(no subject)

[arethinn]

So I suppose some of y'all have heard about the New, Improved, Now With More Privacy Invasion TSA airport security stuff?

http://wildhunt.org/blog/2010/11/pnc-minnesota-rape-survivor-devastated-by-tsa-enhanced-pat-down.html

http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/tsa-meets-resistance-new-pat-down-procedures

I don't feel it's at all right to be made to choose between one's mental health (in the case of those with sexually-related traumas, or other possible psychological issues with this one could imagine, beyond the run-of-the-mill discomfort) and one's physical health (ionizing radiation concerns) just to board an aircraft. Fortunately I don't have to make the choice about whether I will or won't allow this to affect my willingness to travel by air until next February or so (I am tentatively planning to go to New Hampshire at the end of April - not a place I can realistically get to by train). But imagosdawn made this great comment (in a locked post, but posted here with permission) which I don't think I can add anything to:

Don't let them win by not flying and not voicing your (appropriate) concern. We don't need to be the loudest voice --just be the smartest and most persistent. Policies can be changed if enough people speak up.

Rosa Parks did not say 'I will no longer take the bus.'

(See also her blog post here: http://cybercoven.org/wordpress/?p=1476)

Comments

[contrarywise]

I agree. However, I'm pretty certain of the effectiveness of not flying and informing the airport and airlines that you usually use why you won't be giving them your business. When the air travel industry starts seeing a negative economic impact stemming from the TSA's practices, they will have good reason to lobby for a change to those practices.

Also, ZORAK!!! *icon love*

[arethinn]

KEVIN!

ZORAK!

KEVIN!!

ZORAK!!!

[elf]

Rosa Parks did not say 'I will no longer take the bus.'

Rosa Parks was challenging law, not corporate policy. Laws are easier to get changed; laws are not allowed to be unconstitutional. Corporate policies are allowed to be invasive, on the grounds that you always have a choice to just not buy their goods or services.

(Insert rant about copyright law & fair use allowances being overridden by site TOS's.)

I have flown exactly once since 9-11, and I don't expect to fly again in my lifetime. Which really sucks, because I used to be a "sure, I'll head down to LA for the weekend; that's a $90 round-trip ticket" kind of person.

And the idea of "fly more, and protest" works for adults who don't have (1) health risks from radiation, (2) triggers from being groped; it's considerably less reasonable to suggest that adults-with-kids, or minors traveling alone, be subjected to these procedures. (I'm really, really unhappy at having to tell my kid, "you get a choice! You can let strangers see you naked, or you can get felt up by a stranger." Dammit, I'm supposed to tell her that choices like that are a sign of abuse.)

[arethinn]

Rosa Parks was challenging law, not corporate policy. Laws are easier to get changed; laws are not allowed to be unconstitutional. Corporate policies are allowed to be invasive

... the TSA is a corporation in the usual sense, rather than an agency created by law?

I have flown exactly once since 9-11, and I don't expect to fly again in my lifetime.

Oy, goodness. Being in an LDR with a Canadian made that kind of impossible for me. My first flight post-9/11 was in October 2001 and actually, my main recollection was simply that the security line got much, much longer overnight (my last flight had been August 2001, I think - else, June for sure). Since Gord moved here in 2008 I've been on planes a lot less (a couple trips to Houston and one to Infinitus earlier this year, I guess?), but there was a time it was at least every three months if not every other month or less.

And the idea of "fly more, and protest" works for adults who don't have (1) health risks from radiation, (2) triggers from being groped

Oh, I know; I imagine the OP also knows there are many people who cannot put up with either of these for various reasons, and they are not saying "everyone ought to". But that those for whom it's a reasonable choice, should, because someone has to do the talking.

it's considerably less reasonable to suggest that adults-with-kids, or minors traveling alone, be subjected to these procedures.

Interesting complication. I wonder what the rules are under this new system for dealing with minors-travelling-alone? Is it radiation or nothing?

[elf]

AFAIK, there are no special exemptions for minors; parents who want to minimize their kids exposure to radiation (including for reasons like "is immunocompromised") get to deal with their kids going through the grope test.

Whatever the TSA is, its policies aren't laws. It's not a crime to avoid them; the penalty for non-compliance, if you're caught, is "you don't get to fly." They're a gov't-appointed agency; the website says they're "mandated by law to appropriately screen air travelers to ensure that certain items and persons prohibited from flying don’t board commercial airliners." However, they don't say people are mandated by law to comply with them--just that they've got the right to refuse someone access to the planes.

[arethinn]

parents who want to minimize their kids exposure to radiation (including for reasons like "is immunocompromised") get to deal with their kids going through the grope test.

Accompanied, obviously, the parent gets to make the decision for their kid. Unaccompanied, though? Can they do the grope test on a minor who says "do so"? Is that "consent" enough? I think what I'm saying here is I'm surprised "protect the children" types haven't noticed this particular problem and started shouting about it.

Whatever the TSA is, its policies aren't laws. It's not a crime to avoid them; the penalty for non-compliance, if you're caught, is "you don't get to fly."

Right, true, I suppose. Still, though - one can oppose unfair business practices, too.

[elf]

I'm surprised "protect the children" types haven't noticed this particular problem and started shouting about it.

The new policy is less than two weeks old. There hasn't been time. (I'm waiting for the first Child Porn case to come up from storage of the x-ray pictures. That one, they've been dodging around; at first, they said the pictures weren't stored; now, they're getting really vague about what level of resolution & detail the pics have.)

one can oppose unfair business practices, too.

This is a combination of unfair practices, bad implementation of gov't policy (which is kinda-sorta like laws, but in a blurry spot), and occasional violation of the procedures they're supposed to be following.

I do hope the ACLU gets somewhere with pointing out that several agents have told passengers that the grope test is deliberately made traumatic in the hopes of pushing people into the x-ray machine.

[charcoalfeathers]

I think it's shaky ground to say that you can't proceed along a route of travel that's been normal for decades for the general public, unless you accede to evil, unconstitutional demand A or B. The TSA is part of a government bureau, for better or worse, and they are effectively restricting your movement until you give in to a set of searches that almost no one would call reasonable.

All it does is muddle the direct logic a bit, but it's pretty clear to me that what they're doing is still unconstitutional. They technically have the right to do all these same things for people boarding buses, driving on bridges and across borders (including between states, I guess), riding trains, whatever is transportation related. They haven't seen fit to do so yet, but I have no doubts that as soon as the first real car bomb or train bomb happens, it'll start.

I wonder if people will be OK with that logic, then .. "you could walk, no one is forcing you" ..

[charcoalfeathers]

I've been pretty angry about it lately. If everyone else is upset at being sent through the peep show scanners or having their privates fondled, you can imagine how T people feel.

I've actually started on a course of action that will give me a solid complaint to hand to my rep and senator, and I'll probably send it to the ACLU too. I doubt they'll do anything on my behalf, but cool people that they are, they'll probably add it to a growing file to present to whoever.

The important thing is to tell people. Tell the airlines, tell the airport, tell your gov't officials. They've got to know that the sudden downturn in travel is not just due to the recession.

And they've gotta do something quick .. I'm going to lose my job if this keeps up. :( It depends on the success of the airline industry. I've got more than just personal pride to lose if the TSA keeps trying to destroy the airline industry. Me and thousands of other people.