8 year old frisked at airport?

nksurf

14 years ago

gee what next ?

Thanks

Signature

Thank you

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1627716].message }}

whateverpedia

14 years ago

Get with the program.

Haven't you heard that since 9/11 everyone is a terrorism suspect, guilty until proven innocent.

I wish I could say that the above was written with tongue in cheek, however with a broken heart would be more accurate.

Seven centuries of civilisation going back to the Magna Carta, taken away.

Thanks

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1628018].message }}

JRok

14 years ago

I wonder how security could do this with a straight face. Have good story to tell his elementary school classmates.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1628029].message }}

KimW

14 years ago

Now imagine this scenario.

The good news: You have a job.
The bad news: Its for the TSA.

The good news: You have someone whos name is on the list.
The bad news: Its an 8 year old boy.

The good news: You're smart enough to know he isn't a terrorist.
The bad new: You know you get terminated if you don't frisk him, as rediculous as it is.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1628206].message }}

Michael Motley

14 years ago

but atleast no possible terrorists had their feelings hurt...so its all worth it.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1628278].message }}

seasoned

14 years ago

well a 2 year old on the watchlist is certainly ridiculous. I mean how old could he have been when he was put on? And WHO would have a 2 year old do it. As for 8 year olds? WHO KNOWS!?!? He COULD have had a bomb. Granted. it is a VERY low risk, but they try to hide, and 8 years old IS old enough to have an agenda and follow plans. ALSO, he could go as an "unidentified minor", and not risk anyone else.

Still, the idea of going by names is OBVIOUSLY a BAD one.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1628308].message }}

HeySal

14 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

well a 2 year old on the watchlist is certainly ridiculous. I mean how old could he have been when he was put on? And WHO would have a 2 year old do it. As for 8 year olds? WHO KNOWS!?!? He COULD have had a bomb. Granted. it is a VERY low risk, but they try to hide, and 8 years old IS old enough to have an agenda and follow plans. ALSO, he could go as an "unidentified minor", and not risk anyone else.

Still, the idea of going by names is OBVIOUSLY a BAD one.

Steve

There's some truth here. It is well known to Viet Nam vets. Some had to gun down small children who they couldn't stop from approaching them......because so many were wired to explode by mom, dad or whoever.
I know guys that to this day are still very f***ed up because they had to blow a kid down...then come back and listen to idiots calling them baby killers to add injury over something they were already having nightmares about.

I don't think it's a bad thing to suspect a child of risky people to be suspect. Some people have been brainwashed to believe it's not only okay - but an honor to sacrifice a child for the cause. But to have normal, everyday people having to deal endlessly with this poorly constructed watch list is a joke. It's starting to feel like indoctrination.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1629040].message }}

octobergal

14 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

There's some truth here. It is well known to Viet Nam vets. Some had to gun down small children who they couldn't stop from approaching them......because so many were wired to explode by mom, dad or whoever.
I know guys that to this day are still very f***ed up because they had to blow a kid down...then come back and listen to idiots calling them baby killers to add injury over something they were already having nightmares about.

I don't think it's a bad thing to suspect a child of risky people to be suspect. Some people have been brainwashed to believe it's not only okay - but an honor to sacrifice a child for the cause. But to have normal, everyday people having to deal endlessly with this poorly constructed watch list is a joke. It's starting to feel like indoctrination.

I was going to say the same thing you did in your first paragraph.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1633308].message }}

seasoned

14 years ago

BOY, I said "unidentified minor", and I MEANT "Unaccompanied minor". 8-) Oh well.

There are at least 3 other people in the US with MY name. Luckily, I think they are all respected, and US citizens, but HEY, Mikey Hicks doesn't sound foreign, and he is a cub scout!

I DO wish they would come up with a better way to identify people. Maybe fingerprints or biometrics. Supposedly, biometrics ARE used in casinos to cross reference black lists for counters and cheaters. Names just don't do it.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1629077].message }}

KimW

14 years ago

I would think one would have to agree to providing their biometric information. A lot of invasion of privacy issues with that area of technology.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1629081].message }}

Ken Strong 14 years ago

To top it off, the article says that a number of people have simply legally changed their names, or even just misspell their names when they buy the tickets, and their security problems at the airports disappeared immediately.

If that's all it takes to evade the list, then the whole thing is a total joke anyway.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

The RETURN of OBI:
Learn IM From the Experts Who Are Already Doing It!

"Sammy-approved, baby!" -- Offline Brat Pack
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1629101].message }}
seasoned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

I would think one would have to agree to providing their biometric information. A lot of invasion of privacy issues with that area of technology.

The biometrics I was really thinking of when I mentioned that, that casinos use, is used for FACIAL RECOGNITION. TECHNICALLY, nobody would have to agree, as there is no expectation of privacy. Fingerprints are a different matter.

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1629124].message }}

KimW

14 years ago

Didn't think of that Steve.

Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1629128].message }}

HeySal

14 years ago

Even facial recognition can get hairy if you want to consider the 10s of billions of dollars going into plastic surgery. Once someone is registered as a risk - change the nose, jawline, or cheek bone and they are under the wire.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1629402].message }}

seasoned

14 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Even facial recognition can get hairy if you want to consider the 10s of billions of dollars going into plastic surgery. Once someone is registered as a risk - change the nose, jawline, or cheek bone and they are under the wire.

You're right, of course, Fingerprints can at least be messed with ALSO. But it CAN catch a number of people QUICKLY. Nothing will ever be perfect. The trick is to keep most of the successes while removing almost all the failures.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1629489].message }}

8 year old frisked at airport?

Trending Topics

How do I effectively build and nurture an email list for affiliate marketing purposes?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Are Solo ADs the Most Cost Effective Way to Promote your Product?

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?