posted by goatman at 2009-11-25 02:23 PM

As I posted in #2, I choose not to fly commercially. I'm a pilot, so I fly myself and my daughter whenever we want to go on a trip.

No TSA to deal with, but our trips also tend to be within 1000 miles, Avgas is not cheap, and Piper Warriors don't have all the amenities.

There is the problem. I'm not alone. A lot of people have decided not to fly because of the TSA.
And it's killing the airlines.

There is the problem. I'm not alone. A lot of people have decided not to fly because of the TSA.
And it's killing the airlines.

Agreed.

Spud pretty stopped flying commercially after 911 unless outta sheer neccessity.

Spud would rather walk, ride a bike, take a bus or a train or even hop all the way on a freaking pogo stick to an event rather than endure the increasingly invasive harrassment by under-trained security and the resulting mind boggling delays that have become the norm post 9/11.

Improvements to airport security?

Hardly.

That sed using police trained in behaviour monitoring or as Spud likes to call them the "acting suspicious" police is not in and of itself problematical by Spu's lights. If it can lead to increased apprehension of potential wrong doers and decrease the number of humiliating shoe removals, strip searches, nipple ring removals etc then it might not be such a bad thing.

Be Well.

It's a shame people are cutting back on flying at this time. There are some killer deals on flights and junkets to be had now. They are worth taking your shoes off for!

Improvements to airport security?

Hardly.

To what do you attribute the decreased acts of terrorism in the sky, then?

20 years ago, I could buy a ticket with cash, walk through a metal detector that didn't usually even pick up my keys, and hand the airline a boarding pass at the gate. No ID needed, no lines at the metal detector, everybody just walked through quickly. No hassles about my laptop, no complaints about not putting my film through the xray machine.

I could get to the airport 10 minutes before the flight left if I didn't have bags to check.

Now? No comparison. I want 1989 security back. It was better.

If it's less than a 10 hour drive, it's usually not worth flying any more, it takes so much time and is so stressful to deal with the airport hassles. Throw in that the sky waitresses aren't nice to you any more, they don't even bother serving you airplane food most of the time now, and the seat space shrank, and my car starts looking a lot better.

No hassles about my laptop...

That's because you didn't have one 20 years ago.

Now? No comparison. I want 1989 security back. It was better.

There are a few thousand people who if alive on Sept 12, 2001 would disagree with you.

To what do you attribute the decreased acts of terrorism in the sky, then?

Wot makes you think acts of terrorism in the sky have decreased?

Early in 2005, separate reports to Congress by the DHS Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reached the same conclusion: Based on testing of airport screening operations, there is no evidence that performance is better today than it was before the TSA put its own screeners into airports.[2] With half of its annual budget of almost $6 billion devoted to baggage and passenger screening, the TSA has not demonstrably improved the protection of planes from dangerous objects. All that has been accomplished is to shift the workload from private sector to government screeners, who perform the same tasks at greater cost.

Wot makes you think acts of terrorism in the sky have decreased?

I'm not aware of any more people flying planes into buildings. I'm not aware of any more shoe bombers. I'm not aware of anyone taking binary explosive devices on planes.

Spud, do you always talk about yourself in the third person?

BTW. Airline security is totally perception based. If it were serious it would be handled like the Israelis

Spud, do you always talk about yourself in the third person?

Yes he does. Isn't that cute?