It's better to do actual studies than rely on anecdotal evidence.

What would be better than this is to do an actual study to determine if they're more or less effective than what we had prior.

ArkAngel: I'm now greatly intrigued about the 4% of people who find the x-rays and pat downs a "pleasant" experience

Not all passengers are exposed to those two factors.

Shocked to see that it wasn't us the taxpayers who paid for it.

ArkAngel: I'm now greatly intrigued about the 4% of people who find the x-rays and pat downs a "pleasant" experience

They probably didn't understand the question.

I've seen many people get through security in the amt of time it takes to pay for a pack of smokes at 7/11.

Data presentation fail. Pie charts are a completely inappropriate way to display that data.

Oddly enough with my last 5 or so trips through the airport, I've never been through any of these unpleasantries you Farkers speak of- am I doing it wrong?

I've twice been able to access "passenger areas only" so I could accompany my kids to their plane- oh the farkin' humiliation of having to remove my belt and shoes-- as well as having been on 3 training trips free of any drama to myself or any of the other travelers in the area at the time.

I'm thoroughly convinced that the people being polled are the same one's that have issues with fastfood employees spitting on their whoppers as well.

You treat people like dirt, expect them to react likewise.

I haven't flown since 2007.
After that set of 2007 screening procedures I concluded that the thing was totally humiliating, unnecessary, and I refused to be a party to it.
That was before the present procedures were in place.
I always flew first class, full fare.
I'm not a young guy, so I have resigned myself to the fact that I will likely never take another commercial flight again in my life.
I am also convinced that our government is accomplishing exactly what they intend with this system.
And I don't mean security.

ArkAngel: I'm now greatly intrigued about the 4% of people who find the x-rays and pat downs a "pleasant" experience

For shut-ins who don't have any medical insurance, the TSA may be the closest thing they get to medical care and physical contact.

ArkAngel: I'm now greatly intrigued about the 4% of people who find the x-rays and pat downs a "pleasant" experience

Maybe they're lonely and the (de-)human contact helps to fill the gaping void in their hearts.

FWIW I've never had a truly bad experience. Been groped once and, honestly, meh. The worst part of security is the waiting and the slowness. Of course, that all said, the TSA is ridiculous and should be dismantled and replaced with saner security.

207%, by my math.

GPS baggage tags would be amusing. I wonder if the people surveyed realize they would be essentially attaching a cell phone and a simplified GPS receiver to each bag, essentially a cop car tracker. Several hundred bucks a pop instead of paper tags. Hmm.

RFID tags would actually make sense but those only have GPS on Rense.com.

clowncar on fire: Oddly enough with my last 5 or so trips through the airport, I've never been through any of these unpleasantries you Farkers speak of- am I doing it wrong?

I've twice been able to access "passenger areas only" so I could accompany my kids to their plane- oh the farkin' humiliation of having to remove my belt and shoes-- as well as having been on 3 training trips free of any drama to myself or any of the other travelers in the area at the time.

I'm thoroughly convinced that the people being polled are the same one's that have issues with fastfood employees spitting on their whoppers as well.

You treat people like dirt, expect them to react likewise.

So, because you personally didn't experience it, all of the others who did are lying and are assholes?

I flew to New Orleans and back home two weeks ago, and headed to the airport full of fear of the TSA. I had my diabetic stuff in my carry-on, and expected a big hassle. Ended up having no trouble with TSA at all. Didn't even have to go through the nude-o-scopes (hubby did, but had no issues with it). Not sure how I'd feel about a pat-down, though.

Wish I was still down on Bourbon Street, though...

22% thought TSA screening was effective? It seems 22% of travelers polled are complete idiots.

Mensan: 22% thought TSA screening was effective? It seems 22% of travelers polled are complete idiots.

No, they are TSA employees.

/ actually, you're right. They're complete idiots

cptjeff: Hyperiant: [m.static.newsvine.com image 640x640]
207%, by my math.

You could select multiple options. You didn't have to say the TSA was just inefficient, you could say it was in efficient and invasive and spawned from the fires of Mount Doom (which needs to be an option in any future polling on the TSA).

The pie charts are a bad mechanism to convey that, one might even say criminally negligent use of a graphics program, but the numbers aren't too crazy.

That's one of the worst infographics I've seen in a while. Did they pull that out of a USA Today?

I guess they can take some comfort in that they're not alone in the practice. (new window)

Keizer_Ghidorah: clowncar on fire: Oddly enough with my last 5 or so trips through the airport, I've never been through any of these unpleasantries you Farkers speak of- am I doing it wrong?

I've twice been able to access "passenger areas only" so I could accompany my kids to their plane- oh the farkin' humiliation of having to remove my belt and shoes-- as well as having been on 3 training trips free of any drama to myself or any of the other travelers in the area at the time.

I'm thoroughly convinced that the people being polled are the same one's that have issues with fastfood employees spitting on their whoppers as well.

You treat people like dirt, expect them to react likewise.

So, because you personally didn't experience it, all of the others who did are lying and are assholes?

Yup- if it helps with your butt hurt. I never said "lying" or "assholes"- you did. I'm merely pointing out personal expirience that I've never come across most of the issues some folks around here have with "authority" figures such as teachers, the TSA, or the police. Just saying.

Annectodotes- how do they work again. You put enough of them together and you get an informal survey. There are people who don't let the occaisonal inconveniences in life get them down, and there are those who are just dying to be asked their opinion just so they can fume.

baltimoreblonde: I flew to New Orleans and back home two weeks ago, and headed to the airport full of fear of the TSA. I had my diabetic stuff in my carry-on, and expected a big hassle. Ended up having no trouble with TSA at all.

Well, people have had to drink their own breast milk, throw out breast milk, have their colostomy bag emptied on them...twice, had screeners forcibly remove their pants and panties in a back room while cutting them with their cane, had medication confiscated, had baby formula confiscated, been made to walk or stand when they're not physically able....(just the few that are on the top of my head)


Didn't even have to go through the nude-o-scopes (hubby did, but had no issues with it). Not sure how I'd feel about a pat-down, though.


No issues, huh? As someone who lost a best friend to cancer in high school and has an uncle losing body parts to it right now, I will file any lawsuit I can that anyone who willingly stepped into a Nude-O-Scope doesn't get a dime of my tax money for their cancer treatment. Ignorance is no excuse.

Keep in mind, just like SOPA/PIPA was a smokescreen for ACTA, the airport x-ray Nude-O-Scopes are a smoke screen for the x-ray vans and portable x-ray scanners that pump out between 2 and 10 times more radiation than the airport ones. (That and the E.U. banned airport scanners while we continue to buy them. And Germany voluntarily stopped using them because they couldn't find jack squat).

Drive-by Scanning: Officials Expand Use and Dose of Radiation for Security Screening (new window)

Gyrfalcon: ronaprhys: It's better to do actual studies than rely on anecdotal evidence.

What would be better than this is to do an actual study to determine if they're more or less effective than what we had prior.

Effective compared to what?

There were zero hijackings prior to 9/11, and zero afterward. Which system is more effective?

By effective, I should say that effective would be defined by cost to maintain, intrusion to the passengers, etc. I would also say that it'd be worth it to define whether or not the current system would stop another 9/11-like event.

Krumet: I haven't flown since 2007.
After that set of 2007 screening procedures I concluded that the thing was totally humiliating, unnecessary, and I refused to be a party to it.
That was before the present procedures were in place.
I always flew first class, full fare.
I'm not a young guy, so I have resigned myself to the fact that I will likely never take another commercial flight again in my life.
I am also convinced that our government is accomplishing exactly what they intend with this system.
And I don't mean security.


So you too understand that it is security theater and not real security? Good, I'm glad someone else understands it too.

Two family members went to China for three weeks over Christmas. They said that in China, they did not have to remove shoes, and any size liquids were fine. They breezed through security, all they did was check passports and ID's. However, they did say that they did do a small "enter and exit' interview of shorts, nothing major. They also said that the Nude O Scopes were banned. The entire EU has actually banned these.

When they flew back to Houston, they nearly missed their connecting flight to Midland because of the TSA bullshiat.

What cracks ME up about this article? They interview the head of airport design for an Architecture firm! Great, this guy has zero, and I mean absolutely zero impact on anything important that actually happens once the mother[humper] opens, yet he has the balls to think his design of the testicle fondling stations and proper queue management is going to make going to the airport "Fun" again!

Man, whatever drugs that guy is using? I want! Talk about Ego, he must be a fan of FLW.

I have a timeshare and enough frequent flyer miles to go anywhere in the world, but I'm on vacation now just an hour from home because I just didn't want the hassle of flying right now..

kd1s: So you too understand that it is security theater and not real security?

It's not security theater; it's



You WILL find the experience enjoyable, regardless of your true feelings!

ronaprhys: It's better to do actual studies than rely on anecdotal evidence.

What would be better than this is to do an actual study to determine if they're more or less effective than what we had prior.

As well as what alternatives are available currently. (ie: dogs).

Terror is the opiate they use to help you not feel the pain while they extract freedoms.

The terrorists are the one who use 'security' as their reason to legislate ways to govern everyone.

Gyrfalcon: ronaprhys: It's better to do actual studies than rely on anecdotal evidence.

Effective compared to what?

There were zero hijackings prior to 9/11, and zero afterward. Which system is more effective?

Huh?
What are you, 12?

Gyrfalcon: ronaprhys: It's better to do actual studies than rely on anecdotal evidence.

What would be better than this is to do an actual study to determine if they're more or less effective than what we had prior.

Effective compared to what?

There were zero hijackings prior to 9/11, and zero afterward. Which system is more effective?

Really? none before 9/11? How old are you?

The first hijacking was by D. B. Cooper -- the great innovator -- in 1971. Thus began the era of hijacking.

Perhaps you meant there were zero hijackings of aircraft that ultimately ended landing face-first into buildings.

Gyrfalcon: ronaprhys: Gyrfalcon: ronaprhys: It's better to do actual studies than rely on anecdotal evidence.

What would be better than this is to do an actual study to determine if they're more or less effective than what we had prior.

Effective compared to what?

There were zero hijackings prior to 9/11, and zero afterward. Which system is more effective?

By effective, I should say that effective would be defined by cost to maintain, intrusion to the passengers, etc. I would also say that it'd be worth it to define whether or not the current system would stop another 9/11-like event.

It won't, so, I guess by your metric it's not effective and can never be.

Of course, I can hijack a plane stark naked. I've created a 100% effective way of getting the cockpit door open, which I've never shared with anyone, and never will. But the TSA can't stop me. So how can we ever be truly safe? We can't. So I guess we better all just stay home and suck our toes.

Dammit, you don't seem to be particularly bright. I don't see anyone making any arguments that would seem supportive of either stepping up TSA's intrusions or just hiding at home.

Hyperiant: [m.static.newsvine.com image 640x640]
207%, by my math.

Did you miss the: "Choose all that apply"?

Friskya: ArkAngel: I'm now greatly intrigued about the 4% of people who find the x-rays and pat downs a "pleasant" experience

Percy Cummings may be able to answer some of your questions.

How did fark miss this one?

pdee: Friskya: ArkAngel: I'm now greatly intrigued about the 4% of people who find the x-rays and pat downs a "pleasant" experience

Percy Cummings may be able to answer some of your questions.

How did fark miss this one?

It didn't. It's "satire."