Traveler sues after her joke goes awry

[Scoop 0]

Hold on. sorry RL, I re-read your message. For some reason I was under impression they made off from the vehicle.

That is disgusting. Every human has a duty of care for another. Police or not. If someones had an accident someone should stop and help, I always do! Cant believe the amount of assholes that walk/drive on by in situations like that

[billvon 3,120]

> Principals, adherance to the constitution, rights to privacy are all
> good things, but that is not a plan.

You're right there; that's NOT a plan. It's where we start from. Given the threat, and that the constitution cannot be abridged, and that people have the same rights they ever did etc THEN you formulate the plan. The givens are just where you start from.

>Everyone on flight 93 is dead, and although admirable, I bet you
> mostly all their surviving husbands, wives, mothers or fathers
> wouldn't mind a little bit of intrusiveness to have their loved ones
> back again.

I'm sure the people who lost loved ones to skydiving accidents would like them back, too. But that's a bad reason to outlaw skydiving - or to have whuffos implement "safety rules" to prevent a recurrence. The solution is not worth the cure; fear is a poor replacement for good jugdement and wise rulemaking.

Similarly, if we have to give up our liberties to reduce the odds that a hijacking will happen again - we lose. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security - as someone more famous than me once said.

>The flight 93 model you referred to is not a plan, nor a strategy.

No, merely a deterrent - but a very strong one. A hijacker who knows his plan will fail is much less likely to attempt it.

>By the time that model comes into play, it's already too late.
>Proactive security is necessary.

I agree there too. We've made some good progress in that direction - better sniffers, better X-ray equipment, better screening procedures. And all that can be done without bending the constitution or the protections we have of our civil liberties.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Agreed to the first part Bill. You'd only need a battery actually to produce the hydrogen necessary to cause a small explosion.

But can't agree with the principals you laid out. Principals, adherance to the constitution, rights to privacy are all good things, but that is not a plan. Neither is relying on the good deeds of the passenger. Everyone on flight 93 is dead, and although admirable, I bet you mostly all their surviving husbands, wives, mothers or fathers wouldn't mind a little bit of intrusiveness to have their loved ones back again.

The flight 93 model you referred to is not a plan, nor a strategy. By the time that model comes into play, it's already too late. Proactive security is necessary.

How to implement that is the question.

Kindly explain how flour filled condoms are a threat to aviation safety.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Scoop 0]

I think your missing the point. They identified a potential offense, they dealt with it. Who gives a fuck who they were working for?

[kallend 2,151]

So you have not ever seen a zirconia/aluminum thermite mixture.

If you had, you would know it does not look, feel or smell anything like flour. Yet another red herring argument.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[LuvToFly 0]

John,

Never implied that either condoms nor flour was dangerous to aviation. We all agree on that. What is not clearly understood is how the screening process should be run to afford civil liberties while agressively pursuing security.

The point of the argument is that no one knows what is contained until it's analyzed. And if analysis is faulty or takes three weeks, then shame on us. I'll be the first in line to say that must change. But a biological agent could easily exist in powdered form and with that, you could at least kill everyone on a plane.

I like Bill's thoughts about better use of technology here - sniffers, etc. But working with what we have at the moment, I'm not sure there is any other way to do things than to carry a healthly suspicion.

"The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment
of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

John,

Never implied that either condoms nor flour was dangerous to aviation. We all agree on that. What is not clearly understood is how the screening process should be run to afford civil liberties while agressively pursuing security.

The point of the argument is that no one knows what is contained until it's analyzed. And if analysis is faulty or takes three weeks, then shame on us. I'll be the first in line to say that must change. But a biological agent could easily exist in powdered form and with that, you could at least kill everyone on a plane.

I like Bill's thoughts about better use of technology here - sniffers, etc. But working with what we have at the moment, I'm not sure there is any other way to do things than to carry a healthly suspicion.

Why is the container so important here? Where is the rule that says flour may be transported in paper bags but not in condoms?

Can't you (plural) see that these adminstrations' "wars" (drugs, terror...) are just excuses to remove civil liberties that are supposed to be Constitutionally protected.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Quote

White powder is carried in every can of talc, in most women's make-up kits and many men carry talc too.

Of course! That's where you should expect to find white powder in airline bags.

Not many people other than drug mules carry white powder in condoms, however.

My understanding is that drug mules swallow the condoms rather than carrying them in their suitcases.

But let's nip this in the bud, shall we?

I found a website for Scrunchy Balls that specifies the recommended fillers for same. In no particular order: cous cous, rice, flour, oatmeal, cornstarch, puffed millet, beans, birdseed and ooblick. The website lists pros and cons for each choice.

What's a Scrunchy Ball?

Oh, you poor soul. The Scrunchy Ball, or the more vulgar "stress ball" is a relatively recent invention. It's a rubber coated ball that gives when you squeeze it. It makes relaxed people smile, gives nervous people something to fiddle with, and gives psychotics an excuse for spasmodically clenching and unclenching their hands.

They may originally have been created out of necessity or maybe out of boredom. I’ve heard claims that they help with carpal tunnel syndrome and other stress disorders. I’ve heard that they work to strengthen rock climbers' hands. I used them to strengthen my hands for guitar. I don’t know if they worked. I don’t even know for sure that they don’t cause problems. All I know is that they are fun to squeeze and even more fun to make.

I discovered, upon the disintegration of my one and only commercially purchased ball, that it was not made of strange space-alien material but was, in fact, balloons and rice. I was thrilled and spent the next 6 months experimenting with various designs and processes. This is the product of my research.

Some people, at a place I used to work, told me I should call them "Squishy Balls". This is because the popular oatmeal filled balls are more "squishy" than "scrunchy". I'm sticking to my guns for name identification purposes. And anyway, I don't work there anymore.

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[Scoop 0]

Most people I know that have anything like that use the softer grade of squash balls. My brother did this very form of rehabilitation after he severed the muscles in his wrist. If they had told him to have used condoms filled with flour wed have told them to piss off!

[billvon 3,120]

>Paired with an embedded timed or radio-controlled detonator a bag
>containing white powder of this type does not present “zero threat” . . .

Now you're getting silly. A box of talcum powder could contain explosives. A can of Pepsi could contain nitroglycerine or ANFO. If you think seeing any of these things in someone's checked bag is sufficient to have them arrested - even if there is a spurious positive test for drug residue on them - then we're simply not on the same page.

>Even with “expert” analysis you probably cannot tell what sort of
>code is on a CD if a skilled person encodes the material.

Expert analysts can (and have) determined just that. But a neophyte at such an analysis could not. A good decision, then, would be to NOT arrest people based on a neophyte's analysis of a CD. Another good decision would be for the TSA to leave drug enforcement to the experts.

>Moreover not all contraband is an immediate security threat to a
> screener or passengers, although ultimately illicit drugs may kill
> these people if they are addicts which is one reason we have drugs laws.

That is exactly right! Which is why we have the DEA and the TSA, and why they have different jobs/areas of competence.

>I’d bet that Al Queda is able to engineer a CD which conceals a blade . . .

That's a good note to end on. If you are seriously offering that as an example - we're not talking about the same things.

[yamtx73 0]

Quote

Quote

By your reasoning I suppose DEA should automatically release any engineering student who was detected transporting a dummy explosive vest with wires protruding out of it through a US border crossing where the initial screening indicated that traces of explosive residue were on the vest because security isn’t DEA’s raison d etre. Some of us would prefer to have the authorities check her out even if this meant lawfully detaining her for a reasonable period of time pending investigation and ultimately the vest had been constructed as a frosh engineering dorm joke in self-parody fashion.

Quote

These are the exact same people that think the government should spy on its citizens without warrant.

Not true in at least one person's case.

Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

Explosive vests, real or fake, are security risks and are exactly what TSA is supposed to detect. Flour filled condoms are not a security risk nor are they even a simulated security risk.

Very poor analogy, Senator.

Since when did the TSA become the DEA?

Open your eyes and read what he said. In his example the DEA finds the wired vest (NO explosives) as the engineering student is attempting to cross the border. Since when did the TSA start inspecting people's bags when they cross the border. If this was at an airport then yes, they would be involved.
You keep crying that the TSA should have ignored the condoms simply because they aren't involved in drug enforcement yet fail to see the same correlation between that and the DEA (or Border Patrol) finding the vest.
Until the contents of the condoms was confirmed to be flour the TSA did what they were supposed to do when faced with an unknown substance, and my statement that it could have been anthrax instead of drugs stands.

The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers...

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Can't you (plural) see that these adminstrations' "wars" (drugs, terror...) are just excuses to remove civil liberties that are supposed to be Constitutionally protected.

John, the problem we're discussing in this post predates 9/11 by decades.

If you want to discuss the issue, fine. If you want to make it an example of a broader issue, that's fine too, as long as you pick the broader issue it's an example of.

You're beginning to sound like the man whose only tool is a hammer.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

What's a Scrunchy Ball?

I bought a condom scrunchy ball, but got rid of it because it felt like masturbating in public.

. . =(_8^(1)

[LuvToFly 0]

Quote

Why is the container so important here? Where is the rule that says flour may be transported in paper bags but not in condoms?

You are absolutely right, it shouldn't matter. But the mere association with suspicion is enough to trigger an investigation. It's not equitable, but it's the way it currently is. The question, again, is what specific plan should supercede this to afford the kind of security we want while finding that balance between civil liberty and cooperating with screen practices?

Quote

Can't you (plural) see that these adminstrations' "wars" (drugs, terror...) are just excuses to remove civil liberties that are supposed to be Constitutionally protected.

I just can't see this in the same seemingly paranoid way you continue to express this. I'm concerned about government spying, but in truth I am more concerned about terrorist mindsets. My government may be a major screw up in areas, and even poke it's nose where it doesn't belong from time to time, but none of that can be compared with a people that have sworn their hatred and destruction of the United States and it's people

No country wanting to be truly free is ever free from some imposition on it's citizens. How much and what kind can be argued. But to believe that security practices should be akin to mind-reading so as not to infringe is not realistic. And as long as that is true, some innocent citizens will be detained. It's not a perfect science, and never will be because those who live for our destruction will continue to try to find loopholes where we do not have best practice in place for security in a given area of our lives.

As I said originally, it's a hell of a thing to try to do and find that balance. But to do nothing, to have no policies in place is not the answer either.

"The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment
of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky

[Scoop 0]

Dont forget your country is what it is today from years of bullying and beating up on people weaker than them. You need to put your foot down from time to time and make examples of people, it stops uprisings

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Dont forget your country is what it is today from years of bullying and beating up on people weaker than them. You need to put your foot down from time to time and make examples of people, it stops uprisings

This is the funniest thing I've ever read on this forum.

I'm sorry, Scoop. It's not your fault.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[Scoop 0]

Haha, good. I am aware of the irony. I use the term 'your country' meaning, most developed countries, my own included

EDIT: Ive been made aware of another irony. How funny!

[yamtx73 0]

Quote

Dont forget your country is what it is today from years of bullying and beating up on people weaker than them. You need to put your foot down from time to time and make examples of people, it stops uprisings

Good one Scoop... almost missed as I was busy putting on my jack boots.

The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers...

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

So you have not ever seen a zirconia/aluminum thermite mixture. If you had, you would know it does not look, feel or smell anything like flour. Yet another red herring argument.

I never mentioned thermite because it isn’t processed for concealment of its properties since the end user couldn’t care less about that aspect of the mixture. Whereas one can imagine a terrorist organization combining milled aluminum and zirconium into a powder with other compounds in a final form which could resemble flour or another common product and ignite explosively. However because this mixture could resemble illegal drugs the TSA would be compelled to ignore it according to your line of thinking and I’m not willing to follow you there.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

even if there is a spurious positive test for drug residue on them

Ah yes if only the TSA possessed the ability to immediately discern spurious positive tests from actual positives we wouldn’t be having this discussion, well perhaps Kallend would, because the incident never would have happened.

Quote

we're not talking about the same things

That’s become evident, your choice.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[Lindsey 0]

Scoop is very right. There are well over 20 drugs and their derivatives, which are "whiteish" in nature and found in powder form. Whether it's heroin, cocaine, refined crystal meth nobody knows until it's tested. And by testing I do not mean "tasting" That's a television thing. NO law enforcement officer is going to ruin their career/life by ingesting any amount of drug to jail a criminal. Officers at road checks for drunk drivers don't take swigs out of bottles to test the contents. LEOs are NOT trained to taste the product. For the most part, you cannot tell from the taste, it's the effects. The airport security personnel(nor the police) are going to taste a potentially lethal chemical compound. Her joke was in piss-poor taste. As for there being no law against transporting flour in condoms,, whether it's in a suitcase or your rectum, I'm sure there's no law against having a sillouette of a handgun cut out of aluminum foil and placed in a magazine in your backpack. It's just stupid!! Try saying "Hi" to your friend Jack at the airport.

Hmm. Well, I guess I shouldn't be able to transport a plant (of any sort, you name it) to my mother then either. I mean, It's green and leafy, and these security folks may have never seen a plant that has abusable characteristics to know the difference by looking. They're not very well trained if they're looking for drugs and can't do any better than that. Sounds like Barney Fife to me.

And, if she had a silhouette of a handgun in aluminum foil, then I doubt she would have been kept in jail for 3 weeks.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

Until the contents of the condoms was confirmed to be flour the TSA did what they were supposed to do when faced with an unknown substance, and my statement that it could have been anthrax instead of drugs stands.

Uh, Wrong.

The TSA's mission statement is: "The Transportation Security Administration protects the Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce."

TSA's job is not to identify all objects passing through check points but to identify specific prohibited items. If they can't ID an item as prohibited, they are outside of their jurisdiction in passing unidentified objects on to local law enforcement. That is a violation of 4th amendment rights.

To Quote Justice White in Katz vs. United States
"The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth."

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[yamtx73 0]

Quote

Condoms filled with powder are not a threat to airline travel. Why is the TSA acting as a surrogate for the DEA anyway?

Condoms filled with powder are not a threat to airline travel? How quickly we forget our physics.
Three condoms filled with any powder is a threat to airline travel.
As you sit there scratching your head and try to find a way to argue this take a moment and read the following.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question150.htm
There is enough powder in 3 condoms to create a bomb (even if it's talcum) by filling the air in any airliner bathroom and lighting a match causing an explosion large enough to disable the aircraft.
Whether this was the girls intention is irrelevant, she was in fact carrying the components of a bomb in her bag.

The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers...

[Samurai136 0]

Wrong. It is not possible to achieve correct, consistent particle density. The air is being constantly recirculated.

Nice try though.

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[yamtx73 0]

Quote

Wrong. It is not possible to achieve correct, consistent particle density. The air is being constantly recirculated.

Nice try though.

With the size of your typical airline bathroom there would be more than enough flour in the 3 condoms to get the required 1-2 grams/cubic meter particulate density even with the air being recirculated.

The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers...