Travel by air, get felt up

[Scooter]

Actually Canadian airports are doing it too, largely because U.S. airports are requiring it of anyone who might end up there.

[Gob]

Ok, it's purely a N American thing then..

Has any of the plane based attacks ever been on a out ward bound, or internal flight?

I

[Andrew D]

I see this causing as much or more delay in lineups as happens now. Just as now we have to wait impatiently behind the idiot in front of us who is searching each of his pockets for change, who hasn't pulled his laptop out of its case, who is riflling through her purse and makeup bag for liquids she hasn't put in a clear resealable plastic bag, etc., so too will those who are going through the naked line have to wait for the guy wearing four layers of clothes to take them off and fold them as neatly in the tray as he would in his dresser drawers at home, for the woman struggling to get out of her pantyhose and girdle, for the woman who stands there arguing with the agent, "You mean I have to take EVERYTHING off to use this line? I can't leave on my bra and panties?" etc., etc.

That could be handled as easily as we routinely handle such situations in lines for all sorts of other things (Post Office, DMV, etc.): "Step to the side over here until you are ready to proceed."

[Andrew D]

None of the issues that you cited have anything to do with giving up our right to privacy in order to obtain some other privilege.

Which makes perfect sense: What I suggest has nothing to do with giving up one's right to privacy either.

You would have a perfect right to retain your privacy by choosing not to use one of the express lines. Except, of course, that the TSA people are going to see you naked no matter which line you choose. But other than that, you will be perfectly free to remain clothed.

If you freely, voluntarily choose to use one of the express lines, then you will, of course, be choosing to give up, for a moment and in particular circumstances, one aspect of your privacy. That is not giving up your right to privacy; that is exercising your right to privacy. One of the options you have as the sovereign authority over your own rights is the option to waive one of them. The fact that your waiver is necessary demonstrates that you have not given up any right at all.,

And you -- unless you are strikingly different from the vast majority of us -- voluntarily choose to give up certain aspects of your privacy, in certain circumstances, all the time. Your checking account number is a private matter: If someone were to broadcast it all over the internet, you would consider your privacy to have been violated. But every time you write someone a check, you waive that privacy. In those circumstances, for a particular purpose.

Likewise, if you voluntarily choose to use one of the express lines, you will be giving up a certain aspect of your privacy in a certain set of circumstances for a certain purpose. No one will be taking anything from you, and you will not be giving up any of your rights.

[Scooter]

That could be handled as easily as we routinely handle such situations in lines for all sorts of other things (Post Office, DMV, etc.): "Step to the side over here until you are ready to proceed."

We don't handle it well now in airport security lines, when I, for example, who always have everything ready to put on the belt and walk right through the metal detector before I approach security have to wait in line behind those who have done nothing to prepare themselves and their possessions and will take forever getting themselves sorted out when they approach the machines. I see no reason why this would be any different.

[Andrew D]

Okay, sometimes there will be an unhappy combination of passenger who does not know what he or she is doing and TSA authorities who do not know how to handle that situation. That will happen in the otherwise fast-moving express lines, and it will happen in the already sluggish social-normer lines.

And that is an objection to creating the express lines? How?

[Scooter]

Because they won't be "express" lanes anymore, if they were ever "express" lanes to begin with. I cannot imagine the circumstances under which the typical traveller will be faster about removing all his/her clothes than they will be at taking their cellphones, keys, change, etc. out of their pockets. You might be the exception to that rule, given your preferred wardrobe. But you will be stuck in that line waiting for everyone else regardless.

[Lord Jim]

My response to your question, (laying aside your usual ad hominims) is that your proposal is silly and unnecessary and not an expense or inconvenience the normal people should have to bear.

Why should the majority of normal, decorum observing people have to pay (either through taxes or increased ticket prices) in order to indulge a handful of exhibitionists who think they're too special to wait in line with everyone else? Why should the normal people have to endure even slower lines to accommodate this? (Which would obviously happen since manpower resources would have to be diverted to deal with this nonsense)

[Scooter]

The unspoken assumption is that this will be faster because few people will take advantage of it. If it is taken up in any significant numbers, there is no way that it will be faster, because there is no way that the typical person will be able to fully undress and arrange their clothes, etc. for inspection faster than the typical person can empty their pockets of change, cell phones, etc.

[Andrew D]

As usual, Lord Jim offers nothing substantive. Instead, he says things of the kind that might earn points in a low-level high-school debate but contribute nothing to the process of thinking about the issues involved.

He blathers about "exhibitionists". But exhibitionism has nothing to do with it. Exhibitionists want people to see them naked. This is about not forcing people who do not care whether people see them naked to wait forever behind people who evidently think that there is something about their genitals that needs hiding.

He drivels about "even slower lines". It should be obvious that creating lines for people who have no reason to hide their genitals means that they will not be ahead of Lord Jim while he is hiding his.

He spews about people's supposedly "hav[ing] to" wait in those nonexistent slower lines. But no one would "have to" do any such thing. They would choose whichever line they want. Apparently, some people's "oh, mommy, someone might see my wee-wee" choice should overrule other people's choices.

He droningly claims that those who make the "genitals icky; bad, bad, bad" choice will somehow be subsidizing those adult enough not to hide from reality. But the lines for grown-ups will move faster than the lines for children, so the net cost will be less.

And if at some point, there is no one waiting in the adult line, the express lane can simply be shifted over to accommodate the people who want to make the rest of us stand in line for hours. That involves all the complexity of disconnecting a theater's admission-line rope from one post and connecting it to another. Even the TSA should be able to handle it.

Speaking of the TSA, let's not forget the underlying fact:

Complete strangers are going to see (or feel) you and your spouse and your children and grandma naked anyway.

You are going to be seen naked. By people you don't know. And probably don't want to know.

But at least if you choose the line for mature people, you won't be running the risk that people all over the internet will see you naked. (Assuming that you care, which is the crux of the problem.)

After you spend hours in line behind people who are desperate to conceal their genitals -- which certainly tells you something about them and may well tell you something about what they think of their own genitals -- not only will some TSA flunky see you naked. He or she might, as Scooter has pointed out, post an image of you naked for the whole world to gawk at.

But if you opt for the line for people not consumed by insecurities, there will be no image of you. You will be seen naked by the TSA people -- just as you will anyway -- and by some people near you. But no one can put their visual impressions up for everyone around the planet to see.

So even if one has some juvenile fear of being seen naked, what is better? Be seen naked by a couple of people and maybe be seen naked by 6 billion other people? Or be seen naked by a few people and not by anyone else?

[Andrew D]

It is true that if people in the express lanes show up dressed as if they were about to show up at work, there would be delays while they disrobe. Gee, no system is perfect. Who'da thunk it?

But as Scooter observes, there are already delays caused by the unprepared. So that's a wash.

And does it really take more time to take one's pants off than to empty one's pockets? I don't think so. One can put one's pants on the conveyor belt without removing anything from the pockets. Unhook your belt, unzip your fly, pull your pants down, and step out of them. That's it. (Whichever line you are in, you will have to remove your shoes, so that's another wash.)

That vs. fishing your keys out of one pocket, burrowing around for your change in another, etc. And then having to go back through the metal detector -- delaying everyone behind you -- because you forgot your spare keys or your lighter or whatever.

Which is really faster?

Anyway, who actually travels like that? Many times -- blessedly, not lately -- I have had to fly someplace where I needed to be in a suit and tie for some function or other. What would possess me to wear that garb during the flight? Besides being uncomfortable, as if the comfort level on most airplanes were not low enough already, I would end up in a badly wrinkled suit (and perhaps in a tie stained with airline "food"). But if I fly in comfortable and convenient clothing, and if I have packed my business attire with at least a modicum of care, I will show up looking sharp in my neatly pressed suit (and stain-free tie).

In short, we haven't seen any real-world downside to this. Unless, of course, one is genitophobic.

Still, it is possible that some downside would emerge if we were to try it. So what? That happens all the time: We try something new, and unpredicted problems pop up. Sometimes they are enough to throw the whole thing overboard; sometimes they require only adjustments.

But what we see here is a refusal even to give it a try. What is that about?

Oh, wait; we all know what it is about. Nakedness. Oh, the horror. Oh, the shame.

[rubato]

Flying north from San Jose to Portland they had full-body scanners. I was told to take off my belt and put -everything- in my pockets into the bin on the conveyor, I put all the small stuff in my shoes and went through the 'put your feet on the marked spaces and raise your hands' routine.


Flying south I was told that putting anything in my shoes was wicked and they could not be put into the fucking machine except by themselves (not in a bin).

Fuck the TSA. Fuck the assholes.

yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

Has any of the plane based attacks ever been on a out ward bound, or internal flight?

All four of the planes hijacked on 9/11/01 were internal US flights.

[Scooter]

It is true that if people in the express lanes show up dressed as if they were about to show up at work, there would be delays while they disrobe...who actually travels like that?

People who are travelling for work. You've never seen people in an airport in suit and tie or the woman's equivalent? They are particularly prevalent on flights at the busiest times of the day.

And does it really take more time to take one's pants off than to empty one's pockets? I don't think so. One can put one's pants on the conveyor belt without removing anything from the pockets. Unhook your belt, unzip your fly, pull your pants down, and step out of them. That's it.

And unbuttton and remove your shirt. And your socks (panty hose if you're a woman). And your underwear (also unhooking and removing a brassiere if you're a woman). That is assuming, of course, that no one is wearing multiple layers of clothing, such as a t-shirt and then a shirt and then a pullover, as they might be in colder weather.

[dgs49]

Wasn't there a move afoot a few years ago to allow people to be certified in some way as OK, so that they wouldn't have to go through the whole rigamarole? Did that ever happen (I don't fly on business anymore). Further to Andrew's program, I wonder if it would be practicable to "suggest" travel attire that would quickly expose what needs to be exposed (in privacy if necessary), in order to speed the process along for those who choose to avail themselves.

The unfortunate thing now (in addition to peoples' general stupidity) is that the airlines are charging for "checked" bags, so people are carrying as much as possible on board the plane, thus slowing the process even more.

The paranoia of much of this thread is disturbing to me. The TSA workers are not the enemy. They have no interest in groping our gonads, and - like a urologist, I suppose - are simply doing something unpleasant for both parties, in order to accomplish a goal that our elected leaders and their appointed administrators have deemed necessary for airline safety.

While I am utterly convinced that a 9/11-type hijacking is no longer a possibility, we DO live in a society where a nutball jihadist could conceivably plan to self-detonate an explosive device on board a commercial airliner with the intention of killing a couple hundred of our countrymen. And it is not inconceivable that such a nutball jihadist might attempt to conceal the explosive device within the cracks and crevices of his or her body. Would we rather take that chance, or do whatever is practicable to minimize it?

I hate flying, but I don't hate the TSA.

[Scooter]

The TSA workers are not the enemy. They have no interest in groping our gonads

I know they don't. That's why I make them do it (rather than using the full body scanner), and insist on making them as uncomfortable as possible while they do it.

Since complaints about the increasing intrusivity of searches from the flying public seem to have fallen on deaf ears, perhaps something will be done about it if we make it so unpleasant for those conducting them that they revolt and refuse to cooperate any further in behaviour that degrades them as well as the passengers.

[Beer Sponge]

I have to agree with Scooter. Next time I fly, I'll be wearing tear-away pants and a speedo, and I'll make sure I'm 'up' for the event! Maybe if enough people make the security staff feel their staff uncomfortable, maybe the policy will be changed. Or not. At least I'll have a good time!

[Andrew D]

It is true that if people in the express lanes show up dressed as if they were about to show up at work, there would be delays while they disrobe...who actually travels like that?

People who are travelling for work. You've never seen people in an airport in suit and tie or the woman's equivalent? They are particularly prevalent on flights at the busiest times of the day.

Of course I have. Many, many times. Hence the rhetorical question.

As I mentioned before, when I have had to travel for work, I have worn sensible clothing for the journey, sensibly packed my work clothes, and arrived at work not with the disheveled look sported by most of those who chose to travel in their work clothes. Others have chosen to piss away everyone else's time going through security and show up for work rumpled.

So who actually travels like that? People who are not very good at thinking ahead.

[Andrew D]

... behaviour that degrades them as well as the passengers.

Which gets right to it. If we passengers would grow up and stop indulging in the puerile delusion that our being seen naked somehow "degrades" us, that would be the end of that.

[Jarlaxle]

I'm anxiously awaiting my trip to NY to visit family later this month. I really need the vacation and I haven't seen them in almost two years, so I'm very grateful I'm going - but I'm dreading flying back out of LaGuardia, as I assume I will have to go through this crap in one fashion or another.

Montana to NY is 2 days by car...beats the hell out of being groped & fondled or photographed nude in preparation to be pushed through a chute into a flying cattle pen!