November 23rd, 2010
12:06 PM ET

TSA complaints: Warranted outrage? Or all bark, no bite?

In recent weeks there has been growing vocal anger regarding the Transportation Security Administration's procedures relating to pat downs and the use of full-body scanners. But amid all of the noise, what are the real complaints, and how much of the outrage is simply that - a growing chorus of bandwagon anger.

There certainly has been no shortage of horror stories - a shirtless boy receiving a pat down,  a flier had to show her prosthetic breast, a bladder cancer survivor whose urine bag broke during a pat down - and countless other stories of uncomfortable encounters with the TSA.

The coverage of the isolated incidents being reported raises the question of whether they paint a picture that isn't the reality for the vast majority of travelers.

The concerns: Fact vs. fiction

Polls have found a majority of Americans support the scans, though they aren't as supportive of the TSA pat downs.

A CBS News survey showed 81 percent of people polled approve of the use of full-body X-ray machines. A Washington Post/ABC News survey found 64 percent of people supported the use of the machines, while 32 percent were opposed. When it comes to the use of pat downs, respondents were practically split down the middle.  However, 37 percent of all Americans said they "feel strongly" that the pat downs are overly intrusive. Still 70 percent of Americans questioned in the Washington Post/ABC News poll said the new TSA rules made no difference in their decision to fly.

Our partners at Time.com, who are taking a look at the TSA procedures, report that the head of the agency John Pistole has said the outcry has partially been fueled by media-fed misperceptions.  He said that only a “very small percentage” of the 34 million Americans who have flown since the new procedures took effect have been subjected to the pat downs.

Politico: Go ahead, touch my junk

The TSA even released a list of "myths and facts" about pat downs and other security measures.

No doubt passengers still have some concerns. What about their 4th amendment rights? Are the scanners safe? Do they even work? Can they actually stop terror attacks? How far is too far when it comes to a pat down? What are the medical implications of the procedures? And who exactly should be getting the pat downs?

For some, it’s a question of  pat down or blown up?

BusinessInsider.com: Sorry, Folks, We'd Rather Be Body-Scanned Than Blown Up In Mid-Air

"It wouldn't be a total oversimplification to boil the issue down to a single question: would you rather get screened or blown up," Time.com's Sora Song wrote. "The new TSA whole-body scanning machines are designed to catch potentially deadly threats — like, say, explosive chemicals in underwear — that metal detectors miss. The end result should be a safer flight. It's a no-brainer."

For all those complaining about the security check hassles, CNN contributor Bob Greene asks, would you rather have no security at all?

"You can walk into any airport, with or without a ticket, and wander unimpeded right up to a boarding gate. You don't have to surreptitiously slip past a security checkpoint, because there are no security checkpoints, " he said. ""If you are carrying a loaded gun in your pocket or underneath your jacket, no one will know. In fact, if you do have a valid ticket, there will be nothing to prevent you from boarding a flight while armed to the teeth with concealed weaponry."

"Would you feel safe? Would you want to live in such a country?," he adds.

"You did, if you were a citizen of the United States before the 1970s."

Why all the hoopla?

The firestorm has only grown as close-up photos of the pat downs grace newspaper and website front pages, while the mockery has only grown on late night talk shows, "Saturday Night Live" and YouTube.

And let's not leave the press out of it. Howard Kurtz, writing for the Daily Beast, agrees in part with Pistole that the media are certainly part of the blame.

"From network newscasts to local TV, from newspaper front pages to a blur of web headlines, it seems untold numbers of women are having their breasts touched and untold numbers of men are feeling the intrusive hands of government guards near their packages," he writes. "Actually, that’s far from true."

And when it comes down to it, Kurtz said, part of the media attention is due to how easy the story is to tell - and that it has all the makings of the perfect press story.

"The narrative combines a number of elements: Hassled airline passengers (who can’t relate to that?); terrorism concerns; invasion of privacy, and a hint of sexual naughtiness," he said. "But the key here is that every local news outlet in America could send a reporter or a crew to a nearby airport and grab a piece of the action."

Then there's the whole "National Opt-Out Day" issue. It could either, as some organizations suggest, delay flights or completely fizzle out. As Time.com points out, it might just turn into a "More Like Opting Out Of Making Your Flight" scenario?

In reality, we ask: Will this idea turn out to be of "Get Betty White on 'SNL'" Facebook campaign success? Or will people who have likely paid a chunk of money to go visit their families take the time to engage in an act of civil disobedience and disrupt air travel?
Perhaps, it's just (pun-intended) all up in the air for now.
soundoff (1,704 Responses)
  1. Jestor

    Geez, grow up people. I've had to undergo screening for over 5 years because of hip replacements. I always set the alarm off. I plan for the extra time. No big deal. If you don't set the alarm off, no special screening. I'd much rather have the image screening than the pat down but I must say when TSA has done the pat down they have been very respectful of me and offered a private screening if I prefer. This is a lot of hoopla over nothing. I'd rather the screening than any possibility that someone could "slip through."

    November 23, 2010 at 1:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Thomas

      Because as soon as we start profiling for middle easterners the terrorists will recruit people not from the middle east.

      See how vunerable racial profiling is? Hard to implement, easy to bypass.

      November 23, 2010 at 1:44 pm | Report abuse |
  2. RogerB

    Smile... We now have a picture and possibly a DNA sample on you...
    they scare you and you give up all you have.... Wake up!

    November 23, 2010 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Mary

    My major concern with this new regime of safety measures is not about the here and now of traveling this week, but rather of the future over the next 2-5 years. Currently not everyone who goes through screening will have to make the decision between X-rays and pat downs but if TSA has their way in the next 5 years they will. Currently only a small percentage of people who are selected for the scanners opt out but if/when it is the only choice I think that there will be a much higher percentage. I think most pregnant women, children, cancer survivors and elderly will elect not to go through them. In addition, many of the disabled will not be able to or may have a medical condition that will cause them to be selected for pat downs. My mother had a stroke 5 years ago which has left her with little function on the left side of her body. She already has an issue when going through airport security and regularly receives additional screening. I am sure she can not put her hands above her head to be scanned by the X-ray meaning that someday she will have to have the pat down every time she flies. That is my concern and I feel that if we do not take a stand now, we will lose our voice in the future.

    November 23, 2010 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Craig Landrum

    Airport security is completely unnecessary. The TSA chief cites the cases of the sneaker bomb and the underwear bomb. but neither were found by the TSA. In both cases, the passengers themselves easily detected that one of their fellow passengers was acting strangely and took immediate action – they either restrained the guy or beat the crap out him. That is why – security or not – there will never be another successful hijacking of a US Airliner – the passengers themselves know that if they do not stop the person, they will either be blown up or die flying into a building. So – beat the crap out of the terrorist or die. Easy decision. My recommendation would be to abolish the TSA and return to simple metal detector screenings and common sense. By now, all potential terrorists are completely aware of the full body scanners and pat downs, so will stash any explosives in their body cavities where the scanners and pat-downs will miss them. That leaves it up to the passengers, where the only positive results have been since 9/11.

    November 23, 2010 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Thomas

      Yes, none of them were found by TSA. That's the whole idea behind the changes in security. So that these will be found by TSA.

      November 23, 2010 at 1:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • mel

      Honestly that is one of the worst explanations that I have ever heard! haha laughable

      November 23, 2010 at 1:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tim

      @Thomas. I'm sorry Thomas but you don't see the point. The terrorists are MUCH smarter than the TSA. They have god on their side, unlimited resources and time. No minimum wage high school dropout led by career politicians will ever even catch up to that. If there is another hijacking it will be accomplished with very simplistic means. The last ones were a number of guys with box cutters. I believe that you'll see more damage done with cargo planes dropping out of the sky. We barely look at those.

      November 23, 2010 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • Brad Mason

      Craig, I do want to point out a common mistake in people's arguments against the TSA. And that is, the underwear bomber and shoe bomber were not screened by U.S. authorities/the TSA. They departed from international airports in Paris, France and Amsterdam, The Netherlands on flights INTO the U.S..

      November 23, 2010 at 1:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sean

      I agree. The issue that I see is that these measures are always chasing yesterday's news. Several months ago, a woman who was the representative from TSA and the company manufacturing the back matter scanners admitted that the scanners had seen zero success in finding explosives or other threatening items on people, but had been successful in finding other items, such as mairjuana, secreted on passengers. Are these scanners about safety or control? I personally could care less if a vacationing traveler wanted to take along some cannabis for personal consumption while on vacation. I feel so much safer knowing that the TSA is keeping those people from our planes, meanwhile cargo is only checked on a randon basis. These procedures seem to be serving a different purpose than that which was sold to us. I personally don't allow paranoia to effect my day to day life, whether I am traveling or not.

      November 23, 2010 at 1:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • n0gard13

      @Thomas: it's clear that the easy way to get your terrorist weapons on a plane is to put them in your butt (yes, hide them in body cavities, like prisoners do). There is no pat down on Earth that will find them there. That's why a terrorist could easily choose the pat downs and bring his destruction on YOUR flight.

      Airplanes were safe prior to 9/11 and the only reason 9/11 terrorists succeeded was because passengers were passive. Passengers aren't passively going to sit by and watch a person/group try to take over a plane anymore so the TSA is useless.

      November 23, 2010 at 1:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Specter

      You should be the first to fight the Chechen terrorist that makes it on with a gun...no security at airports? Just flat out stupid.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      Not required? Are you serious... this is lame. These techniques are common Law enforcement techniques supported by a lot of case history. It's time for people to remember we live in a different age – there is a real threat of terrorism. It's simply never going to be comfortable for us again so long as there are deranged animals out there who wish death on every westerner. I'm fine with whatever they need to do to keep this country and all of the innocent people terrorists would love to kill safe.

      However, as an LE officer, disregard for regulation or utmost professionalism by any member of TSA should not be tolerated. I've been there and if one of them is out of line, then they should be fired and/or punished if it is determined to make sense.

      I am beside myself with all of these complaints of privacy. At the end of the day, someone could blow up an airplane – do you want that? Then get over yourself.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Phinius

      "but neither were found by the TSA."

      But Chertoff said the Rapiscan machines would have!! With that he tried (and succeeded) in
      getting his client OSI's machines bought and installed.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tbone

      I have to say Craig, you are a complete and utter fool. I'd be willing to bet you dont fly.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • richphitzwell

      If you really want to encourage them to pat you down, start to moan loudly and as they start to work their way down say something "oh yes, touch my junk touch it hard". Feel free to make up your own sentence.

      Also, put your hand on their head when they are down there, they really like that.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Specter

      Your a dumbahss Craig

      November 23, 2010 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Pierre Lyons

      I'm Canadian and simply won't be visiting the US anymore after being given a hard time after requesting a pat down over a body scan in Baltimore. It's not worth my dignity.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • mobrule

      the headline is right, this whole thing has been way overblown by the media, a usual. there are a handful of whiney people getting a lot of attention. thanks for dropping the ball yet again, media.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • attorney

      right on point. we are always a step behind the terrorists, trying to catch up. the next bomb will be inside someone's body. will we then require full body xrays to board a plane? and what if the terrorist just blows himself up before he gets to the scanners? the only solution is to adopt the Israelis' methods of profiling (not racially based, based on people's behavior) and have armed marshal's on evey flight.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bobby Gekas

      If we are willing to give up freedom for security, we deserve neither – Ben Franklin. The TSA talent pool is not even close to small town police. The huge costs of this useless bureaucracy could be diverted into hunting down terrorists and killing them. If the US government can't do this, perhaps we can subcontract with the Mossad...And the non-PC reminder for last – ALL 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia; perhaps we can screen all Saudis – diplomats and friends of the Bush's included, and stop treating all our citizens like criminals...

      November 23, 2010 at 2:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • jim

      Physical Exams by a doctor get a lot more personal than a pat down.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Benny

      kiss my dik

      November 23, 2010 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Justin

      Box cutters = Not going to happen again. The doors to the cabin are actually reinforced and you can't break in. Here's my question. What stops a bomber, underwear or suicide vest, from walking into an airport right now and blowing himself up in the security checkpoint right in front of a scanner and the TSA with their hands up someone else's -? Nothing. A plane as a missile is a powerful WMD, but that will never happen again as the doors to the cabin are locked. A person blowing up a plane kills 200 people. You could easily kill that many in a security checkpoint line, so why would they even try to get on the plane? Hell, with a suitcase bomb you could probably kill 300 people waiting like cows to walk through this revolutionary device.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • bob

      As a consultant this woman is as dumb as a brick.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • smc

      "the sneaker bomb and the underwear bomb. but neither were found by the TSA.". – BECAUSE THEY DID NOT BOARD IN THE UNITED STATES.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • stephen douglas

      Does anyone think that MAYBE the reason no weapons have been found in recent years is BECAUSE we do perform adequate searches and screening?

      If anything, what should be done is what they do in Israel, where they PROFILE people getting onto aircraft so they do not waste time patting down and screening politicians, law enforcement personnel, government officials, old ladies, five year olds, etc.

      Imagine the time saved if we just used common sense!

      As for any group who complains they are being targeted (cannot imagine who that may be, but I have not heard of Jews, Christians, Hindis, Wickins, or Boy Scouts flying airplanes into buildings) all I can say is that if you cannot get your group under control, we have to continue the security measures and you are at the top of the list.

      Note, we should still randomly screen other passengers, but there are groups that should be profiled.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • locdvegan

      couldn't have said it better myself @Jack...i'm going thru the darn machine, getting pat-down if they feel it's neccesary and then praying that the air plane doesn't fall out of the sky...

      November 23, 2010 at 2:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • Keith

      Why hold up the line when you can hold up your finger!

      http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Give-TSA-the-Bird/119764788087228

      November 23, 2010 at 2:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Steve

      Too bad the airlines can't run separate planes for people to fly on who want to do security your way – by not doing any and leaving it to the passengers to save themselves. I'd like to see if YOU were willing to travel on that kind of flight.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Becky

      What happened to "Give me liberty or give me death"? Only a fool could think the TSA is outwitting terrorists with their knee-jerk reactions. Hopefully the technology to weave undetectable explosives into fabric has not been discovered else we would be required to fly naked. Sadly, the terrorist have already won: Our freedom has been infringed upon and our privacy has been invaded. I, for one, do not believe we should quiver in fear with our feeble attempts to avert their actions by stomping on our own freedoms. As a frequent flyer, I personally would rather do away with intrusive security measures and risk a terror attack. Profiling is a much better option, and for the record, I would not be offended if I was profiled in another country with a dominant population that looks different than I do. On a more serious note, perhaps the new pat down/scanner regulations could be incorporated into Obamacare. I've seen many TSA agent don latex gloves...why not go ahead and get your annual procto or pap smear, breast exam and chest x-ray while going through airport security?

      November 23, 2010 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      Hey Craig, awsome idea, I wish I'd thought of that. Without security we coulds all bring guns on board for self protection. Then when some terrorist or even an old fashioned psycho stands up on the plane with a gun we can all pull out our weapons and blast him. How cool would that be, a shoot out in a confined preasurized space at 36,000. I'll bet the terrorist (or old fashioned psycho as the case may be) wouldn't stand a chance.

      November 23, 2010 at 4:05 pm | Report abuse |
  5. A2

    I hope this doesn't screw up my plans to bring wed with me when I fly... Cause how harmful is weed on a plane anyways??

    November 23, 2010 at 1:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • johncc

      You have to be able to consistently spell weed to carry it.

      November 23, 2010 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tim

      LOL, I had a coworker in the 80's get caught by the metal detector as he carried his weed in a nice silver cigarette case. The then TSA said he'd have to confiscate it. My buddy said the hell you will, you can confiscate one, and a deal was struck.

      November 23, 2010 at 1:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Richard

      Just tape your stash under your sack.

      November 23, 2010 at 1:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Phinius

      Fly to Turkey and let us know!

      November 23, 2010 at 2:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • tony

      we flew last year and my wife stuffed a quarter ounce in her bra where the padding goes. no problems at all.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • steve

      @Tim the TSA didnt exist until 2001

      November 23, 2010 at 2:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • mslman71

      Yes, it's a nice bonus that these procedures can be used to make us safe (with which I disagree) but can also be used as a general law enforcement technique that has nothing to do with flight safety. Convenient. (ignoring the stupidity of knowingly entering into the situation in the first place)

      November 23, 2010 at 2:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sarah

      I'm pretty sure that confiscating people's weed is the ONLY reason for the naked machines. A determined terrorist would easily find a way to take any weapon he/she wants right through scanners and/or pat-downs, but someone who just wants to take their weed may not be so keen on hiding it in a body cavity. Let's just legalize and get our 4th amendment rights back in the process!

      November 23, 2010 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • truthinrock

      Duuuude, two freakin sentences and you can't bother to check your spelling? lol

      November 23, 2010 at 5:13 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Zippy

    Aren't you people advocating the new procedures making a big deal out of nothing? This policy has been in place for something like three weeks. Presumably many of the people saying they don't want to get on a jet without this policy have flown since 9/11. I would expect some of you have flown dozens or even hundreds of times feeling perfectly safe. But now that TSA has devised this new rule many people appear to be absolutely terrified of flying with people who have not been subjected to a computerized strip search or an invasive physical search. Seems like the TSA is making many people more afraid.

    November 23, 2010 at 1:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • ShatteredDrift

      Rule by fear is the most effective rule of all.

      9/11 happened without slipping anything through security. And even if the box cutters hadn't been used, they could have simply grabbed a hostage and threatened to snap their neck if the crew and passengers didn't obey... this new technology and pat down technique can only hope to stop something like a chemical bomb strapped to someone's body... if they're that determined to blow themselves up, nothing will stop them from shoving the explosive in an orifice... this does nothing but impede travel and freedom

      November 23, 2010 at 4:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • truthinrock

      You got it. Fear is what they want you to feel. Remember WMD's....

      November 23, 2010 at 5:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sickofthiswhining

      ShatteredDrift – you obviously don't fly. Those box cutters would not have made it through security today. Those rules didn't come into play until after. So much for reasoning.

      November 23, 2010 at 8:01 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Lindsay

    OVERBLOWN

    November 23, 2010 at 1:44 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Nick

    People who complain, don't fly. Those of us who want the peace of mind provided by the extra security will continue to fly.

    November 23, 2010 at 1:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • jim

      If you're soooooo afraid of getting attacked, don't fly!

      November 23, 2010 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • TheWall

      People who are afraid of the one-in-a-million chance of being involved in a terrorist incident, don't fly. People who understand that life entails risk and therefore willing to accept the risk that comes from living (and are smart enough to understand that *THEY* - not the government and certainly not the TSA - are the best, most effective line of defense against a terrorist threat will continue to fly.

      See how easy that was?

      November 23, 2010 at 1:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • Richard

      That's right Nascar Nick. They hate our freedom. Love it or leave it. Turn up the Kobe Teeth music and let the Miller High Life flow. All you people complaining are anti-american and gay and that makes me mad as hell, huh, huh.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ken

      Hey Jim – just for the record – how many people in the trade denter towers and the pentagon were flying? Just curious

      November 23, 2010 at 2:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • mslman71

      Why is it my responsibility to assuage your fears and spare you the burden of having to actually do a reasonable risk analysis? I have to pay for it, I have to endure it, and in the end it has little effect on the overall safety of flight. So, basically, I have to go another route because you need to feel better. No thanks. If you are so afraid and perceive yourself as so important as to be the likely subject of a terror attack, then why don't you take another mode of transportation?

      November 23, 2010 at 2:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • ratkartz

      If you don't want to buy mandatory health insurance in the US, don't breathe.

      November 23, 2010 at 4:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • maggie

      And while they are at it, they shouldn't go to courthouses, government buildings, nightclubs and soon, even the local train station. Just lock yourself in your house and save us all the grief.

      November 23, 2010 at 7:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Zippy

      Dude, did you fly before Nov 1? If so then you got on an airplane without these rules and were just as safe (or unsafe) as you would be getting on a plane today. This is no different than banning nail clippers. It's just a placebo meant to pacify people and make them feel like "something important" is being done.

      November 23, 2010 at 7:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sickofthiswhining

      Ken – guess what? If the trade center were still standing, you'd have to go through hell just to get in it. Try getting into the Pentagon today - not happenin dude - not without the very processes and screenings you detest.

      November 23, 2010 at 7:44 pm | Report abuse |
  9. kevinbgood

    For every one real news article, CNN produces 10 rewrites, designed specifically to generate comments and return clicks – (mostly by making outrageous claims) all to justify what they charge for advertisement.

    November 23, 2010 at 1:45 pm | Report abuse |
  10. jeez

    TSA employees in my mind are glorified rent a cops and thats the problem. Armed to the teeth with walkie talkies and flashlights, seems they would put up a better fight against skateboarders, mall rats, and graffiti artists than having to make an intelligent decision on who to screen and for what reason. This machinery is not only dangerous and ineffective but way past a rent a cops i.q. curve.

    November 23, 2010 at 1:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sickofthiswhining

      I agree. They don't strike me as the most educated population as group and they probably don't make much money for the effort. They also put up with a lot of S_ _ t from passengers in an 8 hour shift, are also subject to an ever changing set of rules and intelligence gathering and have to implement new processes without the time or ability to get much training. They then get the privilege of patting down the new Obese America for a grand prize.

      November 23, 2010 at 7:46 pm | Report abuse |
  11. jeff peo

    I take at least 3 flights a week. I have yet to be patted down. I have not gone through the new scanners during this time. I'm not sure what the hype is. I have flown out of SLC, DTW, CMH, MCO, ORD, SNA and other airports in the last 2 weeks, and havent even seen this happening.

    November 23, 2010 at 1:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Zippy

      Well, as long as your Rights haven't been violated, I guess it's okay.

      November 23, 2010 at 7:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • maggie

      The thing is, you have it right. I have yet to go through an assaultive pat down in the 102 times I've flown this past year in and out of Washington DC, one of the most sensitive placees on the planet. I've been asked to go through "the machine" maybe 3 times in total.

      November 23, 2010 at 7:23 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Gene

    People are right to be outraged. The reason these intrusive policies are necessary in the first place is due to *US ACTIONS* all over the world. This is an example of blowback. US's long history terrorist activity and resource stealing has made it very unpopular around the world and now US citizens, who have no control over this rampaging government then have to pay the consequences. This is an obvious example of US cultural and political decline.

    November 23, 2010 at 1:45 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Eric

    The unfortunate thing is in this situation is that the TSA, who are just trying to make the convenient and fastest form of travel safe to all as well as give peace of mind to other passengers, is that they face fire on both sides.

    Travelers are protesting that these measures of security are intrusive and a violation of privacy and that they should not be used. YET, if another attack mid-air occurred, who do these people point fingers at first? TSA.

    True, I do believe that these methods are indeed invasive, but I agree that they are the best form of security that the TSA can provide NOW. They are developing new and more privacy-conscious methods but until then, we cannot just say "No!" to Airport security.

    And to all those who think that they will just go to the Airports and try to make a point by clogging up the security check-points this holiday season, grow up. You have the choice to abide by the TSA's standards and fly or not. Do not hinder others flight plans.

    November 23, 2010 at 1:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Thomas

      Good well thought out post.

      Why you wasted it on a CNN forum, I don't know. But I appreciate you posting it.

      November 23, 2010 at 1:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joe

      Yeah Civil Disobedience is childish, don't you realize people are trying to eat at this diner you're having a sit-in at?

      November 23, 2010 at 2:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • TheWall

      No, actually I *won't* point the finger at TSA first. I'll point the finger at Al Qaeda, or Hezbolla, or whoever it was who carried out the terrorist activity.

      However, I, for one, will not voluntarily submit to be molested and nudie-scanned by a federal rent-a-cop, in flagrant violation of the 4th Amendment (which real, bonafide American heroes died obtain), all in the name of "protecting" me from the terrorist boogeyman. "Land of the free and home of the brave?" Not anymore. We've become a nation of sniveling cowards, and you're leading the charge.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Eric

      Now, I am not against protesting. From what I have heard and read though is that people want to attempt to hinder other travelers; ones that are ok with these security measures. If you want to protest, fine. Do not hinder others. That is all that I ask. God forbid if you make me miss my flight this holiday season because you want to show what you believe in, I'll return the favor 3 fold. Good day.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Phinius

      right on Eric. goodpost.

      To "thewall" (that you Archie Bunker?) Bet you had no problem with the Patriot acts.
      Turn off talk radio and think for yourself for a change.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • mslman71

      " YET, if another attack mid-air occurred, who do these people point fingers at first? TSA."

      Strawman argument. It is the postulate for the remainder of your post and therefore the remainder of your post is convenient speculation, not fact.

      We accept risk every day in our lives, much greater risk than a terrorist attack, and the same overall risk that would exist with or without these procedures.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Richard

      TheWall is dead on. Fortunately I think more and more people are catching on that the government and their news agencies want the people to live in perpetual fear because it keeps them under control and makes them good little consumers. How many Americans have been killed by terrorists versus how many Americans are locked up in a concrete cell for putting Marijuana in their own bodies?

      November 23, 2010 at 2:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Eric

      We accept risk, yes. When dealing with Public Transportation, one needs to abide by Public Safety. Sorry. Flying is not a right that one has. It is a privilege you pay a company for. You accept their policies and such when you buy that ticket.

      The choice is still yours to fly or not.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • mslman71

      Then by your definition everything we do is a privilege if it involves commerce. I was unaware that all of commerce and individual liberties were things that given to us, rather than intrinsic to us. Freedom to walk down the street? Notsomuch, you bought those shoes, those clothes. Freedom to take your car? Oh no, that's a privilege too. You purchased your house, right? Therefore, being a privilege, you should allow for periodic random searching without warrants by law enforcement agencies. etc.... etc.... etc...

      November 23, 2010 at 2:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Eric

      Let us stay on topic here.

      My main point was that TSA is in a bad spot no matter what.
      >Everything is going well: LESS SECURITY!
      >Something goes wrong: WHERE WAS THE SECURITY?

      What ever, I shall nap this off. Good day CNN forums.

      November 23, 2010 at 2:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sickofthiswhining

      Well said. I'm sorry however that practical thinking has not been part of the greater discussion on this blog of whining.

      November 23, 2010 at 7:48 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Robert

    I am old enough to remember no scanners, no security, and you could get on an airplane like you get on a bus. Yup, run out to the runway and pay the stewardess ($25 LAX to PHX). DB Cooper ruined it for folks and we have been knee jerking ever since.

    November 23, 2010 at 1:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jody

      Amen!

      November 23, 2010 at 2:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Toomuchinfo

      Who is DB Cooper?

      November 23, 2010 at 4:14 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Natasha

    People can vote with their credit cards. If they don't like the current procedures, they should reduce their use of commercial flights. A 20% reduction of passengers overall will get the attention of the airlines and their lobbyists.

    November 23, 2010 at 1:46 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54