TSA Accepts Money For Hands-Off Screening

[Tinman57]

  This is just so wrong on so many levels.....

Hate airport fondling? Pay the TSA $85 for hands-off screening

If you're not enamoured by fondling as part of the airport screening process, then the TSA will let you pass -- for a fee.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/hate-airport-fondling-pay-the-tsa-85-for-hands-off-screening/25148

[Stoic Joker]

What if I like being fondled...can I get an $85 discount?

[Renegade]

I hear they offer 5-finger discounts as well.

[Shades]

Fondling the TSA person would be the same price? 

[Renegade]

Fondling the TSA person would be the same price? 

Ummm... Have you seen pictures of them?

[Shades]

You don't do fetish(es)? 

[Stoic Joker]

You don't do fetish(es)? 

Not outside of my own species. 

[IainB]

Reading the article, I would suspect that the title and its apparently poorly-written content may be deliberately misleading so as to encourage clicks from indignant and gullible readers.
I would suggest that it is probably quite untrue that the TSA are enabling people to bypass an absolutely essential and mandatory security check by paying an $85 fee. Given the government's security imperative, it's an absurd assertion.
On the other hand, if it were true, then the potential implications would seem serious - they could include, for example:

• 1. That the mandatory airport screening and security checks on every trip you take out of the country are not and never have been necessary at all, despite the government agency's assertions that they are/were.
• 2. They would thus be a charade, a form of "security theatre", conducted at great expense and inconvenience to the taxpayer.
• 3. They could be a deliberate sociological experiment with crowd control, to see just how much nonsense and harm people will tolerate, accept or believe they have to put up with - e.g., the X-ray machines; being herded about with such indignity, like cattle (as they arguably are in these security checks).
• 4. Allowing people to bypass the checks if they pay a fee is tantamount to extortion by a government agency.
• 5. This "wrongness" is all happening under the deliberate design of government agencies.

Now, if one or more of these potential implications were true, then some people (not me, you understand) might say that it could indicate a planned approach to an experiment to establish just how easily manipulated or stupid people can be individually and/or en masse, but I couldn't possibly comment. They might go on to suggest that switching the rules like this seems to have all the hallmarks of the Bell Telephone Labs "Hawthorne experiments".

Come to think of it, and having been raised and schooled in farming country, the photo of the people walking down the railed entry channels and massing in the background does seem redolent of herding cattle into a stockyard. Maybe that's it. The people are regarded as cattle, and so have to be treated accordingly - so it might be a kindness that is being done to them. If a cow or a bull has $85, then it could get itself a less inconvenient/uncomfortable treatment. Seems reasonable...

[Renegade]

You don't do fetish(es)? 

Umm, err...

You don't do fetish(es)? 

Not outside of my own species. 

I'm with SJ on that one!

Reading the article

I actually didn't read it. I've seen similar ones before, and figured it was all just part of the same scam.

Now, if one or more of these potential implications were true, then some people (not me, you understand) might say that it could indicate a planned approach to an experiment to establish just how easily manipulated or stupid people can be individually and/or en masse, but I couldn't possibly comment. They might go on to suggest that switching the rules like this seems to have all the hallmarks of the Bell Telephone Labs "Hawthorne experiments".

Just think about how stupid the average person is, then think about how half are even stupider than that.

Come to think of it, and having been raised and schooled in farming country

Hey! Maybe you can identify the beasts working for the TSA for us then! (I'd kind of like to put a name to Shades' fetish. )

[TaoPhoenix]

Reading the article, I would suspect that the title and its apparently poorly-written content may be deliberately misleading so as to encourage clicks from indignant and gullible readers.
I would suggest that it is probably quite untrue that the TSA are enabling people to bypass an absolutely essential and mandatory security check by paying an $85 fee. Given the government's security imperative, it's an absurd assertion.

Oh No Iain, for once triple-snark reverts back to the basics!

Take the article just like it's written:

"The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is offering a new service, the PreCheck, to cut the queues and create a new revenue stream in the process. For “trusted” travelers, a payment of $85 will allow you to not only avoid taking off your belt, shoes and jacket, but also leave liquids and electronics in your carry-on luggage.

The TSA PreCheck scheme begins this fall. Once you have filled out an online application, verified your I.D. and been fingerprinted, you need to send off the fee. Once complete, the TSA will issue you a “Known Traveler Number” that can be input when booking a flight — allowing you to skip the line for five years."

That's way too specific to be "Hand Waving". So assume it's true. Then yes, you get to debate all your next points!

[Stoic Joker]

I remember them talking about launching this program on the news a year or so ago...so I too suspect its face value to be true.

I also agree with all 5 of IainB's bullet points ... "Security Iheatre" indeed.

[40hz]

TSA...the folks that solved that age old conundrum: Where can I go to get my genitalia groped and fondled by a complete stranger -  ideally, one who will do it for free?

[Renegade]

^^   

[IainB]

...Oh No Iain, for once triple-snark reverts back to the basics!...

A careful choice of words may be necessary. One may need to be careful to argue for the winning side in such matters.
As the voice keeps repeating in Brian Eno's My Squelchy Life: "Somebody's listening"...

[Stoic Joker]

TSA...the folks that solved that age old conundrum: Where can I go to get my genitalia groped and fondled by a complete stranger -  ideally, one who will do it for free?

Perhaps...but it still costs extra for a private room.

[IainB]

Perhaps...but it still costs extra for a private room.

Ah, there speaks the voice of experience, methinks.   

[Tinman57]

Reading the article, I would suspect that the title and its apparently poorly-written content may be deliberately misleading so as to encourage clicks from indignant and gullible readers.
I would suggest that it is probably quite untrue that the TSA are enabling people to bypass an absolutely essential and mandatory security check by paying an $85 fee. Given the government's security imperative, it's an absurd assertion.

  Perhaps you'll believe it if it's posted on the TSA.gov website.....

http://www.tsa.gov/tsa-precheck

[IainB]

...  Perhaps you'll believe it if it's posted on the TSA.gov website.....
http://www.tsa.gov/tsa-precheck

Heh. Don't worry, I felt fairly sure it was true, and that it would have been confirmed if I had bothered to look on their website. It was "tongue-in-cheek" when I wrote:

I would suggest that it is probably quite untrue that the TSA are enabling ...

Maybe I should have put a smiley there, sorry.
Probably no amount of idiocy from the TSA would be particularly surprising to most people, given the TSA's past performance.

[Renegade]

I was just reading this:

Probably no amount of idiocy from the TSA would be particularly surprising to most people, given the TSA's past performance.

When it occurred to me that "performance" is a really nice euphemism for "crime spree".

[IainB]

...When it occurred to me that "performance" is a really nice euphemism for "crime spree".

Some people might say that (not me, you understand), but I couldn't possibly comment.

[Tinman57]

Maybe I should have put a smiley there, sorry.
Probably no amount of idiocy from the TSA would be particularly surprising to most people, given the TSA's past performance.

  No smiley necessary, I knew where you were coming from.    Perhaps I should have put a smiley in there myself.