OT: Advanced Imaging Technology (TSA new scanners)

[Arraya]

The state department also admitted, later on in a congressional hearing, that they knowingly let the Christmas bomber on. Of course, this came out and was not covered weeks after. The supposed reason was because he was center of a bigger investigation that they did not want to spoil. I guess they got lucky on that one, huh The official reason was because intelligence agencies did not coordinate. That was a lie or just not accurate from initial investigation depending on how you cynical you want to be.

Think about that for a minute. Intelligence allowed a monumental “commercial” for these scanners that benefits companies that are consulted by, employ and pay ex-intelligence. Not a healthy relationship.

[jstoesz]

I think this thing boils down to reasonable suspicion. The current blanket abuse is unacceptable…

Its not that we should be profiling per se…it is that we should be looking for reasonable suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad? Well based on the numbers if this is your only strike, not so reasonable to have suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad Muhammad, are you a 20 something traveling alone, are you flying from yemen on a cash one way ticket, and tend to mutter Allah Akbar when you are in large goups?…Now it is starting to add up to reasonable suspicion. Maybe it would warrant a couple extra questions and a strip search if you are acting particularly shifty.

Conversely are you a 9 year old girl flying from Omaha to st. paul to visit your divorced father…probably not reasonable suspicion.

Cops use this criteria everyday when they pull someone over. Is it to much to ask of the TSA to apply that very same articulate-able criteria?

[jstoesz]

I think this thing boils down to reasonable suspicion. The current blanket abuse is unacceptable…

Its not that we should be profiling per se…it is that we should be looking for reasonable suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad? Well based on the numbers if this is your only strike, not so reasonable to have suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad Muhammad, are you a 20 something traveling alone, are you flying from yemen on a cash one way ticket, and tend to mutter Allah Akbar when you are in large goups?…Now it is starting to add up to reasonable suspicion. Maybe it would warrant a couple extra questions and a strip search if you are acting particularly shifty.

Conversely are you a 9 year old girl flying from Omaha to st. paul to visit your divorced father…probably not reasonable suspicion.

Cops use this criteria everyday when they pull someone over. Is it to much to ask of the TSA to apply that very same articulate-able criteria?

[jstoesz]

I think this thing boils down to reasonable suspicion. The current blanket abuse is unacceptable…

Its not that we should be profiling per se…it is that we should be looking for reasonable suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad? Well based on the numbers if this is your only strike, not so reasonable to have suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad Muhammad, are you a 20 something traveling alone, are you flying from yemen on a cash one way ticket, and tend to mutter Allah Akbar when you are in large goups?…Now it is starting to add up to reasonable suspicion. Maybe it would warrant a couple extra questions and a strip search if you are acting particularly shifty.

Conversely are you a 9 year old girl flying from Omaha to st. paul to visit your divorced father…probably not reasonable suspicion.

Cops use this criteria everyday when they pull someone over. Is it to much to ask of the TSA to apply that very same articulate-able criteria?

[jstoesz]

I think this thing boils down to reasonable suspicion. The current blanket abuse is unacceptable…

Its not that we should be profiling per se…it is that we should be looking for reasonable suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad? Well based on the numbers if this is your only strike, not so reasonable to have suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad Muhammad, are you a 20 something traveling alone, are you flying from yemen on a cash one way ticket, and tend to mutter Allah Akbar when you are in large goups?…Now it is starting to add up to reasonable suspicion. Maybe it would warrant a couple extra questions and a strip search if you are acting particularly shifty.

Conversely are you a 9 year old girl flying from Omaha to st. paul to visit your divorced father…probably not reasonable suspicion.

Cops use this criteria everyday when they pull someone over. Is it to much to ask of the TSA to apply that very same articulate-able criteria?

[jstoesz]

I think this thing boils down to reasonable suspicion. The current blanket abuse is unacceptable…

Its not that we should be profiling per se…it is that we should be looking for reasonable suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad? Well based on the numbers if this is your only strike, not so reasonable to have suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad Muhammad, are you a 20 something traveling alone, are you flying from yemen on a cash one way ticket, and tend to mutter Allah Akbar when you are in large goups?…Now it is starting to add up to reasonable suspicion. Maybe it would warrant a couple extra questions and a strip search if you are acting particularly shifty.

Conversely are you a 9 year old girl flying from Omaha to st. paul to visit your divorced father…probably not reasonable suspicion.

Cops use this criteria everyday when they pull someone over. Is it to much to ask of the TSA to apply that very same articulate-able criteria?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]I think this thing boils down to reasonable suspicion. The current blanket abuse is unacceptable…

Its not that we should be profiling per se…it is that we should be looking for reasonable suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad? Well based on the numbers if this is your only strike, not so reasonable to have suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad Muhammad, are you a 20 something traveling alone, are you flying from yemen on a cash one way ticket, and tend to mutter Allah Akbar when you are in large goups?…Now it is starting to add up to reasonable suspicion. Maybe it would warrant a couple extra questions and a strip search if you are acting particularly shifty.

Conversely are you a 9 year old girl flying from Omaha to st. paul to visit your divorced father…probably not reasonable suspicion.

Cops use this criteria everyday when they pull someone over. Is it to much to ask of the TSA to apply that very same articulate-able criteria?[/quote]

Agreed jstoesz. When I last flew in the summer, I had to book on an airline with bag fees (I usually fly Southwest Airlines). We “carried on” our bags (to avoid fees) erroneously thinking that we could bring larger tube containers of toiletries with the tubes visibly spent down and declare them in plastic bags. Before our departure in SAN, we got pulled into “secondary” and got two baggies of originally marked tubes or small bottles confiscated (about $30 worth with less than 2oz. ea in them). When I whined to the supervisor about how I would have no time to shop at my destination and would be staying in a rural area, I ended up getting them all back, with an admonishment to buy “travel-size tubes” in the future to carry on board (some items are not avail in “travel sizes”).

Of course, I will endeavor to always fly Southwest in the future, where I can check bags for free and pack what I need, regardless of “size.”

It’s just ridiculous how far the TSA will go in enforcing the “liquid or gel” carry-on rule when original mfr containers are clearly marked. And no, I don’t have Muhammad in my name, I didn’t pay cash for my ticket and was not flying one-way. We were just two ladies/girls who needed our “stuff” :={

This is just another strong argument for traveling by road. “Big brother” will not be inspecting your trunk unless you “flunk” the (K-9 aided) US Customs checkpoints on I-8 and I-10 :=(

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]I think this thing boils down to reasonable suspicion. The current blanket abuse is unacceptable…

Its not that we should be profiling per se…it is that we should be looking for reasonable suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad? Well based on the numbers if this is your only strike, not so reasonable to have suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad Muhammad, are you a 20 something traveling alone, are you flying from yemen on a cash one way ticket, and tend to mutter Allah Akbar when you are in large goups?…Now it is starting to add up to reasonable suspicion. Maybe it would warrant a couple extra questions and a strip search if you are acting particularly shifty.

Conversely are you a 9 year old girl flying from Omaha to st. paul to visit your divorced father…probably not reasonable suspicion.

Cops use this criteria everyday when they pull someone over. Is it to much to ask of the TSA to apply that very same articulate-able criteria?[/quote]

Agreed jstoesz. When I last flew in the summer, I had to book on an airline with bag fees (I usually fly Southwest Airlines). We “carried on” our bags (to avoid fees) erroneously thinking that we could bring larger tube containers of toiletries with the tubes visibly spent down and declare them in plastic bags. Before our departure in SAN, we got pulled into “secondary” and got two baggies of originally marked tubes or small bottles confiscated (about $30 worth with less than 2oz. ea in them). When I whined to the supervisor about how I would have no time to shop at my destination and would be staying in a rural area, I ended up getting them all back, with an admonishment to buy “travel-size tubes” in the future to carry on board (some items are not avail in “travel sizes”).

Of course, I will endeavor to always fly Southwest in the future, where I can check bags for free and pack what I need, regardless of “size.”

It’s just ridiculous how far the TSA will go in enforcing the “liquid or gel” carry-on rule when original mfr containers are clearly marked. And no, I don’t have Muhammad in my name, I didn’t pay cash for my ticket and was not flying one-way. We were just two ladies/girls who needed our “stuff” :={

This is just another strong argument for traveling by road. “Big brother” will not be inspecting your trunk unless you “flunk” the (K-9 aided) US Customs checkpoints on I-8 and I-10 :=(

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]I think this thing boils down to reasonable suspicion. The current blanket abuse is unacceptable…

Its not that we should be profiling per se…it is that we should be looking for reasonable suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad? Well based on the numbers if this is your only strike, not so reasonable to have suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad Muhammad, are you a 20 something traveling alone, are you flying from yemen on a cash one way ticket, and tend to mutter Allah Akbar when you are in large goups?…Now it is starting to add up to reasonable suspicion. Maybe it would warrant a couple extra questions and a strip search if you are acting particularly shifty.

Conversely are you a 9 year old girl flying from Omaha to st. paul to visit your divorced father…probably not reasonable suspicion.

Cops use this criteria everyday when they pull someone over. Is it to much to ask of the TSA to apply that very same articulate-able criteria?[/quote]

Agreed jstoesz. When I last flew in the summer, I had to book on an airline with bag fees (I usually fly Southwest Airlines). We “carried on” our bags (to avoid fees) erroneously thinking that we could bring larger tube containers of toiletries with the tubes visibly spent down and declare them in plastic bags. Before our departure in SAN, we got pulled into “secondary” and got two baggies of originally marked tubes or small bottles confiscated (about $30 worth with less than 2oz. ea in them). When I whined to the supervisor about how I would have no time to shop at my destination and would be staying in a rural area, I ended up getting them all back, with an admonishment to buy “travel-size tubes” in the future to carry on board (some items are not avail in “travel sizes”).

Of course, I will endeavor to always fly Southwest in the future, where I can check bags for free and pack what I need, regardless of “size.”

It’s just ridiculous how far the TSA will go in enforcing the “liquid or gel” carry-on rule when original mfr containers are clearly marked. And no, I don’t have Muhammad in my name, I didn’t pay cash for my ticket and was not flying one-way. We were just two ladies/girls who needed our “stuff” :={

This is just another strong argument for traveling by road. “Big brother” will not be inspecting your trunk unless you “flunk” the (K-9 aided) US Customs checkpoints on I-8 and I-10 :=(

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]I think this thing boils down to reasonable suspicion. The current blanket abuse is unacceptable…

Its not that we should be profiling per se…it is that we should be looking for reasonable suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad? Well based on the numbers if this is your only strike, not so reasonable to have suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad Muhammad, are you a 20 something traveling alone, are you flying from yemen on a cash one way ticket, and tend to mutter Allah Akbar when you are in large goups?…Now it is starting to add up to reasonable suspicion. Maybe it would warrant a couple extra questions and a strip search if you are acting particularly shifty.

Conversely are you a 9 year old girl flying from Omaha to st. paul to visit your divorced father…probably not reasonable suspicion.

Cops use this criteria everyday when they pull someone over. Is it to much to ask of the TSA to apply that very same articulate-able criteria?[/quote]

Agreed jstoesz. When I last flew in the summer, I had to book on an airline with bag fees (I usually fly Southwest Airlines). We “carried on” our bags (to avoid fees) erroneously thinking that we could bring larger tube containers of toiletries with the tubes visibly spent down and declare them in plastic bags. Before our departure in SAN, we got pulled into “secondary” and got two baggies of originally marked tubes or small bottles confiscated (about $30 worth with less than 2oz. ea in them). When I whined to the supervisor about how I would have no time to shop at my destination and would be staying in a rural area, I ended up getting them all back, with an admonishment to buy “travel-size tubes” in the future to carry on board (some items are not avail in “travel sizes”).

Of course, I will endeavor to always fly Southwest in the future, where I can check bags for free and pack what I need, regardless of “size.”

It’s just ridiculous how far the TSA will go in enforcing the “liquid or gel” carry-on rule when original mfr containers are clearly marked. And no, I don’t have Muhammad in my name, I didn’t pay cash for my ticket and was not flying one-way. We were just two ladies/girls who needed our “stuff” :={

This is just another strong argument for traveling by road. “Big brother” will not be inspecting your trunk unless you “flunk” the (K-9 aided) US Customs checkpoints on I-8 and I-10 :=(

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]I think this thing boils down to reasonable suspicion. The current blanket abuse is unacceptable…

Its not that we should be profiling per se…it is that we should be looking for reasonable suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad? Well based on the numbers if this is your only strike, not so reasonable to have suspicion.

Is your name Muhammad Muhammad, are you a 20 something traveling alone, are you flying from yemen on a cash one way ticket, and tend to mutter Allah Akbar when you are in large goups?…Now it is starting to add up to reasonable suspicion. Maybe it would warrant a couple extra questions and a strip search if you are acting particularly shifty.

Conversely are you a 9 year old girl flying from Omaha to st. paul to visit your divorced father…probably not reasonable suspicion.

Cops use this criteria everyday when they pull someone over. Is it to much to ask of the TSA to apply that very same articulate-able criteria?[/quote]

Agreed jstoesz. When I last flew in the summer, I had to book on an airline with bag fees (I usually fly Southwest Airlines). We “carried on” our bags (to avoid fees) erroneously thinking that we could bring larger tube containers of toiletries with the tubes visibly spent down and declare them in plastic bags. Before our departure in SAN, we got pulled into “secondary” and got two baggies of originally marked tubes or small bottles confiscated (about $30 worth with less than 2oz. ea in them). When I whined to the supervisor about how I would have no time to shop at my destination and would be staying in a rural area, I ended up getting them all back, with an admonishment to buy “travel-size tubes” in the future to carry on board (some items are not avail in “travel sizes”).

Of course, I will endeavor to always fly Southwest in the future, where I can check bags for free and pack what I need, regardless of “size.”

It’s just ridiculous how far the TSA will go in enforcing the “liquid or gel” carry-on rule when original mfr containers are clearly marked. And no, I don’t have Muhammad in my name, I didn’t pay cash for my ticket and was not flying one-way. We were just two ladies/girls who needed our “stuff” :={

This is just another strong argument for traveling by road. “Big brother” will not be inspecting your trunk unless you “flunk” the (K-9 aided) US Customs checkpoints on I-8 and I-10 :=(

[Anonymous]

[quote=jstoesz]Is your name Muhammad Muhammad, are you a 20 something traveling alone, are you flying from yemen on a cash one way ticket, and tend to mutter Allah Akbar when you are in large goups?…Now it is starting to add up to reasonable suspicion. Maybe it would warrant a couple extra questions and a strip search if you are acting particularly shifty.[/quote]

Some other causes for reasonable suspicion:

– Do you have an Irish surname?

– Are you a veteran?

– Do you collect guns as a hobby?

– Have you been to a agricultural supply distributor in the past few months?

– Do you disagree with many of the government’s policies?

We can never be too safe.

[Anonymous]

[quote=jstoesz]Is your name Muhammad Muhammad, are you a 20 something traveling alone, are you flying from yemen on a cash one way ticket, and tend to mutter Allah Akbar when you are in large goups?…Now it is starting to add up to reasonable suspicion. Maybe it would warrant a couple extra questions and a strip search if you are acting particularly shifty.[/quote]

Some other causes for reasonable suspicion:

– Do you have an Irish surname?

– Are you a veteran?

– Do you collect guns as a hobby?

– Have you been to a agricultural supply distributor in the past few months?

– Do you disagree with many of the government’s policies?

We can never be too safe.

[Anonymous]

[quote=jstoesz]Is your name Muhammad Muhammad, are you a 20 something traveling alone, are you flying from yemen on a cash one way ticket, and tend to mutter Allah Akbar when you are in large goups?…Now it is starting to add up to reasonable suspicion. Maybe it would warrant a couple extra questions and a strip search if you are acting particularly shifty.[/quote]

Some other causes for reasonable suspicion:

– Do you have an Irish surname?

– Are you a veteran?

– Do you collect guns as a hobby?

– Have you been to a agricultural supply distributor in the past few months?

– Do you disagree with many of the government’s policies?

We can never be too safe.

[Anonymous]

[quote=jstoesz]Is your name Muhammad Muhammad, are you a 20 something traveling alone, are you flying from yemen on a cash one way ticket, and tend to mutter Allah Akbar when you are in large goups?…Now it is starting to add up to reasonable suspicion. Maybe it would warrant a couple extra questions and a strip search if you are acting particularly shifty.[/quote]

Some other causes for reasonable suspicion:

– Do you have an Irish surname?

– Are you a veteran?

– Do you collect guns as a hobby?

– Have you been to a agricultural supply distributor in the past few months?

– Do you disagree with many of the government’s policies?

We can never be too safe.

[Author]

Posts