Blogging

[teddywolf]

Last night at a large dinner out I was chatting with a number of people. The lady across the table from me mentioned recently returning from vacation overseas, in Germany. I has started the opening part of some news about cargo not being well-inspected, asking, "You know how the airlines keep losing checked luggage, so people keep bringing carry-ons? You know how we have to get inspected?"

She shuddered. "I had to get inspected on my way back from Germany. The security person grabbed my genitalia."

To sum up what she had to experience, the person grabbed her breasts and her crotch while performing the fairly invasive fully-clothed personal search. When she protested the rough handling she was receiving she was prevented from setting foot on her return flight.
The next day she got a manager at the airline, who went with her and ensured that she wouldn't be treated so roughly. The second time she wasn't. The security people apparently said that this kind of treatment was required for anybody travelling to the USA.

The airline charged her $200 to reschedule her flight but did give her travel vouchers to cover that cost. They mentioned her rough treatment wasn't their fault (well, it actually wasn't) but they had certain restrictions on what they could do.

To top it all off, the airline lost her luggage.

A couple of months ago there was a link from riba_rambles pointing to some imaging technology that would be a fine substitute for a pat-down. The level of detail it shows is a grayscale nude with no color differentiation. Some people have balked at putting in those scanners because they feel they'd be invasive.

So I have a question for the public: which is more invasive, a grayscale medical-quality picture of your nekkid body being looked at by somebody you don't know or having your crotch grabbed in a way you probably won't like by somebody you don't know?

Comments

Re: Liked your horns, peeked at your journal

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

Glad you liked the horns :-)

My journal is mostly locked except for news of public interest or ponderings of public interest. The locked stuff all involves my personal life to lesser or greater degrees.

I consider a lot of the "security measures" currently being used to be dumb. Not all, mind you, just a lot. I will note that if somebody who was a passenger had been allowed on board with a licensed gun with replacement (rubber) bullets (ones with minimal risk of damaging the aircraft) that said passenger may have been able to retake a plane. The only plane that did not hit its target was the one retaken by the law-abiding citizens on board; a lot of the current measures are designed to tie the hands of the law abiding citizens *even further*.

It's an odd dichotomy. I am not a fan of the gun but I do admit it can be useful in certain circumstances.

Re: Liked your horns, peeked at your journal

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

Oh agreed.

I personally feel that if they were truly concerned about security, they could have a permit that citizens could apply (and possibly pay) for. It would not be necessarily easy to get, nor would it exempt people from searches, but it would allow those people with the permits to be able to carry certain items from the verboten list. They can have a national registry for it even.

Would an idea like that ever get approved? *snort* Most Dems hate guns and most GOPpies don't trust the proles they praise for selfless acts of bravery.

Re: Liked your horns, peeked at your journal

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

Bush will keep lying and people will keep dying. Sad but true.