Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

TSAFollow

#1 Sep 05 2013 at 8:22 AM Rating: Good
****
6,758 posts
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/travel/tsa-shoes-jackets-allowed/index.html?hpt=hp_c2]Would you pay for less restrictive security?

While I'm sure we're all in agreement that the TSA procedures for security both suck, and many of them border on the retarded, I'm torn on this one. I'm certainly willing to pay an app fee of $85 to not deal with as much B.S. as I currently do, but the question that gives me pause is should I have to?

FTA
Quote:
"As TSA continues to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to transportation security, we are looking for more opportunities to provide the most effective security in the most efficient way possible," TSA Administrator John Pistole said in the news release announcing the expansion.



That quote stuck out for me, as I believe that they should be trying to make their processes more effective, and streamline them to be less intrusive for the traveller. The one-size fits all approach hasn't worked so far. It seems like there isn't a month that goes by that I don't end up hearing about some wheelchair bound invalid getting a full body cavity search or some toddler being permanently traumatized by being strip-searched by a shady looking TSA rep (ok, exaggerations but you get my meaning).

Will you sign up for the service?
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#2 Sep 05 2013 at 8:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Probably not. I fly infrequently and never found the security to be particularly onerous.

But if it gets other people out of my line, hey I'm all for it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Sep 05 2013 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
I wouldn't for a $5 app, but $85? Not only that, but it's not like it's going to move the line any faster since other people people won't be paying for it either. And the question remaining is would it be for the whole family or is it $85 per person?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Sep 05 2013 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
It seems inequitable - pay for privilege. this is a government program not a for profit corporation.

Regardless, I'd not likely pay for the service. I rarely fly anymore and when i do, it's usually flying out of little old Portland airport which doesn't see the crowds that other metro airports do. I've never had any delaying issues with security there.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#5 Sep 05 2013 at 8:52 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Elinda wrote:
It seems inequitable - pay for privilege. this is a government program not a for profit corporation.


That's where I'm at.

I'm also not sure I understand the logic here. I feel like there's a disconnect between the existence of this system, and the existence of the security systems it allows you to bypass. I've been under the impression that the wide scale screening methods were specifically meant to address the threats we couldn't predict ahead of time.

I'm not sure I see why a background check alone would be sufficient to let people through. If we think we're comfortable with our ability to predict homegrown threats on a per-application basis, then there must be a better way to do this. If we aren't, then the system of letting applicants with clear checks bypass some of the screening procedures is odd.

Plus, anyone is open to extortion if you get enough leverage. I feel like it's always been an attempt to balance what is feasible with that we deemed necessary for security.

I've never agreed with the scope of the measures, but I'm far less comfortable with them if the TSA is going to be selling indulgences. At least before they were making life miserable for everyone, more equitably.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#6 Sep 05 2013 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
Elinda wrote:
I've never had any delaying issues with security there.
My twelve year old travel bag sets off the scanners every single time, but I'm not about to chuck it for a new bag. The sand in Iraq has trace amounts of a couple of the compounds used in explosives, so keep that in mind should you travel there.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#7 Sep 05 2013 at 8:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The $85 isn't profit though, it's to pay for the additional and expedited services. For instance they mention fingerprinting (and running it against their database) which isn't a charge the TSA incurs for standard airport security checks.

The system is essentially the same as toll roads -- you pay an extra charge to directly support the faster means of travel you're using. Everyone else is welcome to use the broadly funded standard route at no additional charge.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Sep 05 2013 at 9:00 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I've never had any delaying issues with security there.
My twelve year old travel bag sets off the scanners every single time, but I'm not about to chuck it for a new bag. The sand in Iraq has trace amounts of a couple of the compounds used in explosives, so keep that in mind should you travel there.


Wait, there's not an alternate path through screening for the armed forces? That actually surprises me. I mean, I know the article above only mentioned customs officials, but it just seems so odd to me.

Or do you get some of the screening procedures waived, and this just sets off the normal metal detectors or something?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#9 Sep 05 2013 at 9:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,399 posts
Basically you pay them $85 and they make sure you aren't a terrorist before you board?

Well I'm torn. I'd rather save the $85 if it's just for me, not that big of a deal. For the family though I might invest if I knew I was going to be traveling. Those $85 could potentially make things a lot smoother on the kids (and in turn on us because no one is having a fun trip when the whelplings are wound up).
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#10 Sep 05 2013 at 9:07 AM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Wait, there's not an alternate path through screening for the armed forces?
I get the fee waived for baggage, and can sometimes cut line to the scanner through the VIP or whatever line, but overall it's roughly the same and more asskissery. And that's for regular (relatively speaking regular, anyway) travel. Even for deployments when you're with a thousand other soldiers you still gotta get through the scanners, so it isn't too different.

Think of it this way: If someone were to take over the plane, giving special treatment to certain people makes them a bigger target. We're advised to blend in as best as possible when traveling, in fact.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#11 Sep 05 2013 at 9:22 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The $85 isn't profit though, it's to pay for the additional and expedited services. For instance they mention fingerprinting (and running it against their database) which isn't a charge the TSA incurs for standard airport security checks.

The system is essentially the same as toll roads -- you pay an extra charge to directly support the faster means of travel you're using. Everyone else is welcome to use the broadly funded standard route at no additional charge.
But everyone who uses the road has to pay the same amount. You can expedite that with things like easy pass - put that doesn't cost the user more (less in many cases).

If the government is going to implement a program, tax payers dollars pay for it. If a third party wants to set up some system to help expedite travelers, cool, but the government saying 'we can make this faster' for those who have the means to pay is really not what equality is all about.

If finger-printing will expedite travel - give everyone the option and pay for it with the same tax dollars that pay for the program.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#12 Sep 05 2013 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Hmmm, I suppose that makes sense. Are you prohibited from wearing your uniform?

One of the educational programs we put on has a big draw from the armed forces (specifically the Armed Forces, but a fair number of Army too). Generally drug and addiction counselors, sometimes chaplains, coming for credits in PTSD and substance use education.

I just realized that even though the airmen were apparently required to be in their blues during program hours, none of them were for the first day (when they arrived). I get that civilian clothes are more comfortable for traveling, but I'm curious if that requirement is waived because they actually couldn't travel in their uniforms.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#13 Sep 05 2013 at 9:28 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I've never had any delaying issues with security there.
My twelve year old travel bag sets off the scanners every single time, but I'm not about to chuck it for a new bag. The sand in Iraq has trace amounts of a couple of the compounds used in explosives, so keep that in mind should you travel there.
Trace amounts of common lawn chemicals will get picked up by them wiper thingies (ammonia and nitrogen compounds mostly) and get you pulled from the line as well.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#14 Sep 05 2013 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
You know, the FBI charges $50 to get fingerprinted. NYPD charges $127.

I don't really get it. Isn't it in their best interest of them to have my prints on file? You'd think they'd be making it as cheap as possible.

I mean, most people are getting fingerprinted because they have to, not because they want to. And most of the reasons I can think of don't really exclude them from being potential violent criminals.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#15 Sep 05 2013 at 9:37 AM Rating: Excellent
I payed to be a part of the nexus program which lets me skip lines and essentially skip customs. It completely makes sense from a business traveler point of view.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#16 Sep 05 2013 at 9:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The $85 isn't profit though, it's to pay for the additional and expedited services. For instance they mention fingerprinting (and running it against their database) which isn't a charge the TSA incurs for standard airport security checks.

The system is essentially the same as toll roads -- you pay an extra charge to directly support the faster means of travel you're using. Everyone else is welcome to use the broadly funded standard route at no additional charge.
But everyone who uses the road has to pay the same amount. You can expedite that with things like easy pass - put that doesn't cost the user more (less in many cases).

You want to go from Point A to Point B. You can either pay an additional fee to take a tollway or you can take the standard roads with stoplights and all that. The more expensive way takes you less time because it's expedited. The "free" route takes you more time but doesn't cost anything out of pocket. The additional tollway fee goes directly towards maintaining the tollroad and isn't a profit generating scheme, it's just a way to focus the "tax" directly into the infrastructure it supports.

Quote:
If the government is going to implement a program, tax payers dollars pay for it.

There's about a bajillion fee, levy and other direct-payment programs in the US which go beyond being funded by broad income taxes. You're paying directly for your passport. You pay an airline security fee in your ticket price. Programs like the TSA one simply allow you to decide if the additional fee is worth what it provides. If they didn't make it voluntary they wouldn't use broad tax funding, they would just jack up everyone's ticket fee another twenty bucks.

There's also the question of whether or not everyone would want to be fingerprinted, etc in order to fly. If you agree to it, you get rewarded (as such, since you're paying) with expedited passage through security. If you're worried that the TSA will use your fingerprints to throw you into FEMA prison camps for voting Republican, then you still get to fly but it takes longer to clear you.

Edited, Sep 5th 2013 10:41am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Sep 05 2013 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I get that civilian clothes are more comfortable for traveling, but I'm curious if that requirement is waived because they actually couldn't travel in their uniforms.
Well, the regulation is that unless it's part of a unit movement (teehee!) that you're authorized to wear civilian clothes so if you want you can wear your uniform. Certain countries requires civilian clothes so there you can't wear the uniform. Furthermore, there's a yearly online class we have to take about travel which goes at lengths about blending in, which hotel room to accept, to change hotel rooms once you get there anyway, how to get from the hotel to your destination, etc etc, and a lot of it is about not being a target. The reason I go with civilian clothes, and I'm willing to bet others do as well, is because I simply don't like the attention it draws. I go to work, lunch, and home in civies and change in the locker room to my uniform. It makes people act kind of weird around you.

Edited, Sep 5th 2013 11:42am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Sep 05 2013 at 9:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
The reason I go with civilian clothes, and I'm willing to bet others do as well, is because I simply don't like the attention it draws. I go to work, lunch, and home in civies and change in the locker room to my uniform. It makes people act kind of weird around you.

Interesting. I see enough people in uniform (esp. Navy but maybe I just notice the white more) that I assumed it was standard practice. Of course I wouldn't notice the military folk in civilian clothing to make a comparison.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Sep 05 2013 at 9:50 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The $85 isn't profit though, it's to pay for the additional and expedited services. For instance they mention fingerprinting (and running it against their database) which isn't a charge the TSA incurs for standard airport security checks.

The system is essentially the same as toll roads -- you pay an extra charge to directly support the faster means of travel you're using. Everyone else is welcome to use the broadly funded standard route at no additional charge.
But everyone who uses the road has to pay the same amount. You can expedite that with things like easy pass - put that doesn't cost the user more (less in many cases).

You want to go from Point A to Point B. You can either pay an additional fee to take a tollway or you can take the standard roads with stoplights and all that. The more expensive way takes you less time because it's expedited. The "free" route takes you more time but doesn't cost anything out of pocket. The additional tollway fee goes directly towards maintaining the tollroad and isn't a profit generating scheme, it's just a way to focus the "tax" directly into the infrastructure it supports.

Quote:
If the government is going to implement a program, tax payers dollars pay for it.

There's about a bajillion fee, levy and other direct-payment programs in the US which go beyond being funded by broad income taxes. You're paying directly for your passport. You pay an airline security fee in your ticket price. Programs like the TSA one simply allow you to decide if the additional fee is worth what it provides. If they didn't make it voluntary, they would just jack up everyone's ticket fee another twenty bucks.

There's also the question of whether or not everyone would want to be fingerprinted, etc in order to fly. If you agree to it, you get rewarded (as such, since you're paying) with expedited passage through security. If you're worried that the TSA will use your fingerprints to throw you into FEMA prison camps for voting Republican, then you still get to fly but it takes longer to clear you.
I guess people don't need to fly - they can take the totally unsecure train.

I've never really thought about toll roads as being optional. Of course for many routes there are alternates but there are some places around here you just can't get to with a street vehicle without taking the turnpike...or detouring through Canada. Also our toll road is only quasi governmental - the other quasi piece being privately held. Also Also, I'm no big fan of tolls, they're probably one of the most regressive means of governmental money-grabbing that goes on.

85 bucks is enough to price the 'service' right out of range for some people that may need to fly.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#20 Sep 05 2013 at 9:51 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,342 posts
Rapid City is HQ for the state National Guard and a stone's throw from Ellsworth AFB so there are uniforms everywhere. If people react at all, it's usually positive.

But then, I live in God's Country, not some heathen east-coast den of vice. [:halo:]
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#21 Sep 05 2013 at 9:53 AM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Interesting. I see enough people in uniform (esp. Navy but maybe I just notice the white more) that I assumed it was standard practice. Of course I wouldn't notice the military folk in civilian clothing to make a comparison.
Yeah, I notice them as well, and from what I've gathered (As in the few I've asked; Not word of Regulation God or adequate sample size or anything) they're usually just either getting out of their bootcamp and going back home or duty station, or they're going back to complete their training. Usually around Christmas you'll see a ton of uniformed guys wandering around airports.
Friar Bijou wrote:
If people react at all, it's usually positive.
Maybe they like it? I kind of like being able to sit down at a diner and eat a meal without twenty people coming up to thank me for my sacrifice. I'm appreciative and all, but **** it I'm hungry too.

Edited, Sep 5th 2013 11:57am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#22 Sep 05 2013 at 10:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
I've never really thought about toll roads as being optional. Of course for many routes there are alternates but there are some places around here you just can't get to with a street vehicle without taking the turnpike...or detouring through Canada.

For purposes of my example, assume both points are accessible either way. Like how they do it in civilized lands.
Quote:
85 bucks is enough to price the 'service' right out of range for some people that may need to fly.

Fortunately they don't need to use it to fly.
lolgaxe wrote:
Maybe they like it? I kind of like being able to sit down at a diner and eat a meal without twenty people coming up to thank me for my sacrifice. I'm appreciative and all, but **** it I'm hungry too.

Babes, man.

Edited, Sep 5th 2013 11:03am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Sep 05 2013 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Fortunately they don't need to use it to fly.
This is exactly the point. The guy that can dish out $85.00 doesn't need it to fly either. He's paying - the government, for privilege.

Like I said, it a perfectly valid service - I just don't think it's one the government should be selling. I'm sure there are companies that would be willing to jump through hoops, for a price, in order to ease the security hassles for the public traveler.






Edited, Sep 5th 2013 6:12pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#24 Sep 05 2013 at 10:11 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I kind of like being able to sit down at a diner and eat a meal without twenty people coming up to thank me for my sacrifice.
Better than getting spit on.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#25 Sep 05 2013 at 10:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,399 posts
Elinda wrote:
They're paying - the government, for privilege.
I pay for the privilege of driving. You don't need a car or a drivers license to use the road, but it's sure faster than a bike.

Well most days at least... Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#26 Sep 05 2013 at 10:14 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I get that civilian clothes are more comfortable for traveling, but I'm curious if that requirement is waived because they actually couldn't travel in their uniforms.
Well, the regulation is that unless it's part of a unit movement (teehee!) that you're authorized to wear civilian clothes so if you want you can wear your uniform. Certain countries requires civilian clothes so there you can't wear the uniform. Furthermore, there's a yearly online class we have to take about travel which goes at lengths about blending in, which hotel room to accept, to change hotel rooms once you get there anyway, how to get from the hotel to your destination, etc etc, and a lot of it is about not being a target. The reason I go with civilian clothes, and I'm willing to bet others do as well, is because I simply don't like the attention it draws. I go to work, lunch, and home in civies and change in the locker room to my uniform. It makes people act kind of weird around you.

Edited, Sep 5th 2013 11:42am by lolgaxe


Based purely on how much loathing I have for anyone who talks to me while on line at the grocery store, I'm not surprised.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)