Do gentlemen pack their bags?

As someone who lives mainly out of a suitcase, this affects me directly. I have been subjected to all sorts of airport experiences, from dismissive waves by cigarette smoking employees in China, who cared more about taking away my lighter than the fact the metal detector beeped when I went through it; to meticulous (and public) manual inspection of the contents of my suitcase by one nigerian soldier, while another had his gun trained at me because, as a gentleman I consider myself to be I protested the intrusion; to altercations with TSA when I refused to answer questions about my profession because it was none of their business as I was travelling on holiday.

This is partly inspired by this

Quote:

---

Sir, I find it intensely humiliating to be asked by airport security staff if I have packed my own bag. This forces one to admit, usually within earshot of others, that I no longer have a manservant to do the chore for me. Gentlemen should be able to answer such questions with a disdainful: "Of course not! Do I look like that sort of person?"

---

This got me to thinking, who really has the right to question who packed your bag? Thankfully our airport Elliot Nesses haven't got as far as to question if we have dressed ourselves in the morning (yet), but I can see a future when a bearded man will be asked if he takes care of his own facial hair as an indication of his intentions.

The issue, of course, is the public's tolerance for the string of humiliations that is airport travel these days. We are told how much to pack (20kg luggage allowance on trans-continental flights is laughable), we are told what not to pack, we are searched regardless of compliance with these rules. Of course, the different political and governmental structures mean that passengers who travel through more than stopover will have to be subjected to the humiliating process more than once.

Moreover, and despite all these discomforts in the name of security, we are not even compensated with a pleasant flight experience: alcohol is rationed, seats are getting smaller even in business class, dress codes are no longer enforced, and an odour code is screaming to be introduced. To top it all off, Ryanair was considering introducing charges for the use of lavatories, which, in my head, translates into a line of men unwilling to pay for such ridiculousness doing their business the way men historically have: against the back wall of the cabin.

I would like to bring some sort of a point in discussion to this rant, and it is the following:
Do Orgahs believe that the travellers' patience with this behaviour is beginning to wear thin? Why have we tolerated this for so long? Does the need to get business travellers travelling again mean some of the restrictions will be lifted?

Is it possible that when the US elected and unelected officials disentangle themselves from the healthcare debate some sensibility will be introduced into travelling regulations?

They ask if you've packed your bag so if they find a bomb in it or something you have less deniability.

I haven't found the safety precautions bothersome.

Bah... I'm with Swordsman.

Every time I need to make a trip to Seattle I know that Bull :daisy: of TSA Agent deeply enjoys attempting to humiliate somewhat successful men. Someone needs to kick her in the cojones she thinks she has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

They ask if you've packed your bag so if they find a bomb in it or something you have less deniability.

I haven't found the safety precautions bothersome.

---

Yea. Although when I fly it's usually to see family so I guess my overwhelming sense of joy overides the carp that is the airport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Bah... I'm with SwordsMaster.

Every time I need to make a trip to Seattle I know that Bull :daisy: of TSA Agent deeply enjoys attempting to humiliate somewhat successful men. Someone needs to kick her in the cojones she thinks she has.

---

Fixed :yes:

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that the people who do the cavity searching, as much as they might enjoy it, are only doing so because there is policy in place that allows them to perform all those things that would be grounds for harassment and assault lawsuits in any other circumstances.

My question is more in the direction of when will the public tolerance for this behaviour become so thin that it forces policy changes?

EDIT: Another related article

Quote:

---

Despite what many young Americans seem to think, aircraft sabotage did not begin with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It has been with us for decades (see a list of them). But through it all, and despite our intoxication with security, we have still not adequately confronted the danger. On the contrary, our obsession with the events of 9/11 has left us vulnerable.

[...]

In any case, and in spite of the Transportation Security Administration's best efforts, there are limitless ways to sneak knives and other dangerous materials past guards; not to mention, a deadly weapon can be fashioned from just about anything, including plenty of materials found on airplanes. (I'll point out that even maximum-security prisons are unable to eliminate knives and contraband.) Yet whether by virtue of incompetence or willful ignorance, TSA continues to waste untold time and untold millions of dollars on a tedious, zero-tolerance fixation with blades and sharps. This does nothing to make us safer, and in fact draws security resources away from worthy pursuits.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

Is it possible that when the US elected and unelected officials disentangle themselves from the healthcare debate some sensibility will be introduced into travelling regulations?

---

With Obama? :laugh4: His administration has only one answer; government and more of it. The theater will continue and expand.

Which is a pity; it's a government intrusion, it's useless, and it divert resources from useful pursuits.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

With Obama? :laugh4: His administration has only one answer; government and more of it. The theater will continue and expand.

Which is a pity; it's a government intrusion, it's useless, and it divert resources from useful pursuits.

CR

---

On the other hand we are now a government generation removed from 9/11, so perhaps the rushed out hysteria that was the Patriot Act can be revised by cooler heads. Even if those heads are pseudo-socialist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

On the other hand we are now a government generation removed from 9/11, so perhaps the rushed out hysteria that was the Patriot Act can be revised by cooler heads. Even if those heads are pseudo-socialist.

---

I wish. But Obama isn't reversing the Patriot Act and pushes for more government power in court cases.

Plus there's the 'Do it for the children!' brigade, the safety worriers, or those who would give up anything just to possibly save one person's life. Any risk is to much for these cretins.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I wish. But Obama isn't reversing the Patriot Act and pushes for more government power in court cases.

Plus there's the 'Do it for the children!' brigade, the safety worriers, or those who would give up anything just to possibly save one person's life. Any risk is to much for these cretins.

CR

---

I thought those were the ones that were being sent to Iraq?! Wasn't that the recruitment strategy?:laugh4:

Sorry, couldn't help myself. :shame:

However, there is another point there somewhere. The 'do it for the children' (from now referred to as the 'diftch') crowd should really be thinking about how all that cash would be better invested in their children: school buses, schools, books, healthcare. No?

Is it possible to get Sarah Palin to push this? I understand she is currently jobless, and perhaps needs a new pants-suit. I'm positive the 'diftch' brigade would be at least split by such a turn of events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

However, there is another point there somewhere. The 'do it for the children' (from now referred to as the 'diftch') crowd should really be thinking about how all that cash would be better invested in their children: school buses, schools, books, healthcare. No?

---

They've no concept of weighing risk - only of hysterical fear at the latest sensationalized risk.

Quote:

---

Is it possible to get Sarah Palin to push this? I understand she is currently jobless, and perhaps needs a new pants-suit. I'm positive the 'diftch' brigade would be at least split by such a turn of events.

---

Heh, likely not flashly (or timely, in terms of current political happenings) for her.

Here's something interesting:
Apparently the TSA, in a bid to get some good press because everyone rightly hates their guts, has started a blog. Here, they respond to an XKCD cartoon that points out the ridiculousness of their existence.

The cartoonist responds in the comments:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hey! I'm the author of that cartoon, and was delighted to see your reply. Thanks!

Certainly, a bottle of water is harmless, but I was actually assuming the water bottle was also an explosive.

Laptop batteries have relatively high energy density. The two batteries I travel with (which I've never had anyone object to, contrary to your stated policy) combine to hold roughly the same energy in a 6-oz bottle of pure nitroglycerine. This energy cannot all be released quite as rapidly, but my friends have made laptop batteries explode with enough violence to, in one test, take the top off a small tree (when nestled in a fork of the trunk).

I understand that practicality plays into the decision of what to ban, and the joke of the comic was mainly how silly it would be to explain to a security guard how you could make a bomb with the expectation that it would have a good outcome. The laptop battery is a borderline case at best.

But I really do think there are some pretty serious problems with our approach to airport security, and that the rules we've come up with are more the result of a desire to do something than out of a practical assessment of what would make us safer. Articles like this one make the point better than I could: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security

I mean, when liquids are confiscated, what happens to them? Are they destroyed with explosives, tested, or just thrown away? If they're just thrown away (or set aside until days later), what's the point of confiscating them at all? The terrorist can just try to sneak some through again the next day, since there are no consequences to failing.

Yet if you don't put on the show, I suppose the airline industry might collapse. I really don't know what the solution is, but I get frustrated dealing with restrictive security procedures whose practical intentions are simply to reassure me.

Here is a thorough essay proving that the TSA and airport security are completely useless;

Quote:

---

“The whole system is designed to catch stupid terrorists,” Schneier told me. A smart terrorist, he says, won’t try to bring a knife aboard a plane, as I had been doing; he’ll make his own, in the airplane bathroom. Schneier told me the recipe: “Get some steel epoxy glue at a hardware store. It comes in two tubes, one with steel dust and then a hardener. You make the mold by folding a piece of cardboard in two, and then you mix the two tubes together. You can use a metal spoon for the handle. It hardens in 15 minutes.”
...
Those knotty, teeming security lines are the most dangerous places in airports: terrorists could paralyze U.S. aviation merely by detonating a bomb at any security checkpoint, all of which are, of course, entirely unsecured.
...
(Later, Schneier would carry two bottles labeled saline solution—24 ounces in total—through security. An officer asked him why he needed two bottles. “Two eyes,” he said. He was allowed to keep the bottles.)
...
To slip through the only check against the no-fly list, the terrorist uses a stolen credit card to buy a ticket under a fake name. “Then you print a fake boarding pass with your real name on it and go to the airport. You give your real ID, and the fake boarding pass with your real name on it, to security. They’re checking the documents against each other. They’re not checking your name against the no-fly list—that was done on the airline’s computers. Once you’re through security, you rip up the fake boarding pass, and use the real boarding pass that has the name from the stolen credit card. Then you board the plane, because they’re not checking your name against your ID at boarding.

---

:wall:

CR

Quote:

---

Here is a thorough essay proving that the TSA and airport security are completely useless;

---

Well, if they weren't before that was published, they definitely are now! :laugh4:

Swordsmaster, I can assure you that in most places, answering "no" to the question about packing only begets another question or two about who did. One can then indicate one's valet standing in line at the economy class check-in.

Unfortunately, this is not the case in the United States, where officialdom has allowed power to go to its head. As I have difficulty avoiding condescension when queried by jobsworths, whilst lacking a concomitant enjoyment of invasive procedures, I no longer travel to that country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CR's article

Those knotty, teeming security lines are the most dangerous places in airports: terrorists could paralyze U.S. aviation merely by detonating a bomb at any security checkpoint, all of which are, of course, entirely unsecured.

---

:yes:
I thought this exact same thing standing in a huge security line at SFO. Easily three hundred people, packed into a back-and-forth tensa-line maze. Reach the middle without any security checks, detonate, and chaos ensues. Are they going to put security checks on the security line? One instance, and the airline industry would cease to be. Security theater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

They ask if you've packed your bag so if they find a bomb in it or something you have less deniability.

I haven't found the safety precautions bothersome.

---

Having to take off my shoes and my belt last time seemed a bit ridiculous to me though. Most people standing in the line weren't too impressed by that "safety measure" (yes, it was not because there was something special about my shoes or so, everyboy had to do it, even those wearing sandals :wall:).

What's next? Travelling naked after a thorough examination by some two meter tall guy wearing rubber gloves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

What's next? Travelling naked after a thorough examination by some two meter tall guy wearing rubber gloves?

---

Just about, yes.

It's about as fun to fly to America as it is to go into a gay SM club darkroom, with the difference that the fondling and humiliation in the latter leaves you some dignity and respect.

And they're nicer. :flowers:

only, at the airport they dont even offer you a drink afterwards...

Quote:

---

Just about, yes.

It's about as fun to fly to America as it is to go into a gay SM club darkroom, with the difference that the fondling and humiliation in the latter leaves you some dignity and respect.

---

Ha! I've never had a bad experience with airport security!

I must be easily recognizable as a true American.

:unitedstates::hippy::elvis::Mr-T::guitarist::afro::mickey::indian_chief::cowboy: :santa: :fireman::policeman::bandana::batman::7gangster: :unitedstates:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Having to take off my shoes and my belt last time seemed a bit ridiculous to me though. Most people standing in the line weren't too impressed by that "safety measure" (yes, it was not because there was something special about my shoes or so, everyboy had to do it, even those wearing sandals :wall:).

What's next? Travelling naked after a thorough examination by some two meter tall guy wearing rubber gloves?

---

Well, it does make one wonder, after one has surrendered his hat, gloves, jacket, belt, and shoes, why in the name of the heavens he bothered to dress in the morning...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Swordsmaster, I can assure you that in most places, answering "no" to the question about packing only begets another question or two about who did. One can then indicate one's valet standing in line at the economy class check-in.

Unfortunately, this is not the case in the United States, where officialdom has allowed power to go to its head. As I have difficulty avoiding condescension when queried by jobsworths, whilst lacking a concomitant enjoyment of invasive procedures, I no longer travel to that country.

---

Being as I am of a similar mind, I avoid travelling to the United States when this decision is left to my own will, and have declined to travel there for more pecuniary matters whenever possible. But alas, a man is not always master of his geographical forays, and I have been obliged by force majeure to travel there on occasion, making myself an unwilling accomplice of a system that mantains such measures in place.

Hence my inquiry about the possibility that perhaps, as an incentive to aid the financial situation, the regents of the bureaucracy will loosen these regulations that the majority of affected travellers seem to agree to consider futile.

As of the suggestions equating the airport experience with the mentioned gentlemen establishments, I must point out that the significant difference between them is that, while one might choose to attend such ludic establishments out of enjoyment for the experiences they provide, one mainly attends airports with the hopes of modifying one's geographic situation. The fact that both experiences are oddly similar suggests rather that something, somewhere has gone terribly and deplorably wrong.

Whenever I get asked this question I always respond as loudly as possible : NO, I LET SOMEONE PACK MY ****.

I find it amusing when they make me take my boots off when I am in military uniform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

With Obama? :laugh4: His administration has only one answer; government and more of it. The theater will continue and expand.

Which is a pity; it's a government intrusion, it's useless, and it divert resources from useful pursuits.

CR

---

Although this particular anti-terror law wasn't introduced by Obama, it appears he will keep it:

Anyone in possession of a computer when going through customs may have their computer siezed and searched and copied or held indefinitely for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Proponents of this rule point out that it has helped nab a terrorist on US soil and a man in possession of child pornography. A few things to point out: the terrorist was already being watched by the feds, so customs had probable cause because they were warned beforehand, and it was likely the guy was going to be arrested that day anyway.

As for the guy in possession of the porn: out of a 1000 random intrusive searches of peoples computers they catch one guy with kiddie porn that he downloaded off the internet. Yay. What a glaring success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Although this particular anti-terror law wasn't introduced by Obama, it appears he will keep it:

Anyone in possession of a computer when going through customs may have their computer siezed and searched and copied or held indefinitely for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Proponents of this rule point out that it has helped nab a terrorist on US soil and a man in possession of child pornography. A few things to point out: the terrorist was already being watched by the feds, so customs had probable cause because they were warned beforehand, and it was likely the guy was going to be arrested that day anyway.

As for the guy in possession of the porn: out of a 1000 random intrusive searches of peoples computers they catch one guy with kiddie porn that he downloaded off the internet. Yay. What a glaring success.

---

I was not aware of this (yet another) possibility for the government to intrude into their citizens' privacy, yet again obfuscated in security considerations. It is brilliant though, our lords and masters can monitor directly the information of the more subversive, perhaps aware, geographically mobile, and more indirectly, through phone tapping, that of the more sedentary.

Perhaps a metal detector in my car will be next? I have always wanted one.

As of the low success rate with child pornography, it is clear that the administration's goal is not efficiency, as the mere existence of TSA seems to prove, but rather to discourage its citizens from travelling to places where they cannot be easily monitored by increasing the displeasure of such travelling.

Ironically, however, if most citizens stop travelling and airlines and manufacturers go out of business, emigration will probably ensue. It may be this is a good thing in the eyes of army recruiters.

If some terrorist wants to blow up a plane; so be it.

We'll save much more by throwing away these ridiculous "security measures" anyway.

Also, what idiot came up with the idea that the pilots should go through security too? I mean.... They have a freakin' axe in the cockpit!

This topic also has reminded me of a David Sedaris quote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Sedaris

"When forced to leave my house for an extended period of time, I take my typewriter with me, and together we endure the wretchedness of passing through the X-ray scanner. The laptops roll merrily down the belt, while I’m instructed to stand aside and open my bag. To me it seems like a normal enough thing to be carrying, but the typewriter’s declining popularity arouses suspicion and I wind up eliciting the sort of reaction one might expect when traveling with a cannon.

‘It’s a typewriter,’ I say. ‘You use it to write angry letters to airport security.’ "
— David Sedaris (Me Talk Pretty One Day)

---

....With which I agree on the grounds that airport security are generally also not generally prepared to deal with anything outside the monotonous mediocrity of their daily experience, an much less so if it involves flexing their 'common sense' muscle.

In 10 years time i would not be surprised if someone passing through with a walkman (a tape-cassette one) was detained while the product was investigated.

Possibly a reaction equivalent to travelling with a wooden chest with copper corners instead of a suitcase.

what we have here is a massive civil liberties intrusion, that, in the larger scope of things, has no more a chance of nabbing the bad guys than old fashioned police work. I really hate to break it to the feds, but the whole no-liquid-on-the-plane rule is a dumb idea that has resulted in god knows how many citizen personal items lost (which becomes airport security gains -- yay, i got free shampoo and toothpaste and nail clippers today!)

The overwhelming aspect of civil liberties infringements do not justify the success rate. The terrorist attacks that have been prevented have been from solid, old fashioned policing....not some gay idea of searching people's boots and laptops randomly. Yay Patriot Act. And no one has the balls to change it, because it only helps the faction in power.