Caribbean Nesties
Dear Community,

Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.

If you have questions about this, please email [email protected]

Thank you.

Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.

have we discussed

24

Re: have we discussed

  • Maybe I'm just nnaive, but I just flat out disbelieve most of the "groping" stories. I think the tsa is an easy target for people seeking media attention.
    image
  • Pistole himself says "it was more invasive than I was used to." A U.S. senator says he would be uncomfortable seeing his wife "patted down" in this new manner.

     

    image Guess who?
  • IDK Fallin...this picture seems to tell a different story ;)

    image

  • imageSarahBethBR:

    http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/45459532.aspx

    The original article is from prison planet, so not a paragon of journalism, but a few people in the post relate that yes, they have had hands in their pants during these "patdowns."

    There was someone on the bump talking about having gone through it as well. Her particular "pat down" person never warned her that they were about to touch her areas and just started feeling around in her pants. 

    image
  • I don't have a whole lot of faith in the TSA agents' knowledge of what the rules are. I've flown a few times by myself with a cooler full of breastmilk as my carry on. Once, no one even looked in the cooler. Once I was told I couldn't bring any of it with me. There have been a few times traveling with Will that no one has even tested baby food/milk we bring with for him. Then the agent's lack of knowledge about whether the back scatter machine was okay for pregnant women.

    I've honestly never encountered an unpleasant TSA agent; the one time I had to have additional screening and a pat down the agent was very friendly and we chatted about baseball. I just don't want them all up in my business and I don't think that it's going to make anyone any safer.

    image

  • imageCaptainSerious:
    imagenoisy_penguin:
    imageNovemberrocks:

    Eh, I don't care either way.  I like being felt up.  I also don't mind if they see me naked. 

    They do profiling in Israel. And you get through to your gate in under 25 minutes. And if Israelis don't think they need to grope you and take naked pictures of you to get on a plane, I think they've probably got something figured out.

    Exactly.  I think there are better ways to ensure safety, but in the meantime, I'll gladly accept whatever measures they want to enforce because anything is better than nothing.

    Wow - anything? You'll gladly accept anything? No really, at what point would you so "no, I won't accept that"? Because we all know that eventually someone is going to stick some fireworks up their butt, if for no other reason than so they can watch the Amuhricans squirm around trying to crack that nut. Ha! Crack and nut! Ha.

    Anything is not better than nothing, especially when it's an invasion of privacy AND it's ineffective. 

    I'm with okla and SB - I'm surprised how many people are like "meh, big deal, I hope I get a cute tsa guy!" I wish I were traveling next Wednesday so I could go be all activisty and refuse the scanner and make them pat me down in plain view of everyone.

    image Guess who?
  • I don't think anyone means ANYTHING, but I don't see a big deal about a patdown.  I've felt more invaded crammed next to a stranger for a four hours flight.  I'm thrilled I'm not flying next week b/c all the activists slowing down my getting through the line would make me enraged.
    image
  • So, as an electromagnetic effects engineer, I am exposed to a variety of radiation sources on a semi-regular basis for work.  When I was pregnant, I did a fair amount of research regarding the exposure risks in relation to pregnant women.  The DoD provides personnel exposure limits to RF (in terms of time-exposure-averages and specific absorption rates of human tissues) and those limits are applied equally to pregnant and non-pregnant people.  

    Since any sort of x-ray machine is based on ionizing radiation, the effects are cumulative.  This is different than the exposure that you get from all of the electronics on an airplane, cell phone, laptop, etc. since those are RF (and therefore non-ionizing radiation).   There is an increased risk for a fetus exposed to ionizing radiation (more-so in early pregnancy than later), but the dose typically has to be quite high.  I don't know the specific energy output of these scanners, but I would be VERY surprised if it is at a high enough level to pose a danger to pregnant women.  

    image
  • imageFallinAgain:
    I don't think anyone means ANYTHING, but I don't see a big deal about a patdown.  I've felt more invaded crammed next to a stranger for a four hours flight.  I'm thrilled I'm not flying next week b/c all the activists slowing down my getting through the line would make me enraged.

    Honestly, I would advise waiting to comment/judge until you've actually had the patdown. I haven't had it either, and a few days ago I was all judgey on an acquaintance who was up in arms about it and then I read some things. Now I don't know what to believe so I'm just waiting until I fly next month.

    Except for the whole stealing thing. THAT I am still anxious about and have been every time I fly. (See my post here: http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/45487951/ShowThread.aspx)

    image

    Husbands should be like Kleenex: Soft, strong, and disposable.
  • This feels like a violation of the Fourth Amendment to me. Is simply getting on a plane probable cause to unreasonably search a person?

    And yeah, I feel it's unreasonable. And possibly ineffective. The TSA won't release the results of their tests, and security experts say they are pointless.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20023079-10391695.html

    http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Full+body+scanners+waste+money+Israeli+expert+says/2941610/story.html

  • imageFallinAgain:
    I'm thrilled I'm not flying next week b/c all the activists slowing down my getting through the line would make me enraged.

    I'm extremely curious to read about how "National Opt Out Day" turns out.  Despite the unpopularity of the new security measures, I could see the resulting delay provoking in a lot of hostility from holiday travelers.

    image
  • Actually, that's exactly what she said. She would gladly accept any measures they want to enforce for a (my words) false sense of security and illusion of "doing something." So the logical next question is, what would you not accept.

    I get that people have their own comfort levels with all this, even if it baffles me, but individual opinions aren't a valid argument for these new measures. I don't really care what one person thinks is fine - good for them - this is objectively wrong and intrusive. And it won't make us any safer, either.

    image Guess who?
  • Moo, your possessions should never be out of your sight, when you are taken to the scanner or to be patted down.  If they are, the TSA is in violation of their own policies and you should ask to speak to their supervisor.  I read that somewhere yesterday.

    I honestly do not understand not being the least bit concerned about this.  Like I said, I could care less about the TSA guy seeing me virtually naked or touching my boobs.  But the fact that those are the two options I have to choose from in order to get on a plane is fukking ridiculous.  Where is it going to end?  They're no longer just using the back of the hand.  They're no longer staying on the outside of the clothes.  And we're just going to take it.


    image
    The nerve!
    House | Blog
  • imageHappyTummy613:

    imageFallinAgain:
    I'm thrilled I'm not flying next week b/c all the activists slowing down my getting through the line would make me enraged.

    I'm extremely curious to read about how "National Opt Out Day" turns out.  Despite the unpopularity of the new security measures, I could see the resulting delay provoking in a lot of hostility from holiday travelers.

    I'm also curious about this. And glad that I'm not traveling for the holiday.

    While it's going to be a shiitty travel day if this does happen, I can see it potentially being really effective, too. Hopefully.

    image

    Husbands should be like Kleenex: Soft, strong, and disposable.
  • While I am not up in arms over it, I totally understand the viewpoint of those who are.  I think I would be pissy about it if I had kids.  I wouldn't want my kids to experience a patdown.  On the flipside, I understand that the jackholes who want to do bad things to people wouldn't hesitate to use a baby or kid as a way to get things past security.  So I get the need as well as the outrage. 

    I just personally feel sort of apathetic about the scanners.  I haven't experienced the new enhanced patdown, but I don't think that would change my lack of passion about the issue. I'm not really for or against them.

    image
    "That chick wins at Penises, for sure." -- Fenton
  • I will say there would be hell to pay if any adult put their hand inside my child's pants.  Unless you're the parent wiping his bum, you've got no business inside clothing.  Those things would mean prison for a non-TSA person, so yeah.

    And take off a skirt/dress?  That's foffing insane. 

    I have no problem with the old pat-downs, but if these accounts are accurate (and I too am skeptical of that), I agree that these things are invasive, unnecessary, and likely ineffective.  

    I find the scanners much less invasive and would opt for that.

    image
  • What happens at the airports that won't have the full body scanners (mine won't)? Does everyone then get subjected to the new pat-downs, or is it just business as usual? What would prevent a turruist from just using podunk airports like mine instead?

     

    image
    11/11/11 = 5 years. Woah!
  • imageCaliopeSpidrman:

    While I am not up in arms over it, I totally understand the viewpoint of those who are.  I think I would be pissy about it if I had kids.  I wouldn't want my kids to experience a patdown.  On the flipside, I understand that the jackholes who want to do bad things to people wouldn't hesitate to use a baby or kid as a way to get things past security.  So I get the need as well as the outrage. 

    I just personally feel sort of apathetic about the scanners.  I haven't experienced the new enhanced patdown, but I don't think that would change my lack of passion about the issue. I'm not really for or against them.

    I would be more okay with it if it was at all effective. But it does nothing. 

    The blank check handed to the TSA is terrifying because it's like every time we become used to/complacent about a policy, they come up with a new one. I agree with whoever intimated that we aren't far from cavity searches being standard.

    image

    Husbands should be like Kleenex: Soft, strong, and disposable.
  • Like I said, I could care less about the TSA guy seeing me virtually naked or touching my boobs.  But the fact that those are the two options I have to choose from in order to get on a plane is fukking ridiculous. 

    I'm thissing this all up in your this.

    image

  • imageoklagirl:

    This feels like a violation of the Fourth Amendment to me.

    Oh it is, says the former head of the TSA Security Ops.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni4GVWvT2Zs

    "Nobody likes having their Fourth Amendment rights violated at the security line, but, um, the truth of the matter is, we're gonna have to do it." 

     


    image
    The nerve!
    House | Blog
  • imageftnups:

    Actually, that's exactly what she said. She would gladly accept any measures they want to enforce for a (my words) false sense of security and illusion of "doing something." So the logical next question is, what would you not accept.

    I get that people have their own comfort levels with all this, even if it baffles me, but individual opinions aren't a valid argument for these new measures. I don't really care what one person thinks is fine - good for them - this is objectively wrong and intrusive. And it won't make us any safer, either.

    Just because you put "objectively" in front of it, doesn't make it so.  This is much an individual opinion as mine is.

    I'm pretty sure Nov was being hyperbolic.  I doubt she means she'd be ok with, say, anal fisting.

    And I'm unconvinced that it is an illusion of security or doing something. I think there's an argument that this could have stopped the diaper bomber dude.

    Okla--I don't think it violates the 4th b/c you do not have to submit to the search.  You choose to in order to take advantage of the convenience of flying, and flying isn't a right.

    I do notice that a few people have mentioned male tsa agents. I haven't read anything suggesting same sex agents won't continue to be policy. Am I missing something?

    image
  • imagewendyld:

    I will say there would be hell to pay if any adult put their hand inside my child's pants.  Unless you're the parent wiping his bum, you've got no business inside clothing.  Those things would mean prison for a non-TSA person, so yeah.

    And take off a skirt/dress?  That's foffing insane. 

    I have no problem with the old pat-downs, but if these accounts are accurate (and I too am skeptical of that), I agree that these things are invasive, unnecessary, and likely ineffective.  

    I find the scanners much less invasive and would opt for that.

    I'm thissing all of this. Given the choice between the two, I'm taking the scanner. It just doesn't bother me to have someone see that image. 

    I'm of the mind that if this was actually going to make us safer, I might be able to get more on board with it. Since most safety experts seem to be agreeing that it's pointless, I don't think it will last that long.

    And heaven help the person that tries to stick their hands down my son's pants. Zane is extremely mild mannered and not remotely a fighter type guy, but I honestly think he would wind up in jail over that. If he didn't, I would. 

    image
  • imageFallinAgain:

    Okla--I don't think it violates the 4th b/c you do not have to submit to the search.  You choose to in order to take advantage of the convenience of flying, and flying isn't a right.

    I do notice that a few people have mentioned male tsa agents. I haven't read anything suggesting same sex agents won't continue to be policy. Am I missing something?

    What about people that have to fly for work? There really shouldn't be a choice between naked pictures, get your naughty bits touched, or lose your job.

    And yeah, it is same sex agents.

    image

  • imagenoisy_penguin:
    imageFallinAgain:

    Okla--I don't think it violates the 4th b/c you do not have to submit to the search.  You choose to in order to take advantage of the convenience of flying, and flying isn't a right.

    I do notice that a few people have mentioned male tsa agents. I haven't read anything suggesting same sex agents won't continue to be policy. Am I missing something?

    What about people that have to fly for work? There really shouldn't be a choice between naked pictures, get your naughty bits touched, or lose your job.

    And yeah, it is same sex agents.

    That sucks, but I don't see how it is a 4th issue.

    image
  • imageFallinAgain:

    Okla--I don't think it violates the 4th b/c you do not have to submit to the search.  You choose to in order to take advantage of the convenience of flying, and flying isn't a right.

    It's also not a right to own a home, shop at a grocery store, drive a car, or ride on a bus, but no one is asking to ogle my junk before I do those things.  It doesn't matter whether we have a right to air travel or not.  We do have a right to be secure in our person, and the government is violating it.


    image
    The nerve!
    House | Blog
  • And I'm unconvinced that it is an illusion of security or doing something. I think there's an argument that this could have stopped the diaper bomber dude.

    Okla--I don't think it violates the 4th b/c you do not have to submit to the search.  You choose to in order to take advantage of the convenience of flying, and flying isn't a right.

    THIS.  I don't really like the options, but I'm not sure there is a better option at the moment.

    [IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/fc6xeb.jpg[/IMG]
  • imageSarahBethBR:
    imageFallinAgain:

    Okla--I don't think it violates the 4th b/c you do not have to submit to the search.  You choose to in order to take advantage of the convenience of flying, and flying isn't a right.

    It's also not a right to own a home, shop at a grocery store, drive a car, or ride on a bus, but no one is asking to ogle my junk before I do those things.  It doesn't matter whether we have a right to air travel or not.  We do have a right to be secure in our person, and the government is violating it.

    Not the same thing. The govt. is only searching you if you show up and submit to it to get to do what you want to do.  You still have the right to be secure in your person; you just cannot fly.  It all remains your choice.  Maybe I'm wrong. I'm 99% sure someone will sue and test it out.

    image
  • imageFallinAgain:

    Okla--I don't think it violates the 4th b/c you do not have to submit to the search.  You choose to in order to take advantage of the convenience of flying, and flying isn't a right.

    Never thought I'd see the day when Fallin agreed with Pink (last comment on first page, although she gets more intense on page 2)

    http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/45459532.aspx 

  • imageFallinAgain:

    Not the same thing. The govt. is only searching you if you show up and submit to it to get to do what you want to do.  You still have the right to be secure in your person; you just cannot fly.  It all remains your choice.  Maybe I'm wrong. I'm 99% sure someone will sue and test it out.

    I really, really think you're wrong on this.  It's blowing my mind, honestly.

    What if we were told we couldn't bring holy books, pray, or practice religion in an airport or on a plane?  Criticize the government or the TSA?  It's okay because we don't have a right to be there.


    image
    The nerve!
    House | Blog
Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards