(no subject)

[serene]

To paraphrase supergee, I don't have a personal problem with having people see me naked. Nor am I afraid of being rendered sterile by the screening machines. That said, I'm against it. It's invasive, unnecessary, and gives an illusion of safety while it takes away a basic human right to privacy. I will not fly until US airline policy changes, even if that means I travel less. (I have been taking 6-8 flights a year. I'll take a car or bus or train next time I want to go to San Diego, and it's unlikely I'll get to Wiscon any time soon.)

(I'm also for the decriminilization of recreational drugs, even though I've never even tried pot, for much the same reason. You don't have to be personally affected by a stupid law to think it's stupid.)

Comments

[ailbhe]

I really honestly thought the regime change would mean I could fly to the US. There's no way in hell I'm bringing my children through a US airport until this stops though.

[jae]

I stil feel the same way about this the way I felt about this earlier this year. Basically, I have been manhandled/violated by many security agents in many countries since such security policies were strengthened worldwide, and it has always made me feel sick inside. If those screening machines will make them finally stop putting me through the horrible process they innocuously call "patting you down", I am all for them.

And if having STRANGERS FEELING ME UP didn't stop me from flying (even though I have always considered it, in the heat of the moment), then this sure won't.

-J

[wild_irises]

I have some real concerns about the safety of the machines. joedecker linked to this very useful (and scary) letter from four scientists to Obama's assistant for science and technology. I don't have any concerns about people seeing me naked, but I do respect other people's concerns about that. On the whole, I think I'll submit myself to the patdowns rather than risk the x-rays, though I won't know until I next fly, which will likely be next March or so.

And I hate the security theater aspect. But like you, I'm not likely to stop flying any time soon.

[jae]

Interesting. Well, I'll think about it some more in that light, but seriously, the thought of no more patdowns makes me SO HAPPY that I might be willing to take the risk.

And I've already gotten to the point where I don't go to the U.S. any more than I really have to in order to spend time with my parents and closest friends. I just don't feel comfortable there anymore, only a tiny bit of which has to do with the flying security experience. And this won't change that, not in either direction.

-J

[wild_irises]

Oh, I can relate. I don't think I'd come here if I wasn't here already.

[serene]

To me, it seems that unless you're a suspect in a crime (that is, there's probable cause legally), if someone touches you like that without your consent, it's sexual assault. I don't think patdowns should be required for the average citizen, and I especially think that when terrorism is such a tiny, minute, infinitessimally small risk to people that it's ridiculous to treat it like it's a daily cloud hanging over every travel transaction.

[jae]

Well, I'm not at all sure it is required. I've only been subjected to the full-on patdown a small handful of times, and I fly a lot. But I remember every one. One of the times, they had thought they found a suspicious substance on my bag. The other times, I seem to have been randomly chosen. But I hate them. I hate them with a passion. And yeah, it may sound like I'm exaggerating, but it sure feels like some mild version of sexual assault. It completely ruins my day every time, and it lingers for days afterward. Next to that, the full-body scanner sounds much less invasive.

-J

[serene]

It is required that one either submit to the scans or to the patdowns if one wants to fly. For many people, flying is not optional, and it's a public accommodation, so I don't hold the same "well, change the channel if you don't like the show" position I tend to hold about things like entertainment.

[jae]

Oh, and they do ask you for your consent. So technically, I have always consented.

Of course, if I'd refused consent, they would have refused to let me fly (and probably put some black mark on my name in their computer, too).

-J

[trinker]

Unfortunately, if they decide that your scan isn't clear enough, or if you set off the old-style detector twice, you'll still be patted down.

:P

[necturus]

I haven't flown since November, 2001.

[firecat]

Even if you aren't directly affected by a stupid law, chances are you are indirectly affected by it.

[otter]

Agreed. I just took the bus to and from Chicago. Easier than flying in a number of ways. Though the bus driver did complain that someone 'did number two' in the bus bathroom, and it happened to have been me. Oh well. Can't always wait 5 hours.