SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Dec 05 2010 11:58 am

For the record, I only said Ron Paul is the man, not I agree with everything he says.

I really have nothing against the current security system really. I traveled to Macedonia a few months ago for the summer and have traveled there several times over the past 20 years. The last couple of times was no different and I remember nothing of the security checkups simply because I thought nothing of them.

I still, however, think Israel's security layering and behavioral profiling (which BTW is based on how you are acting, not who you are so it's not quite the same as racial profiling) would be a great thing to add to the current security system.

The problems I can understand people may come up with the US following Israel's example are cost and lack of scale. Israel's airports and airline are much smaller, have far less airplanes and far less destinations than US's airlines and airports. It would be very expensive to set up the entire structure overnight and let's face it, we're already in a huge deficit to let people's taxes pay for all of it. So as good as it may sound, I guess we just can't afford it. I really like the idea of using bomb-proof glass and boxes, though, instead of evacuations which would cost an airport dearly if that were to ever happen so maybe that might be a sound investment.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

So I finally watched the Ron Paul video. I think his heart is in the right place with this, but it is as though he hasn't actually thought about the consequences of his requested actions. This isn't something that can be fixed with a bill that is written over the course of a few days or weeks. Honestly it is a problem that has grown over years... hell look at those old Airplane II movie clips, it is at least that old. So lets just try to get on the right track with making it better. We don't need to fix it with one fell swoop. Rather lets make a series of good decisions.

Also the argument that each Senator should go through the security scan is a bit like saying each Senator should have to go through an abortion to be able to weigh in on the topic. It is stupid. I do however think that every senator should read about what is going on and learn as much as they can. I don't care if they learn through empathy, sympathy, experience, or hands on research as long as they are paying attention.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

GPFontaine wrote:

Also the argument that each Senator should go through the security scan is a bit like saying each Senator should have to go through an abortion to be able to weigh in on the topic. It is stupid.

No, what's stupid is implying that a security scan is as invasive as an abortion. Rolling Eyes

It takes a few minutes, Jesus Christ. Senators have some false sense of entitlement when it comes to this issue, they could just simply do it once so they would actually understand so at least they aren't speaking from ignorance.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

joshwoodzy wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

Also the argument that each Senator should go through the security scan is a bit like saying each Senator should have to go through an abortion to be able to weigh in on the topic. It is stupid.

No, what's stupid is implying that a security scan is as invasive as an abortion. Rolling Eyes

It takes a few minutes, Jesus Christ. Senators have some false sense of entitlement when it comes to this issue, they could just simply do it once so they would actually understand so at least they aren't speaking from ignorance.

You misunderstood the comparison I was making.

I wasn't trying to suggest that the two things were related or even comparable. Rather I was suggesting that there is no need for a politician to have experience with something they are voting on as long as they are able to properly educate themselves on the topic. I don't expect every senator to fly and I don't expect every senator to have an abortion. I don't expect them all to eat the same diet, brush their teeth with the same toothpaste, or have the same educational background. When they go to work, I expect them to be capable no matter what the job throws at them.

Of course an abortion is totally different than a security scan.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

Fair enough. But invoking abortion into the equation is not really fair either.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

joshwoodzy wrote:

Fair enough. But invoking abortion into the equation is not really fair either.

I wasn't. I just clarified that I wasn't. Replace the word abortion with any other political topic. The sentiment is the same.

Posted: Dec 05 2010 02:04 pm

What GP was trying to say was that Every Senator Doesn't have to go through an Abortion to weigh in on bills about Abortion.

Like how Ron Paul said every Senator should go through the security process then weigh in on it.

That's all GP was trying to say. Or at least what I picked up.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

I get it. I just can't stand when people bring up abortion when there are countless other comparisons. I apologize for assuming he was actually "comparing" the two.

Now fix my computer.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Dec 05 2010 02:51 pm

Methid Man wrote:

I really like the idea of using bomb-proof glass and boxes, though, instead of evacuations which would cost an airport dearly if that were to ever happen so maybe that might be a sound investment.

The X-ray machines are designed to withstand a blast of several tons. The CT machines used at checked baggage can take 10 or 15 tons blasts. So really, those are pretty close to bomb-proof.

As for an evacuation, perhaps you've never heard of a "terminal dump". In short, if someone gets by the security checkpoint and you lose track of them for even a second, everyone past the checkpoint is thrown out, the entire terminal is searched, and then they all have to go through security again. Yes, I've been lucky enough to experience one of these. Sad

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

http://chartporn.org/2010/12/27/people-who-touch-your-junk-venn/

Posted: Jan 28 2011 01:53 am

retarded

Quote:

IT may be three inches long and made of plastic – but that didn’t stop a toy soldier’s gun being branded a “firearm” by zealous airport officials.

Ken Lloyd and his wife bought the “signaller crouching” figurine during a recent visit to the Royal Signals Museum at Blandford Garrison.

But when the box containing the figure passed through the scanning machine at Gatwick airport, security officials declared the tiny plastic rifle a “firearm”.

Husband, Ken Lloyd, said his wife had demanded “a reality check”.

“The antenna was individually scanned as suspect and as the figurine’s SA80 rifle was pulled from the box, the security search officer contacted her supervisor,” he said.

Mrs Lloyd was directed back to the airport concourse and made her way to a branch of WH Smith and bought a padded envelope to post the rifle home.

“The two patrolling policemen didn’t seem to mind. They didn’t even notice. The numerous security people sitting around the concourse didn't leap to their feet as she passed,” said Mr Lloyd.

But when she tried to post the padded envelope, she hit another set back.

“These small padded envelopes are guaranteed to comply with postal regulations anywhere in the world, except Gatwick airport. The security mail slot was too narrow,” she said.

Mrs Lloyd was directed to the airport’s customer service department for suggestions on how to post the envelope.

They agreed to scan the sealed envelope to save reopening it, but it was too light to activate the scanner.

A radio was placed on the scanner and the envelope was X-rayed and posted by the customer service person.

Five days later, it arrived at the Lloyds’ home in Canada.

Royal Signals Museum spokesman Adam Forty said: “The Royal Signals Museum is a military museum and takes security very seriously, especially around military installations and airports, but this does seem more than a little excessive. “The ‘firearm’ is three inches long and cast out of resin. It’s probably just as well we didn’t sell her a toy tank.”

http://current.com/news/92942841_airport-security-officials-brand-three-inch-toy-gun-firearm.htm

Posted: Jan 28 2011 07:30 am

A similar thing happened to me when I flew back to California in August. I was bringing back a toy pistol (it looked like an old pirate pistol) my parents had bought for me years earlier that I had no trouble getting into England but coming out, they treated it (and me) like it was a loaded shotgun. Any sane human being could look at it and plainly see it was clearly a plastic toy and impossible to actually use, but they wouldn't have any of this "sanity" thing. They claimed it was possible for me to modify it during the flight (forgetting that I had it packed in my checked bag) to make it functional. Yeah, like I know how to modify a plastic replica 17th century flintlock pistol to make it actually work.

They wouldn't even let me mail it back to my house in England; I had to give it them to have it destroyed. DESTROYED! What the fuck!

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jan 28 2011 08:27 am

For the record, toy firearms are allowed on US flights so long as they are clearly not real. They even have a special listing for "transforming toy robots" that turn into guns.

Note that just the orange tip isn't enough to designate it as "not realistic".

Posted: Jan 29 2011 05:05 pm

Pandajuice wrote:

A similar thing happened to me when I flew back to California in August. I was bringing back a toy pistol (it looked like an old pirate pistol) my parents had bought for me years earlier that I had no trouble getting into England but coming out, they treated it (and me) like it was a loaded shotgun. Any sane human being could look at it and plainly see it was clearly a plastic toy and impossible to actually use, but they wouldn't have any of this "sanity" thing. They claimed it was possible for me to modify it during the flight (forgetting that I had it packed in my checked bag) to make it functional. Yeah, like I know how to modify a plastic replica 17th century flintlock pistol to make it actually work.

They wouldn't even let me mail it back to my house in England; I had to give it them to have it destroyed. DESTROYED! What the fuck!

I guess you could take that as a compliment, clearly you're some sort of dangerous super villain!

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Quote:

A former supervisor with the Transportation Security Administration has been sentenced to more than two years in prison after pleading guilty to taking bribes from a TSA officer who was stealing from passengers.
Michael Arato, 42, of Ewing, N.J., pleaded guilty to taking kickbacks from former TSA officer Al Raimi, 29, of Woodbridge, N.J.
According to prosecutors, Raimi stole between $10,000 and $30,000 in cash from travelers going through a Terminal B checkpoint at Newark Liberty International Airport last Fall.
Video surveillance showed Arato taking approximately $3,100 in bribes from Raimi, who also pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing.
In addition to the 30 months in a federal prison, Arato was ordered by U.S. District Judge Jose Linares to reimburse victims $24,150 while forfeiting the $3,100 in kickback money to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43316798/ns/local_news-new_york_ny/

I know that this is a specific incident, but if you go and look at Google News for the TSA they have had a rocky few months. http://www.google.com/#q=tsa&tbm=nws

Somehow I know that Usa will defend them, but honestly, we can do better. We really can.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 09 2011 12:26 pm

GPFontaine wrote:

Somehow I know that Usa will defend them, but honestly, we can do better. We really can.

No. I'm not going to defend thieves.

I am going to say that you can't judge an organization based upon a single person's actions. Assholes slip through the employment screening process at times (and they do some heavy background checks) just like any job.

Depending on where you work, stealing from luggage isn't hard. TSA has a perfectly valid excuse to open nearly any bag they want. With carry-ons, the passenger is always right there (or should be) and there are cameras everywhere, so this is a lot harder, but in checked luggage, this occasionally isn't the case...and where I was working we were understaffed and there weren't any cameras I could see. And things did get left out of luggage at times accidentally when repacking them (we turned it over to the airline), so there's valid context for something to go "missing" and a plausible deniability to blame it on the airline - they always blamed TSA for everything, so why not?