Slashdot Mirror

I had occasion to fly into Ft. Worth some time back, and was struck by the fact that then, a couple of years AFTER 9/11, they apparently found it necessary to have signs instructing everyone not to bring their guns in the airport.

Really? It is perfectly legal to travel with firearms in your checked baggage:

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm

They have to be licensed, unloaded, locked, yada yada yada.

I say the deserve another billion/yr because, afterall, look at all the terrorism they've stopped just this week!

Finding a legally registered, unloaded, gun belonging to a law abiding (if forgetful) citizen does not count as stopping terrorism. Not to mention that all of these objects are things that would easily be caught by standard X-rays. The TSA has NEVER stopped a terrorist. Not one. In the years since 9-11 any terrorist activity was either stopped well before they got to the airport, or they actually got on the plane and the attempt failed. But I guess the TSA needs to brag about something to justify their existence, so they point out all the absent minded people they've detained for forgetting about something dangerous in their bag.

Terrorism is stopped by law enforcement work outside of the airport. If a terrorist plot made it that far without being discovered, you've already failed and you need to move farther up the chain to figure out what went wrong and how it could have been foiled sooner. In terms of value for our dollars, the TSA is a huge waste.

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/agents.shtm#secflght

Secure Flight Program: Overflight Overview and the Overflight Table for Third-Party Providers

http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/SFP_Overflight_Overview_Table.pdf

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/agents.shtm#secflght

Secure Flight Program: Overflight Overview and the Overflight Table for Third-Party Providers

http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/SFP_Overflight_Overview_Table.pdf

They don't tell you what the qualifications are.

Just a guess, but they're probably not entirely different than the requirements for a TWIC Card, also issued by the TSA to gain access to secure areas such as maritime ports, refineries, and other "sensitive" locations.

I do have a TWIC card. It's always interesting (scary?) when I present the federal credential to a TSA agent at an airport. Although the TWIC card provides no access to airport facilities, it is a valid form of government ID issued by the TSA, Most agents are familiar with it, but one agent, after checking my boarding pass and waving me on asked me "what is this TWIC thing, anyway?"

Security theater!

The establishment of the agency in the first place was yet another stupid George W. Bush decision.

http://www.tsa.gov/research/tribute/history.shtm

The Aviation and Transportation Security Act, passed by the 107th Congress on November 19, 2001,

At least direct your anger towards the correct people. This was passed by the Democrat congress of that time.

They can send you to jail for not cooperating (or even citing the constitution at them), prevent you from traveling freely and deny you the right to exit the country. They can put you on watch lists that make the "more traditional" TLA's pay attention to you. And their influence is spreading.

So, yes, they are.

But this one is real:

http://www.tsa.gov/graphics/images/approach/backscatter_large.jpg

did you forget the TSA is working at ports train stations now? http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/rail/index.shtm We cant even do that anymore

The Science Behind 3-1-1

Even more popular than security theater is civil rights theater.

Maybe we should stop pissing off people by trying to take over their countries?

When people buy a six pack of beer, it isn't to simply open the can - it is to drink the beer. The Islamist don't simply want the West/US out of any random location, or to stop "trying to take over their countries" (opening the can) - that is at most an intermediate step in reaching their goal. Their actual goal ("drinking the beer) is to turn the entire world Islamic and restore the Islamic Caliphate government that combines church and state. Read Bin Laden's letter to America - his first real demand is mass conversion to Islam, and after that he demands the US throw out the Constitution and implement Islamic Sharia law. They are not responding to invasion, they are on the offense attempting to overthrow the existing world order and impose their own.

HAMAS Targets Spain

Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos’ efforts earlier this year to remove HAMAS from the European Union’s terrorist list, have done little to change HAMAS’ agenda. It is not only Palestine that children in the West Bank and Gaza are asked to liberate; now they are asked to liberate Seville. The HAMAS children’s magazine, Al-Fateh, in a recent issue, (No. 66), tells the children about the city called Asbilia (Seville) and calls on them to free it, together with the whole country, from the infidels and to reinstate Muslim rule. . . . more . .

What liquid agent is a terrorist going to use to blow up a plane? Napalm? Or just set the plane on fire?

The Science Behind 3-1-1

Just for information, the kid's bottle should have been allowed through. Most places I've been to appear to allow reasonable amounts of formula to be taken through security.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/children/formula.shtm

Well... My problem was shortly after the incident that caused the rule, so Terror Alert Level(c) was crap-your-pants brown. Guess they hadn't fine-tuned the policy.

Just for information, the kid's bottle should have been allowed through. Most places I've been to appear to allow reasonable amounts of formula to be taken through security. http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/children/formula.shtm

I wish there was a frequent traveller's lane

There actually is, kind of: TSA: Black Diamond Self Select Lanes. It's also worth looking for less-used checkpoints at your airport, since they tend to have more experienced travelers. The "Skyway Security Checkpoint" at MSP or the North and South Security Checkpoints at ATL, for instance, are particularly great.

The TSA also started a pilot of their "PreCheck" program this past October, which allows "trusted travelers" to breeze through security while wearing shoes and jackets, and without having to remove laptops from bags. The downside? The trial is invite-only, and travelers have to reveal "additional information" about themselves.

I wish there was a frequent traveller's lane

There actually is, kind of: TSA: Black Diamond Self Select Lanes. It's also worth looking for less-used checkpoints at your airport, since they tend to have more experienced travelers. The "Skyway Security Checkpoint" at MSP or the North and South Security Checkpoints at ATL, for instance, are particularly great.

The TSA also started a pilot of their "PreCheck" program this past October, which allows "trusted travelers" to breeze through security while wearing shoes and jackets, and without having to remove laptops from bags. The downside? The trial is invite-only, and travelers have to reveal "additional information" about themselves.

Breast milk and baby formula were always exempt from the TSA 3oz limitations. Originally the passenger bringing them on board had to taste it to prove it was safe (not sure how that would deter a suicide bomber), but even that requirement was later dropped.

They who? Because the Army Public Health Command has measured the dosage for dozens of the devices. Their reports are publicly available.

Blueg3, you linked to measurements of the dosage resulting from the *baggage* scanners. Those are the machines that luggage gets sent thru.

The Senator wants tests of the X-ray scanners that *people* get sent thru.

They who? Because the Army Public Health Command has measured the dosage for dozens of the devices. Their reports are publicly available.

    I guess they weren't selling as well as the lots of knives and other assorted stuff.

    This is almost entertaining. They cite the risk, and why they're seizing everything. Then they complain about the litigious nature of many organizations, so they can't donate seized liquids. As you can see linked in my previous post, those liquids aren't passively harmful. If you opened up a glass bottle of "water", and took a drink to find that it's sulfuric acid, that's a huge risk. By tossing the bottle in a nearby trash can, as they do, If say a gallon glass bottle of sulfuric acid breaks when tossed into the trash, that'd be a pretty serious issue.

    If they really believed liquids needed to be disposed of, because they created a hazard to aircraft, they'd also have hazmat dispose of all their liquids. I have yet to see a hazmat team show up. I've seen janitors though. Depending on the airport, they'll carry the same trash bags full of dangerous items through the secure area to throw them away.

    I'd prefer, if the items were as dangerous as claimed, that a hazmat team, or bomb squad, transport them appropriately for demolition. But that would imply that there are really hazardous items being seized.

You are absolutely right. If there is no threat, there is no job. So they will make themselves worthwhile any way they can.

    Consider the current "Terrorists want to blow up your plane with binary explosives!". You can't carry a soda on a plane, unless you purchased from a TSA approved vendor inside of the security perimeter. And dear god, a mother can't bring a bottle of breast milk.

    Even lighters were banned for a while, but after enough complaints, they again allowed them.

    Terrorists must be anyone who isn't an old rich white guy. If they talk funny, look different, or behave differently due to cultural differences, they must be terrorists. The evil enemy that all Americans must fear.

    The terrorist behind every Bush fear subsided. Then we killed the leader of the terrorists we were told to fear.

    They are trying to find the next threat. If there isn't a threat, there isn't a need for DHS, is there? Those new threats will keep coming. They may be foreign nationals with a misguided grudge. They may even be regular, but insane, Americans.

    If they don't get enough real threats, they'll overstate some minor threat. They weren't clear what the real threat was. It could have been a local kid, who bounced through an off-shore server, who managed to log into a control box.

    My question is, why the hell would they leave those controls accessible by the Internet in general? Why was it connected to the Internet at all? Assuming there was a good reason for it, why weren't they restricted to select IPs? Rather than freaking out and blaming "the terrorists", why don't we focus on the problems like "our infrastructure shouldn't be accessible by the whole Internet".

    Hell, when I stick a server online with a previously unused IP, I get people trying to hit it in no time. If you want some entertainment, put an older unpatched distribution up with root logins enabled, and set the password to "password". I'd give it 10 minutes before it had new people running it.

    Lets not forget who the new terrorists are. All those people who agree with, or fall into the category of 99%. Domestic terrorism is our greatest threat. They must be stopped. We're going to need bigger prisons and more guys with badges and guns.

    Oh wait.. I forgot the right line. "I trust our government. Terrorists are behind every Bush. Protect me government. I'll give up any rights you ask me to."

You are absolutely right. If there is no threat, there is no job. So they will make themselves worthwhile any way they can.

    Consider the current "Terrorists want to blow up your plane with binary explosives!". You can't carry a soda on a plane, unless you purchased from a TSA approved vendor inside of the security perimeter. And dear god, a mother can't bring a bottle of breast milk.

    Even lighters were banned for a while, but after enough complaints, they again allowed them.

    Terrorists must be anyone who isn't an old rich white guy. If they talk funny, look different, or behave differently due to cultural differences, they must be terrorists. The evil enemy that all Americans must fear.

    The terrorist behind every Bush fear subsided. Then we killed the leader of the terrorists we were told to fear.

    They are trying to find the next threat. If there isn't a threat, there isn't a need for DHS, is there? Those new threats will keep coming. They may be foreign nationals with a misguided grudge. They may even be regular, but insane, Americans.

    If they don't get enough real threats, they'll overstate some minor threat. They weren't clear what the real threat was. It could have been a local kid, who bounced through an off-shore server, who managed to log into a control box.

    My question is, why the hell would they leave those controls accessible by the Internet in general? Why was it connected to the Internet at all? Assuming there was a good reason for it, why weren't they restricted to select IPs? Rather than freaking out and blaming "the terrorists", why don't we focus on the problems like "our infrastructure shouldn't be accessible by the whole Internet".

    Hell, when I stick a server online with a previously unused IP, I get people trying to hit it in no time. If you want some entertainment, put an older unpatched distribution up with root logins enabled, and set the password to "password". I'd give it 10 minutes before it had new people running it.

    Lets not forget who the new terrorists are. All those people who agree with, or fall into the category of 99%. Domestic terrorism is our greatest threat. They must be stopped. We're going to need bigger prisons and more guys with badges and guns.

    Oh wait.. I forgot the right line. "I trust our government. Terrorists are behind every Bush. Protect me government. I'll give up any rights you ask me to."

    Well, that theoretical case is invalid. Passengers can (and do) put weapons and ammunition in their checked luggage. Air Marshals carry their weapons in the passenger cabin with no problems.

    TSA information on transporting weapons and ammunition

    I've checked my sidearm plenty of times. The TSA requires that the weapon is unloaded, in a locked hard shell case. Ammunition cannot be stored in the same container. So my sidearm goes in the locked case, and two loaded magazines go in another. All I have to do is declare them at the counter. They ask a few questions, have me sign a paper that states the above, and I get a personal escort over to the baggage scanner. It's a very quick and polite procedure, that doesn't involve any secret rooms or lube.

    I've never had any ammunition accidentally discharge. I've never heard of it happening. There are some flights that would have serious problems if there was any chance of it, such as flights to/from military installations.

    I've also mail-ordered ammunition. Sometimes it's shipped ground. Sometimes it's shipped air. Either way, the boxes arrive without any extra holes. Again, I've never heard of any discharging. The only "accidental" discharges I've heard of involve fires.

Don't forget Phil Mocek. He was charged with breaking local/state laws like disobeying a lawful order, trespass, etc. for doing essentially the same thing. I've been trying to figure out what the charges were against John "don't touch my junk" Tyner. As far as I can tell it would have been a civil penalty that the TSA can levy for basically anything they don't like. Back when these incidents happened, the TSA blog asserted that they have the legal authority to do so.

But now that a member of Congress is challenging the screening process, there's a friendlier spin on the consequences of refusing a pat-down. The new line goes, "passengers who refuse to complete the screening process can’t be granted access to the secure area. TSA notifies law enforcement when this happens, and law enforcement officers can* escort them out of the checkpoint."

*CAN must be the operative word here. The police CAN escort you out of the checkpoint. At that point TSA CAN fine you, and the police CAN charge you under any convenient law. I'm guessing that if the police decide not to escort you out then TSA CAN detain you. After all, the law hasn't changed.

Don't forget Phil Mocek. He was charged with breaking local/state laws like disobeying a lawful order, trespass, etc. for doing essentially the same thing. I've been trying to figure out what the charges were against John "don't touch my junk" Tyner. As far as I can tell it would have been a civil penalty that the TSA can levy for basically anything they don't like. Back when these incidents happened, the TSA blog asserted that they have the legal authority to do so.

But now that a member of Congress is challenging the screening process, there's a friendlier spin on the consequences of refusing a pat-down. The new line goes, "passengers who refuse to complete the screening process can’t be granted access to the secure area. TSA notifies law enforcement when this happens, and law enforcement officers can* escort them out of the checkpoint."

*CAN must be the operative word here. The police CAN escort you out of the checkpoint. At that point TSA CAN fine you, and the police CAN charge you under any convenient law. I'm guessing that if the police decide not to escort you out then TSA CAN detain you. After all, the law hasn't changed.

Don't forget Phil Mocek. He was charged with breaking local/state laws like disobeying a lawful order, trespass, etc. for doing essentially the same thing. I've been trying to figure out what the charges were against John "don't touch my junk" Tyner. As far as I can tell it would have been a civil penalty that the TSA can levy for basically anything they don't like. Back when these incidents happened, the TSA blog asserted that they have the legal authority to do so.

But now that a member of Congress is challenging the screening process, there's a friendlier spin on the consequences of refusing a pat-down. The new line goes, "passengers who refuse to complete the screening process can’t be granted access to the secure area. TSA notifies law enforcement when this happens, and law enforcement officers can* escort them out of the checkpoint."

*CAN must be the operative word here. The police CAN escort you out of the checkpoint. At that point TSA CAN fine you, and the police CAN charge you under any convenient law. I'm guessing that if the police decide not to escort you out then TSA CAN detain you. After all, the law hasn't changed.

TSA: Rail Security

TSA: Highways

TSA: Maritime

TSA-style security coming to major sporting events...

But by all means, keep convincing yourself that the TSA isn't spreading throughout society. If we allow it to get to the point where we're getting patted down to get on the fucking bus to work in the morning, or pulled over in our own car just because we're on a fucking public highway, we've already lost everything worth fighting for and it's time to start flying our flags upside-down.

Flying the American Flag upside down is a violation of the Protect American Symbols act, regulating the burning and mistreatment of the Flag, pictures of Jesus and other core American images. Just a friendly warning, before we ship you off to Guantanamo, where the mere fact of residence makes you a dangerous terrorist.

TSA: Rail Security

TSA: Highways

TSA: Maritime

TSA-style security coming to major sporting events...

But by all means, keep convincing yourself that the TSA isn't spreading throughout society. If we allow it to get to the point where we're getting patted down to get on the fucking bus to work in the morning, or pulled over in our own car just because we're on a fucking public highway, we've already lost everything worth fighting for and it's time to start flying our flags upside-down.

Flying the American Flag upside down is a violation of the Protect American Symbols act, regulating the burning and mistreatment of the Flag, pictures of Jesus and other core American images. Just a friendly warning, before we ship you off to Guantanamo, where the mere fact of residence makes you a dangerous terrorist.

TSA: Rail Security

TSA: Highways

TSA: Maritime

TSA-style security coming to major sporting events...

But by all means, keep convincing yourself that the TSA isn't spreading throughout society. If we allow it to get to the point where we're getting patted down to get on the fucking bus to work in the morning, or pulled over in our own car just because we're on a fucking public highway, we've already lost everything worth fighting for and it's time to start flying our flags upside-down.

Flying the American Flag upside down is a violation of the Protect American Symbols act, regulating the burning and mistreatment of the Flag, pictures of Jesus and other core American images. Just a friendly warning, before we ship you off to Guantanamo, where the mere fact of residence makes you a dangerous terrorist.

Problem: The TSA has expanded their operations to trains and pulling-over cars along interstates. Also post offices and unemployment/social security buildings.

Citation Needed. I've never encountered the TSA in any of these situations. Any security I have encountered has been nowhere near TSA levels, and has been at a level appropriate to the location.

Did you miss all the stories on VIPR? Seriously? Here's a cite from the TSA's website from 2007!?

They are not, to my knowledge, running vehicle checkpoints though. http://blog.tsa.gov/2011/10/myth-buster-tsa-not-setting-up.html

Not the TSA itself, but the methods they employ are spreading into interstate weigh stations, and sporting events. I would bet schools and national parks might be the next round of stupid to use TSA scanners and enhanced pat downs, once people get used to it in other venues.

For the record, you just failed to cite anything to the contrary. Instead you were insulting, and wrong.

They are at bus stations. You can read various news and commentary from this "google" thingy, or just watch the videos if you prefer.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=tsa+bus+stations

They are not, to my knowledge, running vehicle checkpoints though.
http://blog.tsa.gov/2011/10/myth-buster-tsa-not-setting-up.html

TSA: Rail Security

TSA: Highways

TSA: Maritime

TSA-style security coming to major sporting events...

But by all means, keep convincing yourself that the TSA isn't spreading throughout society. If we allow it to get to the point where we're getting patted down to get on the fucking bus to work in the morning, or pulled over in our own car just because we're on a fucking public highway, we've already lost everything worth fighting for and it's time to start flying our flags upside-down.

TSA: Rail Security

TSA: Highways

TSA: Maritime

TSA-style security coming to major sporting events...

But by all means, keep convincing yourself that the TSA isn't spreading throughout society. If we allow it to get to the point where we're getting patted down to get on the fucking bus to work in the morning, or pulled over in our own car just because we're on a fucking public highway, we've already lost everything worth fighting for and it's time to start flying our flags upside-down.

TSA: Rail Security

TSA: Highways

TSA: Maritime

TSA-style security coming to major sporting events...

But by all means, keep convincing yourself that the TSA isn't spreading throughout society. If we allow it to get to the point where we're getting patted down to get on the fucking bus to work in the morning, or pulled over in our own car just because we're on a fucking public highway, we've already lost everything worth fighting for and it's time to start flying our flags upside-down.

If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens".

Tsk tsk...

Granted, they certainly could use this device to scan random people.

This is practically guaranteed to happen.

But that's an unconstitutional search which the Supreme Court would slap the Hell out of

http://www.tsa.gov/

Seems they primarily hire pedos, sadist, weak of mind, and various other miscreants.

Like to abuse people? Like to sexual molest people of all ages? Want your power-trip to fly along side your poorly sculpted World view where in you hold no personal responsibility and those around you are at fault??
Find your dream job here.
http://www.tsa.gov/join/careers/careers_security_jobs_securityinspect.shtm

Notice the qualifications, I think drugs dogs could apply for these jobs and probably be friendlier.

I must be in the exception then, I have two young children and I do not want them walking into those untested* and unregulated microwave machines at the airport called back-scatter machines. So far we have avoided it through dumb luck. If the employees running the things are forbidden from wearing a dosimeter they spend their own money to buy I don't trust the safety claims at all. I'm OK with taking the infitessimal chance of being blown up by a terrorist, as well with being prepared to take someone down on a plane if necessary. Much the same way as I am OK with taking the risk everytime I walk out the door that someone with nefarious purposes could harm me or my childern, as it has been that way as long as I have been alive. I want to take responsibility for my own safety. I learned long ago that you can't rely on cops to protect you - they may be there to clean up the aftermath but they won't be there when you really need them - if you think they are then you should really think about that one for a while. Go look up average response times in your neighborhood and think about how long it takes a violent act to go down - seconds vs. minutes is an order of magnitude of difference in time.

I have found myself considering wiring up webcams to an old *nix box in the house to monitor 1) a baby napping 2) a playroom that is not viewable from my home office 3) my wife while I'm working nights .... oops, already in my head I've slid down the paranoia slippery slope. Not to mention a camera with an IP address could be hacked from anywhere in the world giving someone with motives at cross purposes with mine an advantage. I don't want my childern to get used to cameras everywhere and for that to be "normative" for them, it *should* seem weird so I have opted against this.

So, count me as one in the category of I want my children to be safe but I am not OK with the growing surveilence state as IMHO it poses a greater danger than some disgruntled kid from East Hackistan blowing themselves up on a plane because they "hate me for my freedom" . Note I am posting AC on purpose as I *don't feel free anymore* to say what I think openly.

*yes the government has tested them, the same governemt that lied to us about the reasons to go to Iraq, sure I trust them. Oh and one university which is within easy commuting distance of the heart of our federal government. I am not buying it.

Driving is definitely possible, but with the high cost of gas these days, it's not really that much cheaper than flying. Even if you pack all the food you'll need along the entire trip, you're still going to need a place to sleep at night. Now, I've done my fair share of cross-country road-trips, and I've spent many a night sleeping in my car at a rest area, but that's not really an option when you've got a family in tow. You could also camp, rather than stay in hotels (which we did a lot when I was a kid; I grew up an Army brat and moved constantly) but most people I've met aren't into camping their way across the country.

Trains aren't an option, either...they cost just as much as a flight; take the same, if not more, time to reach a destination (passenger trains regularly get stopped so that freight trains can pass them, for hours at a time sometimes) and honestly, unless you're going to a major city, odds are very high that the "train station" you're going to end up at is going to be a platform in the middle of nowhere with no place to rent a car, eat (unless you count vending machines or, if you're lucky, a gas station), or do anything really beyond wait for someone to come pick you up. Our rail infrastructure fucking sucks for long haul passenger runs. There are only a handful of routes left that even go cross country anymore. If we had real euro-style high speed rail that wasn't constantly being stopped for mile and a half long freight runs creeping along at 40 mph it would be more realistic of an option, but as it stands now, it's really not. I took Amtrak a few times as a kid and I just won't do that anymore until there are major improvements. The only up-side is the fact that you get a more comfortable seat.

Besides, TSA is moving to trains, so if you're trying to avoid having your rights violated, don't worry, they're going to violate them there, too. TSA is also starting to branch out to the highway as well, so no buses, either. You won't even be able to go to a sporting event or other large crowd event without the TSA being involved soon.

Like it or not, the TSA is going to be pretty much everywhere. I'm sure that at some point in that not-to-distant future trying to avoid the TSA in itself will be a reason to be suspicious. We're literally going to have to stay in our homes or walk from point A to point B to avoid a possible search...

That 4th Amendment sure was cool, wasn't it? I'm gonna miss it....

Driving is definitely possible, but with the high cost of gas these days, it's not really that much cheaper than flying. Even if you pack all the food you'll need along the entire trip, you're still going to need a place to sleep at night. Now, I've done my fair share of cross-country road-trips, and I've spent many a night sleeping in my car at a rest area, but that's not really an option when you've got a family in tow. You could also camp, rather than stay in hotels (which we did a lot when I was a kid; I grew up an Army brat and moved constantly) but most people I've met aren't into camping their way across the country.

Trains aren't an option, either...they cost just as much as a flight; take the same, if not more, time to reach a destination (passenger trains regularly get stopped so that freight trains can pass them, for hours at a time sometimes) and honestly, unless you're going to a major city, odds are very high that the "train station" you're going to end up at is going to be a platform in the middle of nowhere with no place to rent a car, eat (unless you count vending machines or, if you're lucky, a gas station), or do anything really beyond wait for someone to come pick you up. Our rail infrastructure fucking sucks for long haul passenger runs. There are only a handful of routes left that even go cross country anymore. If we had real euro-style high speed rail that wasn't constantly being stopped for mile and a half long freight runs creeping along at 40 mph it would be more realistic of an option, but as it stands now, it's really not. I took Amtrak a few times as a kid and I just won't do that anymore until there are major improvements. The only up-side is the fact that you get a more comfortable seat.

Besides, TSA is moving to trains, so if you're trying to avoid having your rights violated, don't worry, they're going to violate them there, too. TSA is also starting to branch out to the highway as well, so no buses, either. You won't even be able to go to a sporting event or other large crowd event without the TSA being involved soon.

Like it or not, the TSA is going to be pretty much everywhere. I'm sure that at some point in that not-to-distant future trying to avoid the TSA in itself will be a reason to be suspicious. We're literally going to have to stay in our homes or walk from point A to point B to avoid a possible search...

That 4th Amendment sure was cool, wasn't it? I'm gonna miss it....

The REM is a measure of the dose, not the rate. If the information is correct, then it will be 10 microrem per scan. "From time you step in to time you step out", 10 microrem, if there is only one scan. Two scans, 20 urem. Fifty scans, 500 microrem.

Ya, I'm not a nuclear physicist. :) The point still stands. Is that 10 microrem on a single pulse, scan line, one second of exposure? Wanting it to be safe, we can assume from entrance to exit. But if we were working for the company who produces them, we'd put the best spin possible on it, and say "10 microrem" without explaining that it's on a single pulse or scan line. Sure, let people assume it's total exposure, and we'll pretend that none of it goes off it is ever reflected outside of this uncontained space. In reality, it's very likely that you get at least 3 or 4 doses. Probably 2 while you're waiting to go in, one while you're in it, and one while you're standing on the other side waiting for your shoes.

A Geiger counter meaures rate, not dose. You need to carry a dosimeter if you want to measure

ya, but it would likely be more useful to know what the exposure area is. Just because the badge turns black only means that you did indeed receive exposure.

your dose. Those can be as simple as a film badge. You could even hide that badge under your clothing so the TSA droid wouldn't be ordering you to "put that electronic doohickey through the x-ray machine" and keeping you out of the scanner. You'd have to deal with the aftermath of having the dosimeter on you when it was discovered after the fact, but I doubt they'd confiscate it (if they even knew what it was. I've had TSA baggage searchers who looked quizically at something most people would immediately recognize as "a book".)

There's an easy explanation. "I'm a contractor for the NRC, and I am exposed to radiation as part of my job. I am to always wear my dosimeter, so I am sure I haven't exceeded the legal limits. Whereas you are using equipment that does involve radiation (pointing to the carry-on scanner and body scanner), it is important to my health that I know my total exposure per year."

On second though, their eyes will glaze over by the time I got to "NRC". That, and I don't know enough about the NRC's operations to keep the story going. :) I could say "classified", but one phone call will show that lying.

I've had all kinds of questions about stuff I'm carrying. Lots of people have been confused about what I'm carrying. Most of it I can say "computer stuff", and they're happy. You know, it's easier to check my bag with a firearm in it, than carry a second laptop through security. I don't do it on every trip, but often enough.

Oh, and I just found This link from June, 2011 where they say all the people who are monitoring their equipment. This story from Dec, 2010 states that it's false. I guess the lies are still good, as long as not everyone knows...

Try carrying medications requiring refrigeration but which should not be frozen. Use one of those sealed ice pack things to keep it cool during the drive to the airport and time spent in line. Chances are that the ice pack will start to melt, otherwise it would be too cold and maybe freeze the medication. Now, can that partially melted, medically necessary, ice and water mixture go through the checkpoint?

Since the TSA already allows nearly unlimited liquids to be carried on board if they are "prescription" (I once saw a guy take two 32oz bottles of prescription dandruff shampoo on board), I don't see how a medically neccessary ice pack would be a problem.

Indeed, they do allow it:

http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/special_needs_memo.pdf

We are continuing to permit prescription liquid medications and other liquids needed by
persons with disabilities and medical conditions. This includes:

...

gels or frozen liquids needed to cool disability or medically related items used by
persons with disabilities or medical condition

US Government or George W. Bush Jr.? We were doin great till that monkey came along.

I still think we need a better system for repealing laws, or perhaps we just need to wait for the god fearing soccer moms who don't know what a browser is to drop out of society. One can argue we'd get a new wave of idiots then, but at least they'd be tech savvy enough to forecast something like this.

Our current government thinks any data in its borders actually belongs to it, and that the person generating it may graciously hold on to it as long as he isn't a pedo or a terrorist or isn't named Julian.

The Patriot Act though... anybody respectable who's had to deal with it, has probably relocated far away from the states. Not to mention people who don't fly anymore because of the TSA and the fact you can't bring toe nail clippers with you on a trip anymore. What's funny is the TSA says http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/05/tsa-urban-legends-nail-clippers.html . Quite contradictory to consumer experience.

What about us brain-dead slobs?

http://www.tsa.gov/join/index.shtm

Yeah right. DHS would be all over your ass for operating a terrorist device.

While I'm sure you were going for "Funny" or "Sad Commentary On Society", it's the FAA and TSA you'd be in trouble with if you failed to secure the necessary Airspace Waiver.

The article is filled with speculation and disinformation. Here are the research links on both backscatter and millimeter wave technologies, provided by TSA:
http://www.tsa.gov/research/reading/index.shtm

You can see in the John's Hopkins August 2010 assessment that passengers get less than 2 microrem from a scan. You get about 238 microrem per hour of flight, two orders of magnitude larger (per hour!):
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html

Stick to the science. 6 to 100 cancers per year is pure speculation, and impossible to verify. I don't believe it at all.

The article is filled with speculation and disinformation. Here are the research links on both backscatter and millimeter wave technologies, provided by TSA:
http://www.tsa.gov/research/reading/index.shtm

You can see in the John's Hopkins August 2010 assessment that passengers get less than 2 microrem from a scan. You get about 238 microrem per hour of flight, two orders of magnitude larger (per hour!):
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html

Stick to the science. 6 to 100 cancers per year is pure speculation, and impossible to verify. I don't believe it at all.

The problem with getting rid of the security theater is that true security will be impractical for air travel to continue. What has been implemented now is an expensive, ineffective compromise between 'protection' and enabling air travel. The main result is the inconvenience of millions of people and the wasting of billions of dollars.

Example: According to the TSA site, rules prohibit a passenger from carrying more than 100ml of liquid through a security checkpoint. I have no idea how much explosive liquid it would take to cause a serious problem aboard a plane, but I would assume a liter of something would achieve a terrorist's goal. This could easily be accomplished under current rules by having ten terrorists each bring a 100ml bottle of explosive fluid through the security checkpoint, then combining the volume once inside the plane. Even easier would be for one terrorist to simply make ten trips through security, each time bringing in another 100ml bottle of explosive fluid and stashing them somewhere within the gates area to then be combined into a 1-liter explosive bomb.

http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/secureflight/

Only when flying (and I guess lots of Americans travel over land not being an island, unlike where I'm from), Actually I see no mention of being restricted to international, maybe the US airlines just do it for you under the covers while when I've flown from the US on a non-US airline I had to that out after buying the ticket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule
"In January 1994, the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA) introduced a "locality pay adjustment" component to the GS salary structure."

http://www.tsa.gov/join/careers/pay_scales.shtm
TSA agents are not on the GS pay plan, but they also get a locality adjustment

The math isn't perfect, but the principle is there

To refer to your specific example. NYC is +28.72%, Little Rock, as part of the "Rest of US" category, is +14.16%.

Obviously, you've never read the tripe^Wspin^Wdis^w^w^winformation that Blogger Bob posts on the official TSA blog. Bob never seems to let the truth get in the way of an opportunity to crow about the fantastic job his employer is doing :roll_eyes: