If you want them to search further... into your colon. ;) well, maybe not ;) more like :o then :confused: then :eek: then :mad:

though for felix im sure it would be like this

:confused: :eek: :) :p :D ;) :cool:


(jooookkeee!!)

I've been "randomly" searched twice, and one day at every security checkpoint.

I typically wear blue jeans or khakis, a button up shirt, and a black overcoat. I got pulled while boarding being the only man in a line of about 20 women.

Once I got searched and had my bags checked because I had 2 hard drives in hot swap trays in my carry on bag along with my laptop (lots of metal made them want to check I'm guessing)

The full day one was due to the computerized random tagging of me for the day, every boarding pass I got that day was printed with something in the corner to wand/search me at checkpoints.

That's why I'll hop on my pirate ship whenever I want to travel overseas.

They just have a computer system that decides Terrorist or Not Terrorist. Really bad way of alienating the public.

why not hop on mine and photek's boat? :p

wow, alternative energy: geek-powered sailing. :D

errm last time i checked he was making me paddle no sails.....and if we were geeks why would there be hot models on the ship?

I have been too; and when I asked one of the security folks why I merited this close attention, she asked if I'd changed my reservation that day. I had -- I'd moved from a mid-afternoon flight to an 8PM flight when it was clear I wasn't going to finish my business in the morning and couldn't make the first one.

Changing flight plans on the day of departure will get you a specially marked boarding pass every time, and you'll be taken aside after passing through the metal detector for a bomb check, and scanned (and carryon dug into) at every checkpoint thereafter. If you have to change flights along the way, this will be repeated at every airport. I've never understood the logic of this, but then there really is very little rationale to any of it.

hot models? dude, those are life-preservers (at least, I can't think what else you'd do with inflatable women on a boat...)

eh, I was on list at one point (couldn't fly anywhere for about a year without getting special attention, though they never took me back to the 'special' room). then somehow I got off it; who knows why. it's our modern system of government - they purposely obscure things so that you can't tell whether they're actually being evil or just being stupid.

You give govt way too much credit.... they are not evil, just stupid (too big, too cumbersome, too under qualified).

As an ACLU attorney once explained to me, "Government has the inherent right to do stupid things, as long as they are equally stupid toward all." Govt tries hard to do this.

i believe mr photek has some explaining to do :rolleyes: to us, and to mrs photek

I concur our government is so big that they in return have become very inept at certain things. Airport security does not make it safer, just an illusion. If someone were so inclined to do anything at an airport these days, they would just bypass the security bottle necks and get in the Airport an alternative way.

Why even bother going through security if you are up to no good?

Same applies to corporate security, only more so. Does anyone think that an under paid rent-a-cop with no gun is going to stop somebody bent on killing?

Making anything foolproof requires a lot of imagination; not fools.

The purpose of this law is to bypass problems when they have a suspect. A terrorist, for example, can demand all sorts of rights and this is to close up that ability. The border checks are so busy, only the most suspicious are taken aside for further questioning. If a terrorist knows that you now have the legal authority to check your electronic devices, that is a deterrent for using them to be part of a coordinated attack. In 911, average people were using electronic devices as a form of defense. It could also work the other way.

I'm not excusing this law as being right or good. However, I can understand the reasoning behind it.

tlarkin - For the first time last night, I saw a GOOD media report on US security (border, airport, and import cargo) on Dateline. The problem is not poor and inept security. The problem is an inept media that likes to make it appear so. Having been through the best security procedures (getting on an El Al flight) and the worst (LAX), I will agree they are very knee-jerk (still removing shoes and taking our water) and need to bring everything down to thumb prints and rapid background checks. But I would not call them inept. They really do stop a lot of crap coming in to the country. We just never see the "good calls" that happen day after day after day. Just the one dumb slipup every 6 months or so.

So you're saying, Schneb, that the purpose of this law is to bypass due process?

No, it is to prevent abuse of it.

I can't. There is no way to stop information from entering or leaving the country, and it has nothing to do with the safety of a flight, so there is no justification.

I agree with CWT. I can't see how this is an important avenue of information into the USA and it treads too close to freedom of speech and/or censorship if that's its intent. Further, I think you're on shaky ground "preventing the abuse of due process". It's very inconvenient for police to have to get a search warrant to enter your home -- are you abusing due process when you insist on it?

Edited adder: I use Eudora for email (still), and must leave it running at home to avoid overfilling my account limit if I'm away for long. I use VNC to check it. How does examining my computer at the border prevent me from leaving something on another machine and grabbing it after I pass inspection?