Isaac.Obie@f165.n101.z1.fidonet.org (Isaac Obie) (02/06/91)
Index Number: 13563
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
to carry my message a bit further, do you think sighted pemple have to under
go body searches? why should the blind be any different? sometiocs, sometimes
i get the feeling that those security people love feeling up blind people
because it makes them feel superior. it could also be to humilate the blind
person. but, if that person says "no" they seem to honor that person's
request. so, i guess i can't really beef too much, but i'll be willing to
best bet a dinner that sighted folks don't undergo this indignity! further,
those of us who have or have had dogs know that those people can see all that
metal on the dog and yet they still insist that we go through that detector,
dog and all. are they testing their equipment? i don't know, but, i do have a
right to my dignity. so, folks, speak up! what's your experience? whats your
opinion? walter? willie? ann? loretta? louis? donald breda? donald roberts?
gary? grant? tandy? linda? bonnie? willie? christopher? dan? steve? angelo?
come on, let's get it together and stand up for our dignity. why can't they
ask us to leave our metal objects on a table and walk through then? why do
they have to search us? it seems to me that leaving the objects on the table
should be the first solution. if it goes off as a result of you leaving all
this stuff, then maybe they need to ask pertinent questions. i know time is
the essence. but, don't violate a person's civil rights in the interest of
time. now, if a person looks suspicious and refuses to cooperate, then you
ask and demand a body search. but, it shouldn't be automatic!! afser all, put
the shoe on the other foot! now i've even tried to tell the skycaps what i
need. well, in the future, i'll tell them on the phone before i get to the
airport. now i am not against security, i am against being treated like a
common criminal. now, it's time for me to move over and let others have their
say. see, willie, i did ask you to stand by, please!! catch you.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!101!165!Isaac.Obie
Internet: Isaac.Obie@f165.n101.z1.fidonet.orgCarla.Campbell@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Carla Campbell) (02/06/91)
Index Number: 13586
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
IO> HAD DOGS KNOW THAT THOSE PEOPLE CAN SEE ALL THAT METAL ON THE
IO> DOG AND YET THEY STILL INSIST THAT WE GO THROUGH THAT DETECTOR,
IO> DOG AND ALL. ARE THEY TESTING THEIR EQUIPMENT?
I have used a guide dog for some time now and have not had that
experience. I have never had to go through a metal detecter at an
airport _with_ my dog. I do it this way-- and it has worked for me for
nearly eight years:
I simply request that the dog be sent through before me. Either a
travelling companion, (if I have one), or one of the security people
stands on the other side of the arch. I then instruct the dog to go on.
If necessary, the person on the other side calls him through. He
scampers on through, the machine goes "beeeeeeeep", they frisk the dog
and then I walk through, without the dog, do not beep, and hence avoid
the hand-search, myself. Works almost every time. When I, too, beep,
like sighted folks who do, I submit to the body search. That's life in
the fast lane, and I live with it.
Now, don't get me started on how they weird out on adaptive computer
equipment... <grin>
--Carla
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89!Carla.Campbell
Internet: Carla.Campbell@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.orgRay.Campbell@f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org (Ray Campbell) (03/14/91)
Index Number: 13918
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
I use a cane, and have been traveling quite a bit now for about 4 and a
half years. What they do with me is take my cane away from me (at my
request) since it has a lot of metal in it and would set the detector off.
Then I walk through and if I beep then it's search time.
I'll tell you though some of those detectors are more sensitive than
others. In some cities, I can walk through with my keys and talking
clock in my pocket and I don't beep. Other times, I practically have to
get undressed to get through because the thing is so sensitive.
Carla- I would be interested to hear how they react when it comes to
adaptive computer equipment. I did have an incident one time going
through a detector in Fort Lautterdale. I had a talking clock/calculator
in my carry on which they hadn't seen when I had left from Chicago.
Well, they saw that and got quite concerned. They asked me what the
thing was in my suitcase and I told them but they wanted me to show it to
them. I can just imagine what they do with computer equipment,
especially with things going on in the world as they are and subsequent
tightening of security.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!115!778!Ray.Campbell
Internet: Ray.Campbell@f778.n115.z1.fidonet.orgCarla.Campbell@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Carla Campbell) (03/26/91)
Index Number: 14183
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
RC> Carla- I would be interested to hear how they react when it
RC> comes to adaptive computer equipment.
Well, it seems that all of us have a variety of experiences, but I have
found there is little difficulty if my equipment does not require
electricity to operate. While I have encountered many security people who
were mystified by my equipment and a few who didn't know what to do "about
me", I have not encountered any situation that was more than marginally
unpleasant. (but maybe my threshhold of agrivation is high-- I dunno.)
I have travelled with a VersaBraille and they were puzzled, but content
when they saw the display change a few times. With my Toshiba with speech,
I have had no trouble at all. Half the time, I think that they do not
realize it is a talking computer, since they only hand around for the
memory check sequence before speech is loaded. When they do, they want to
play with it like everyone else does the first time they see a computer
equipped with speech synthesis. (I will never forget the first two days
after I got my first computer assembled in my college dorm. I thought I was
never going to get any work done for all my dormmates coming in and wanting
to type their names and favorite dirty words in!)
All in all, I have really had very little trouble, aside from the few times
they have gone into in-depth questions about the VersaBraille and/or the
old Apple //c (which I took with no monitor and it required two electrical
sockets to function. When they could only come up with one, I did miss a
plane once, trying to convince them it would do something if only I had
more power-- after that I carried a multiple-socket adapter and had no more
troubles). Curiosity slows me down more than suspicion. The only other
difficulties I have are the same ones facing our computer-toting sighted
peers-- "you can put that through the X-ray.. it won't hurt it!" "No way.
Please hand check it." "but.." "please". I always "win". I don't really
know how I objectively feel about computers and security checks. It makes
me uncomfortable knowing how easy it would be to hide something explosive
in a working computer, but on the other hand, I would be lost without the
laptop when I travel. I don't know where it all balances out, but I am
happy if they just apply the same rules to me as to everyone else on my
flight.
I also do not know how much this may have changed in the last month, since
I last traveled by plane on January first, and I know things have gotten
tougher since then.
The one improvement I would wish for is a little "courtesy training"--
simple educational stuff. I have met up with security folks who have told
me that I could not take my dog through at all (until I requested that they
double-check with the airport authorities-- after which they were most
apologetic.) I think there ought to be a brochure passed out to all
security folks suggesting that they not "grab" disabled people and propell
them through the archways (it would save me a bit of emphatic refusal from
time to time) and exposing them to the idea of adaptive computers-- with
pictures of Braille displays, etc, and perhaps an explanation of how they
_should_ operate-- ways to tell if they are functional, etc. This would
help all-round-- providing the airport personnel with useful information
with which to protect us and others, and informing them of the best ways to
approach disabled passengers without compromising any security matters. If
anything, I have been astounded at how often I have been shooed through
without any real check at all. that makes me far more uncomfortable than
intensive scrutiny.
How do the rest of you feel about a move to get manufacturers of adaptive
technology to provide the FAA with photographs of their products and
descriptions of how they ought to function for use by security personnel?
I think that might be helpful both in making our transit through security
quicker and more pleasant at times and also in making travel safer by
making sure people do not attempt to disguise explosive devices as adaptive
technology. What do you think?
--Carla
... Read what I mean, not what I write!
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89!Carla.Campbell
Internet: Carla.Campbell@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.orgCarla.Campbell@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Carla Campbell) (04/11/91)
Index Number: 14724
[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]
GP> Do you mean something like these airport types flip
GP> through their book to the most likely looking photo, take
GP> your thing-a-ma-jig, see if it does what the literature says
GP> and, that's it?
Well, sorta, Gary, but not exactly. What I had in mind was something a
little less "formal"-- not requiring information/pictures of every single
adaptive device on the market to be effective. Simply a brochure (with
photos) explaining that "This is a Braille Thingamy-Dooper. It can/cannot
be damaged by airport security X-ray. To test if it is functional, you
will/will not need electricity. When powered on, the Braille
Thingamy-Dooper will display a seeries of raised Braille dots on its
tactile display. The beeps the Thingamy-Dooper may be making are
normal...", etc. I would see these brochures also containing appropriate
disclaimers about "not being responsible if the unit has been tampered
with", and some sort of indication that the Braille Thingamy-Dooper may not
be the only Braille display unit that blind users have with them and that
not all units operate in the same way as the Thingamy-Dooper.
I don't see it as something the security people can rely on to "prove" that
an adaptive device is not housing explosives, but rather, I invision it
more as an educational tool-- familarizing the security personnel with the
_concept_ of Braille displays and other adaptive tech. Such a familiarity
should both speed up the process of searching these units and also minimize
the baffled "what do I do with this?" feelings of the security folks when
first encountering an adaptive computer device. That ought to make things
less frantic and also encourage as complete and thurough searches of our
equipment as those of our sighted travelling companions.
Just a thought.
--Carla
... Read what I mean, not what I write!
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89!Carla.Campbell
Internet: Carla.Campbell@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.orgcmfaltz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Christine Marie Faltz) (04/20/91)
Index Number: 15046 I cannot believe this discussion about brochures explaining adaptive equipment is going on. Have you any idea how often businesspeople board planes with cmputers, laptops or otherwise? Airport security need only treat our adaptive equipment with the same care and evaluation they give the businessperson's computer. Tactile displays and a few beeps or a synthesized voice are not likely to create a national incident. Christine ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Poor is the person | Christine Faltz | | whose permission | 33 Prospect Ave. | | depends upon the | Princeton, NJ 08540 | | perceptions of others. | "Who is John Galt?" | -------------------------------------------------------------------------