Slashdot Mirror
Airport Screeners could see X-rated X-rays
AdamBomb writes "Think airport security is bad enough already? Well, the Department of Homeland Security is now planning on rolling out new machines that will allow screeners to actually see through clothing. Could be bad news, though privacy advocates are obviously fighting it."
It's time to get a job as an airport screener!
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
We don't see any saucy pictures. Just so you know.
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
But you lot will take it lying down just like you do with everything else.
1. Where do I apply
2. How do I get put in charge of the 'Hot Chick' section
and oh yeah, something about "my rights are being taken away and freedom is dyin...blah blah blah"
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
Have you seen regular people in society? like 1/3 of people are overweight and many people are OLD..... yeah it would be nice when a euro female soccer team comes thru but UGH I would not want to see the normal 40something soccer MOM (or dad)!
What if this means we won't be padded down anymore?!
Sample this!
What, and the machine operators are supposed to become more vigilant and effective while watching this peep-show?
Here's a sample of what they see:
http://www.freedomisslavery.info/index.php?p=1138
Most bad government has grown out of too much government.-Thomas Jefferson Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
When can we expect the retail eye-wear version of this technology to be mass produced?
</obligatory>
Let the commencement BEGINULATE!
Maybe not a repost on slashdot, but I remember reading about this in Time over a year ago ( 2 years ago? ).
This is old tech, and while privacy is a concern, I'd rather have someone checkin' out my jimmah if it means weapons have a lesser chance of getting on the plane.
As an asside: I don't think tighter passenger security is where we should be headed: I think we should lock down the air planes. The cockpit simply isn't accessable from the main carrage of the plane, there would literally be a seperate entrance externally. Further, I favor undercover armed guards on every flight. Police officers, if you will.
I think this would go a long way in making our flights more secure, without having to resort to privacy encroachment methods.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
The human in me thinks this is a twisted invasion of privacy , the man side thinks woo naked chicks sweet job. .I know its wrong and a body is just a body but that is still not a belive that everyone shares and people have issues about this.
However the human side wins out here , this is totaly unacceptable . they will have to have seperat entrances for men and woman as people are uncomfy with a member of th oposite sex seeing them in the all together(not everyone mind you)
If i want sweaty security gaurds seeing me in the buff i will get a website for it , I don't want to have this foist upon me by over zelous national security.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
The city of chicago followed next, installing 3000 camera's. They can look inside cars. They can tell if you're smoking a joint. They can tell if you're talking to a prostitute.
The city of naperville is installing fingerprint machines in order for people to use the library.
The United States Congress is pushing for a national ID card, with biometrics.
Lets face it, people will soon be tracked, it will be impossible to just slip into a city. The police will know who you are and where you are at all times.
They will soon take your DNA, without your agreement. Anyone hear about DNA dragnets being used in towns? And it is easy for them to get it. They pull you over in your car, they take you down to the station with a bogus charge. They take your picture and fingerprints. They then tell you, we'll we made a mistake, sorry, you're free to go. And as you leave, they vacum up the hair that fell out off your head. Now they have all the information, and there is nothing you can do about it.
So what if they can see you naked? Big deal. That should be the least of your worries, that Officer Friendly can see your wee-wee. What would worry me more is he can keep a tab on what your reading at the library.
Databases are here to stay, and in the future your whole life will exist in a database, somewhere.
It sucks, but that is the preperation for the revolution. If you're not willing to work 50 hours a week just to cover your rent, you will be labled a terrorist. Cuba is waiting for all who complain.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
If you've got nothing to hide, may I see you naked?
No?
How about if I screen you every time you walk through my front door with something that allows me to see you essentially naked, no matter what you feel about that?
Forget asking nicely, get fucking naked, now. I need to make sure you're not carrying anything like a nail file, or a pen.
Repeat after me:
Glocks are not undetectable ceramic weapons. Glocks are relatively normal guns with lots of parts in them that will set off metal detectors.
Keep repeating this until you have learned it.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
This falls on the "acceptable security" side for me.
That's great. Meanwhile, the rest of us are trying to enjoy what rights we have left, ok?
Do you think that matters? When my cute neighbor walks naked through her apartment I don't mind starring despite the fact that the view is shitty thanks to the blinds being half closed. ;)
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
This falls on the "acceptable security" side for me.
What then would be unacceptable?
It is thinking like this that would amount to a slippery slope when it comes to fighting the great (and greater) govt.
So today it is more intrusive searches on 100% of all passengers for the sake of reducing body cavity searches for that unfortunate few, does that mean that tomorrow it'll be ok to have cameras in every single home just because "some home is harbouring terrorists"?
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
They're trialling this scheme at London Heathrow airport for a while now. They still have the standard metal detectors, but they pick people at 'random' for the body scanner.
I usually avoid Heathrow like the plauge because of the long queues and usually use London City Airport as you can check in there 20 mins before take off. However, one day I had to fly from terminal 4 at Heathrow and while waiting in a 40 minute queue to get through security I noticed that they always seemed to pick the slim and reasonably attractive types for the body scan. So either that was coincidence or there was a few pervs there.
...for airport security, honestly!", Thus spoke the geek inventor of the device he affectionally calls "the incredible peepshow machine". "It took quite a bit of tweaking to get the part of the nipples and genitals outlines right though"
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
security guy: Please step aside sir!
guy: Who me?
security guy: Yes you with the cock ring
Sample this!
. "I have a beautiful 29-year-old daughter and a beautiful wife, and I don't want some screeners to be looking at them through their clothes, plain and simple," he said
The operators of the scanners are only allowed to scan people of the same sex as themself.
Underholdning.info
Hmm what keeps someone from storing plastic explosive up their a$$ ? Releaving themselves of it once they get on the plane... Maybe everyone should have full cavity searches before entering the plane... I mean why not, whats a little cavity search when your securtiy is at stake.
What keeps people from filling the metal tubes of their cary on luggage (shoes anyone ?) with explosive, pointy weapons. Lets outlaw any metal framed carry on luggage!!!
There are lots of ways around this and so the advantage is minimal, and the disadvantage is screeners seeing your wife/girlfriend/daughter naked...
No thanks. I take my chances driving on the highway, which is more dangerous than a plane trip, I think we are more than safe enough. Thanks but no thanks.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
Pedophiles everywhere must be excited about this.
Work for the government, get paid, and get to watch naked kids all day long...
There is relly no need to encrypt your files, after all.
I'm just waiting to see how long it will be before someone start posting those pictures.
And what if those x-ray pics of you get posted on the internet ?
If a male has nothing to hide, that's exactly the reason why he is concerned to be seen naked.
This is great demo use of this device because gun shootings on planes are like daily occurances. Thankfully we will finally be able to see the people that bring guns on planes.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
If they want to see my hairy ass for five secons, that's fine with me. Just don't ask me to take off my fucking jacket and shoes and go through the metal detector three times.
I don't even perceive this as invasion of privacy. If airlines (or TSA) were smart, they'd run both "old fashioned" and "X-ray" things in parallel. X-ray line would move much faster, so people would be going there even though this means showing someone their hairy asses.
What Would John Ashcroft Do? Oh, the dilemma!
the 10th of May, I was to get on a plane in San Francisco airport, and I was picked up from the security line; I was told to enter in a new security machine that looked like a blue telephone booth with GE logos on one side; I got inside, doors closed, then there was a burts of pressurized air, and then my fingers started tickling... I dont know if it was exactly the X-ray device that is in that article, but sure it was eery. And, no, I could not peek at the security screens, they wont let me do it, neither they would explain what I was subjected to.
"let anyone who's proven his or her ability and willingness to train to carry a weapon aboard an aircraft do so."
Guns + Planes = Cabin depressurisation
Specialised weapons are required for planes. So letting every dirty Harry wanabee to take a gun on board is hardly sensible.
How do you tell who is a terrorist and who are the "good people". Better to get rid of all the guns. That is why I feel safer in the UK.
My little Linux and tech blog
http://www.rapiscansystems.com/sec1000.html
What happens when "Pat" (think SNL -- i.e. someone with ambiguous gender even upon asking probing questions without actually coming out and asking 'are you a dude or a dudette?') arrives at the airport, or what if they get someone that's part way through gender reassignment? Will they have special operators for those cases, too?
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.
--Abraham Lincoln
Quack, quack.
1) The images released to the news are intentionally blurry. The real images are much sharper. You can also see e.g. the shinbone as the backscatter radiation penetrates not only clothing, but skin.
2) The amount of radiation received is portrayed as being low. What they neglect to mention is the dosage per UNIT TIME. Sure, you get more on an International flight, but it is amortized over a number of hours, not minutes or seconds. For example, a bone marrow recipient has the old defective marrow killed off by radiation over a couple of days; the same dosage would be fatal if given over a short time period. You also have to add in the cumulative effect of being scanned now in ADDITION to any other radiation you already would receive. If you fly frequently, this may be alarming.
3) This still does nothing for explosives smuggled internally, or for the 95% of unscreened checked luggage. It also does nothing to protect people standing in lines for tickets or at the terminal.
For instance, imagine the TSA actually catches a suicide bomber strapped with explosives. Well, he or she can take out hundreds of people in those parallel security lines, from a combination of different flights...
Thus, all the screening they have added is NOT for protecting people, but for protecting PLANES. Planes are expensive.
Finally, remember in Israel they made it very hard to hijack a plane. What happened? They got suicide bombers every OTHER place instead. Night clubs, restaurants, cafes, on buses, in traffic, everywhere. If you don't want suicide bombers, you have to prevent people from WANTING to do it in the first place. Trying to catch them in the act is going after the symptom, not the root problem.
Airplanes are more secure now for one reason only. The passengers now know to fight back.
We aren't going to see another hijacking for that reason alone. However, there are numerous ways to sneak items onboard which could take out the plane. And it is trivial to leave an unattended package in a crowded line, and an incident at a major airport will shut it down and snarl traffic across the country just as well as if it were on a plane.
It is impossible to stop 100% of determined attacks. The best defense is to avoid having enemies that hate you to that extent in the first place.
How about 10 terrorists posing as peace officers can have a shooting "contest" 50 thousand feet in the air with maybe 5 or 6 actual peace officers to see who can outgun each other. All this while there are hundreds of other passengers onboard. Now that's what I call 'safety'
the terrorist only have to pull of a scam and inpersonate an peace officers to get arms onboard and hi-jack a plane.
They can do that already.
I will also point out, that if a terrorist succeeds in getting a firearm aboard an aircraft, the chances of there being an Air Marshall on the flight are very slim, unless it happens to be an El Al flight.
Israel actually spends the money to protect each and every flight, since they're actually interested in security, not just the appearance of doing something.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Airline security is so strange. No metal cutlery, no pen knives, nothing vaguely weapon-like in hyour hand luggage, advanced scanner technology everywhere on boarding.
But can I take these four bottles of duty-free vodka which can be turned into extremely sharp weapons in about five seconds in my hand luggage? Of course you can sir.
They will soon take your DNA, without your agreement.
This is already the case in California. Get charged or simply arrested for a felony, get your DNA added to the dbase. Done deal. Doesn't matter if you're guilty or not. An arrest is all it takes.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
No, it just means it'll catch weapons that look like weapons. Considering all the metal and hard plastic junk people carry on board -- phones, laptops, not to mention attache cases and framed bags, it'd be an evening's work to make a weapon that breaks down into innocuous parts. See or read the original Day of the Jackal for instance.
And as TFA states, all you need is a fat person to hide stuff in the butt, under the breasts.
Anyway, since 9/11 no knives or even guns are going to be useful to a hijacker. Plenty of passengers will choose to attack the hijacker regardless of personal risk, given the alternative is no hope at all.
It's just security theater, as Bruce Schneier calls these stunts that fulfill the need to be seen to be doing something regardless of effectiveness.
...I'm fine with that. Better still, how about enforced nakedness on the plane? ... Or I store the plastic explosive up my arse/ass?
Technology's not the answer. The USA not behaving in a way which leads people to hate it so much that they're willing to die for the cause IS.
Releaving themselves of it once they get on the plane...
WTF... why is holding a stinky bomb in your hand better than having it stuck up your ass? (I mean, not that I want it up my ass)
Unless it is a hijack not a suicide bombing...
bah, planes suck.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Look, I've already been subjected to the security gropefest a couple times. I'd take the X-ray *any* day over that. In my mind, this is a restoration of some of my rights ... I don't have to worry about being fondled.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Ah.. this is the classic "do something really really bad so you can do the lesser bad with people applauding you for it" system.
To the best of my knowledge, there are no independant studies verifying the safety of these devices for regular scanning.
;)
As far as I know, pregnent women may opt to NOT go through the trial devices at heathrow. This to me implies that there is a level of risk involved that I am not prepared to accept.
There are also no clear guidelines on vetting the staff that will use these. Sure, you can only scan people of the same sex, but that doesn't exclude homosexual screeners. The whole point of same-sex screeners is to remove any sexual element from the scan, but it doesn't do that at all.
And let's not forget the 'Think of the children' angle of course
I guess this is just one more reason for me to keep my foreign investment out of the USA and take it somewhwere else. This does completely fuck up my 30th birthday plans of course, but I'll find somewhere else to go.
Rather than being afraid of "scary things yet to come", if that has an overtone of "don't panic"..., have a look at this excerpt from a scholarly article (and that's by a Professor of Law) on what was known the technology could do more than half a decade ago already: Froomkin, The Death of Privacy, p. 1499-1501 (p. 39-41 of the PDF).
Resolution 1 millimeter even back then, with drastic explanations of what that means.
Now... panic!
People without weapons make their own. The weapons tend to be psychological, and kids do get hurt.
Two years ago, my kids elementary school had open gates during school. Some crazy in Nara kidnapped a girl and killed her and now there are copycat attempts everywhere, and the kids' school has cameras and guards and locks the gates.
My wife tells me about a young high school girl about her age (okay, this was a little while ago) crossed a yakuza sugar daddy and was found in the burned out wreck after an explosion in an apartment parking lot just down the road from the train station here, not three miles from her parents' house. She heard the explosion, IIRC. This is moderately upscale neighborhood.
And there's the sixth grader in Suma, cut off a third grader's head and hung it on the school gate there, four or five years back.
Kids get thrown off roofs of schools for being different, or hounded until they jump themselves.
Gun control only hides the violence.
Gun crime is up by about 2%. I would struggle to call this "Way up" oh and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4071363.stm
Should clarify the situation regarding self defence in the UK
While the decline from '03 to '04 is good news, the significant figures are those that include the period from immediately before the adoption of the UK's victim disarmament law until the present day.
For the overal historical picture, see "Guns and Violence: The English Experience"
In a nutshell, crime in the UK was on a fairly steady decline until the proponents of victim disarmament started to get their way in the 1930s. It all really hit the fan in the late 1990s, when the gun ban precipitated a sharp rise in gun crime.
When a government is willing to imprison an innocent man for defending himself from criminals, you should certainly expect a jump in crime.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
"Hollywood isn't very big on getting the physics right. If you put a bullet through an airplane window, people do not get sucked out to plummet to their deaths."
No, but in this instance they are right.
If you hit metal? No, it will probably just make a hole. Hit glass at 36k feet, 6 miles up where there isn't breathable athmosphere and everything has to be presurized? Hit glass and the glass will shatter and suck everything out of it.
There is a great show called seconds from disaster that talks about things like this. There was one where the wrong screw sizes were used in a window in the cockpit. The way the window was oriented, you'd think the wind coming directly at it would have held the window in regardless, but no, when the internal presure got the best of it, it imploded out due to the weakened screw holds -- ones that were only a milimeter too short, but still had ample grip for almost all other applications, the pilot was sucked out of the window and if the others had not been fastened, they would have too.
The greatest thing about this show is its a real life foresics show analyzing real crashes and otherwise from the point of view of actual experts in the field that did the FAA reports and all that. No fictionalization. Its all real.
If a group of people could almost be sucked out of a window from a screw giving way, imagine what would happen if someone busted a window out.
So, in this case, Hollywood is right -- I'm using the show as an example, but read up on air disasters and you will see the truth of it.
Past all of this, I just wanted to say You Sir Are A Fucking Moron, And Luckily Too Stupid To Be A Troll. Fuck Off.
see, the fondling is my problem with airport security too...it just never lasts *quite* long enough.
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
Planes are designed to fly with windows missing. It does not cause a catastrophic loss of stability, all it does is depressurise the cabin. Wear your nice yellow mask and everything is fine.
Come on, these things fly with engines missing. One window isn't a major problem. The size is determined as one which can be shot out and the plane can still fly.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Now with full body naked airport scans of JLo, Jennifer Aniston, Britney Spears, ...
No it isn't. There are two problems, but this is not one of them:
First, it's a problem (from the airliners point of view) that people where afraid of flying after 11/9. To combat this, you need to do something that is visible, and that gives the appearance that something is being done. Notice that if the measures actually improve security or not is uninmportant, what matters for this problem is only that people feel safer, not that they are safer.
Most of the stuff we've seen after 11/9 fall in this category, fueled by forces that'd like to see more surveillance and broader police-powers generally, and latch onto this as a suitable excuse.
Then there's the problem of ensuring that flying is safe. Generally it already is pretty safe, but it's always a good thing to improve safety if it can be done at an acceptable cost. (not cost only in sense of money, but in sense of money, inconvenience, etc)
Dealing with "armed criminals on an airplane" is a tiny part of that problem. You may be rigth that having 20 other armed people on the (extremely rare) plane that gets problems with an "armed criminal" may help in that spesific case. But very likely it would hurt more than it helps. Because you get a new class of problems: People who wouldn't otherwise be armed, but which now are because it's allowed.
It happens *often* that some passenger drinks too much / had the wife leave him the day before / starts to argue because his seat isn't the one he'd wished for / looses his temper for some other reason. It's not particularily uncommon that such passengers must be restrained.
If a large part of the passengers are armed, what is today a bit of loud yelling followed by a pair of handcuffs for the rest of the fligth may easily turn into a gunfight. I consider it likely this would happen dozens of times before you experience the first case where all the guns in the plane actually *benefit* security.
I am going to patent a line of obfuscation undergarments and make a fortune. Using metal microfilament thread woven into a mesh. You'll be able to choose between a smilie face, a finger flipping the TSA the bird and for the more adventurous, the John Holmes line (only available as boxers).
Besides which, the golden age of hijacking planes is now over. No group of passengers or crew is going to allow it anymore. Pull any shit on a plane and you'll get your ass tackled by every person on the plane. If they somehow still succeed, the government will have no problem blowing a civilian aircraft out of the sky now that they know what their alternatives are. I got even money on any single fighter pilot being able to pull the trigger on civilians, which is one of the reasons they scramble two.
The more I see stuff like this, the more I'm inclined to believe that no one in the government has any idea how to actually keep its citizens safe. I'm think that this, like many other "security measures" since 9/11, is a placebo designed soley to comfort an ignorant population by making them think that someone is actually doing something useful. Certainly a naked X-ray is a much more comforting thought than is the idea that you could be on the receiving end of an air-to-air missile if someone does actually succeed in hijacking your plane...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
A rapid depressurization at high altitude in any plane can mean a number of people pass out and die before they have a chance to put on their mask.
If for some reason the crew cannot put on masks rapidly then their capacity to react can become impaired due to hypoxia, even if the depressurisation is not rapid. This
might be a useful reference.
the most effective way to counter an armed criminal is with a trained, armed population.
/.er I will make an example you can understand. Remember Microsoft Windows? and the way we all cry and bitch because it is very insecure, etc etc ... and that it really pisses us of that MS enters the Antivirus market and that it makes patches and patches etc... and what is what EVERYONE agrees on?, it would be BETTER to FIX THE DAMN OS on its ROOTS so by DESIGN it is not so insecure. Read it, the solution is not to PATCH IT , and add other superficial fixes (Antivirus, spam fighters, etc)[similar to your everybody-fuck-themselves weapons solution] the solution is to fix the OS from the Design [read above to see what could work for you].
Oh man oh man... this is what your current government has taught to you people from the USA... you think everything is fixed by putting a bullet[rocket, bomb] in someone else arse.
That is why I do not like to go to USA, because everyone thinks they have the right to kick someones ass just because he pissed you off (remember the quote that goes "if you are not with us/me you are against me") and if you by any chance think that I am not "with you" or because I happen to be a "fuking Mexican" then you are going to shot me...
That is so bad, I really would like you to come to Mexico, to some cities outside Mexico city (yes... we have a problem there), so you can try the sensation of going out at the street at ANY time 24 hours a day, without the fear of being robed or raped or killed or whatever, just because you saw someone in the eyes, or just 'because'.
Do you know that sensation? it is certainly good, and THAT is the normal way man, IT IS NOT normal to have to walk on the street scared and thinking first about what will happen next and looking at everyone waiting for them to shoot/kick/rob you... it is just that, you feel it normal and natural because I think it has been that way before you were born... and that is sad.
So, how to deal with the problem? I will tell you how the CIVILIZED people/countries do it, and I return to our Mexico's city problem. In Mexico's city we have lots and LOTS of insecurity, we have assaults, bank robberies, people hijacking, etc. We could try to solve it the way you USsenians do it just arm everybody and let each other kick their asses, BUT, this is NOT the way.
The way to do it is to look at the ROOT of the problem, and try to solve it, what is our problem? Poverty, extreme and miserable poverty, and that is what the Mexico's City major has been trying to do. It is about trying to fix the root of the problem.
Now, for you
So, I told you about our problem (in Mexico City), but what about yours?, well as I am not from USA, I do not have complete understand of your problems, but what I can see is that you (I mean the country) have a really big problem with depression, fear, some poverty and paranoia.
Why do you think that some kid would just go into his classroom and kill everyone?, no, it is not JUST because he saw it in a game, it is because all the system surrounding him oppressed him in some ways, maybe his fathers could not give him enough time, maybe also their friends look him weird because he only played D&D and videogames, maybe he saw his president wanted to kill every fucking soul in the planet, and he saw your evening news where they only say BEWARE! BEWARE BEWARE !! WE COULD BE DEAD TOMORROW!!.
We've gotten far too used to the idea that the government is mommy and can protect us
Protect you from what? from yourselves? anyway, the government HAS to do it, that is why YOU [are supposed to] chose your government, if it is not that way, then you are getting screwed and the [other] thing that is bad is not that everyone should be armed but that there is something WRONG with your DEMOCRACY (DCMA, IP, anyone??).
Ok, I hope something of this can get into your head, but I am afraid you people from US are used now to
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
I would like to see a report of how effective all this airport busy work is.
How many would be terrorists have we caught using these measures?
True story:
We're (Husband,wife, 2 year old son, parents) headed to a state to visit grandparents. We get delayed in a layover state and the airline issues us aall a one way ticket on another flight.
My 2 year old son gets flagged as a suspect becaue of the one way ticket. Not I or my father in-law, my 2 year old son!
The screeners come up to us and take us to another area. We're not alowed to touch him at this point or we'll be handed to security for resisting. All we can do is follow.
The screeners themselves said that this was ridiculous and were apologetic for the procedure they were required to follow.
It was pretty terrible to watch him freak out in the hands of another adult but then he said "doctor?" and we said "Yes, they're doctors" to agree with him so he's at least civil.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
It's not your "right" to get on the plane. It's very simple. If you want to get on it, you agree to comply by the screening rules. Your rights are not being taken away here, you don't have to fly if it's that big of a deal for you.
Do a bit of research: Ever since your government made your local criminal element quite certain that you're unable to defend yourself, crime in the UK is way up.
Go read the CIA world fact book on crime numbers, especially those like robery and (attempted) murder for the USA and for example the UK, you may be in for a surprise.
The reasoning you follow sounds oh so logical and is used a lot by proponents of 'the rights to bear arms', but it has one simple flaw that seems to rather be confirmed:
More guns means more people get killed by them, no matter who have the guns, it ALWAYS results in more people getting killed. It is people who do this and not the guns, but the guns enable it.
You mean you were serious? Anyway, my point stands. Maybe you would feel comfortable knowing armed vigilantes were in a plane; not me. I think the chances of passengers being killed are astronomically greater from this than any terrorist attempt.
I think you are really overlooking the obvious here. Contemporary terrorists are already prepared to kill even themselves while killing others to "make their statements." A vigilante is acting in defense... even if it might be offensive. The odds passengers being killed by a vigilante is way lower than being killed by a terrorist. Essentially, it's clear that terrorists intend to kill and are not bargaining with anyone. This makes it about a 100% chance that someone will be killed when terrorists attack... I'd say that's considerably less if it's a matter of a stray bullet launched by you imaginarily clumsy vigilante.
Today folks, we will learn about a clause of this great document that says, more or less, you have many, many rights, and that it doesn't have to be listed in the Constitution or some other document for it to be a right. That's correct, it does not have to be listed, to be a right.
One example, plucked right out of the air (pun intended), is the right to travel freely. You don't have to present documents or internal passports to move within the US.
So, not do you only have the right to fly, technically, it is a violation of your rights to make you present identification.
But it gets better. You have the right to enter into contracts as you see fit, as an adult, but not into contracts that violate any of your rights... you can't sell yourself into slavery. One example of a contract you can enter into is paying $500 to fly to some city on the other side of the country. An example of a contract that is invalid, giving up your right to very intimate privacy such as revealing your nipples and buttcrack to a airport screener in return for being allowed to board.
you don't have to fly if it's that big of a deal for you.
Maybe he does have to fly. I can think of any number of contrived scenarios where there is no other option, really. Some quite plausible. A parent is dying on the other coast, and you only have a few hours left. Rocketcar Taxi Services is out of business for breaking speed laws...
But it does not matter. It could be the shallowest reason, or no reason at all. The entire point of having rights, is that you don't need to ask for permission to exercise them, or justify their use. And even if we're going to get into tired arguments about abuse of rights, if such a thing is possible, not wanting to be digitally undressed by a TSA mouthbreather just to go on a trip is not one of them.
Wow, our tax dollars at work. They should all be fired, especially for the "we're sorry, but we have to follow procedures" part.
How many of these have to happen, how often, before Mullah Jihadster can slip right through because they are wasting time checking toddlers for C4?
That is a fucked up example. He shot someone in the back that was running away from his house, then let him bleed to death on his lawn before he was reported missing the next day.
There was no reason for him to fire and in most US states he would be facing charges for his actions.
Not that you are deliberately misleading people or anything. He shot someone in cold blood and let them die in one of the most horrible way imaginable. Hardly "innocent".
Adding backstatter technology is NOT a net gain in security. It's false security, unless one adds intrusive body searches on top of the scanner.
"Yes, Jayne, she's a witch. She's had congress with the beast..."
"She's in Congress?" - Firefly, "Objects in Space
Handguns are heavy. To make it easier to carry one around all day, Glock designed a line with some parts made of plastic rather than metal to make them a little lighter. It worked so well that now many handguns from other manufacturers have plastic frames.
There's still plenty of metal in them and they will set off detectors.
The "undetectable plastic gun" thing was FUD, pure and simple.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
When a government is willing to imprison an innocent man for defending himself from criminals
tony martin is hardly an innocent man he was convicted of manslaughter by a jury, the only reason the charge was reduced from murder was Dr Joseph found Martin to be a paranoid nutcase and not able to make rational decisions.
the man shot an unarmed teenage boy in the back, with a gun he was not legal entitled to (his shotgun license had been removed when he started shooting at people scrumping apples.)
in short tony martin is exactly the sort of person i want locked up, one un-able to distinguish between revenge and justice.
the only other case i can think of where the "victim" of crime was jailed for "defending" himself involved a factory owner who set a man trap in his factory for burglars (notice BTW burglars are UNARMED unlike robbers), he then proceeded to brutally torture captured burglar.
Now if you are sitting there and thinking good, it should be his job to meet out punishment to criminals, then you also are confusing revenege and justice and should go back and join the mob weilding pitchforks to which you obviously belong,as you are clearly not a civilised human being.
The odds passengers being killed by a vigilante is way lower than being killed by a terrorist. Essentially, it's clear that terrorists intend to kill and are not bargaining with anyone. This makes it about a 100% chance that someone will be killed when terrorists attack
Except the probability that terrorists are on a given plane is extremely small, where as every plane would have a large number of armed people on board.
Even if we accepted that the situation would always be better off with armed people, in the case of a terrorist attack, you have to factor in the possibility of injury or death, due to anything from accidental firing, a paranoid "vigilante" who mistakenly thinks someone is a terrorist, or people who cause trouble or get into fights (just because a person isn't someone we would consider a "criminal" doesn't mean they're not some random nutter, or never turn angry and start a fight or whatever).
I can't say which situation would be worse, but then neither can you. You have to look at what will happen on any flight, not just flights with terrorists on board. Personally I'd rather risk it with no guns.
It is my choice to make those areas private. If I don't want you or anyone else seeing those parts that is the end of the discussion as far as I am concerned. This constitutes a violation of your basic human rights. I choose to not let you see this. PERIOD. Who cares what societal norms are. Even if nudity is more or less accepted if I choose to not be nude that is my choice. Its a pretty simple case to me. You could even argue that this violates your fourth amendment rights (unreasonable searches and seizures).
Jeremy
Oh, that's not true - there are lots of undetectable plastic guns. They just shoot plastic bullets, is all.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Airlines are private companies, and while they are subject to certain anti-discriminatory rules, no, you don't have the right to cross the atlantic IN THEIR AIRPLANE if they don't want you to. you are completely entitled to cross the atlantic on your own. you can swim, row, whatever, however you may have some difficulties at the far shore with customs and immigration officers of that country.
you could always start your own airline with different rules...
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
My 2 year old son gets flagged as a suspect
Well, of course not picking on your 2 y.o. son with a one way ticket and instead picking on a 20 y.o. man with a one way ticket would be discriminatory. Thank your local ACLU chapter for the treatment your received. Instead of profiling suspicious characters, the screeners have to pick on everyone, even if 2 y.o. or 90 y.o. or they'll be in serious trouble. If they hadn't done picked on your child, they'd have been fired.
What about the bullets? hmm? Are they plastic? I agree...this has to be urban legend.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
Wow, how did you get it into your mind that the only alternative to a strip search, is a pat-down? I'd rather take my chances with just the metal detector.
Because you could NEVER stick a ceramic knife between your butt cheeks, right?
This is NOT going to stop someone who is dedicated to wiping out a couple hundred people.
This is purely for that cute blonde in that line over there...
Not urban legend, however, is a little knife I saw advertised maybe 30 years ago, made entirely of plastic and glass fiber. The catalog (P&S Sales, a fairly trustworthy outfit) said it would take a shaving-sharp edge as I recall. It was dubbed the "CIA Letter Opener".
Dunno how you'd detect one of those without X-ray imaging or physical contact.
Actually, only half wrong. But I thought I'd take the opportunity to use my favourite "subject" heading.
p df
0 5/04/crime-figures.html for details.)
p ?National)
Lets talk British crime rates. Yeah, baby!
Violent crime has fallen by over a third since 1995. So, since they tightened gun laws violent crime in the UK has *fallen*. (Not risen, fallen.)
Source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.
Now, I know there are people who don't like the British Crime Survey. But their methodology is simple. Every year they ask 30,000 people "have you or a close friend/relation been the victim of a crime, if so what was it and how many times did it happen?" Essentially, the survey strips out the absurdities of police crime reporting changes. (See http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogspot.com/20
Now, I'm not claiming that guns cause crime. But the evidence is certainly more mixed people (on either side of the debate) believe. And the main argument, I believe, against letting the populace bear arms is the risk of accidents. (See http://www.kidsandguns.org/study/states_deaths.as
Anyway, just my thoughts,
Cheers,
Robert
--- My dad's political betting
Typical neocon bullshit ... hell, it's not even neocon, it's right out of the reagan playbook.
"Look, I have to abridge everyone's rights, the ACLU made me do it. So strip, grandma, so we can all be safe."
You're either a cretinous Fox News slave or you're knowingly mendacious. Either way, fuck you. I've become a permanent member of the ACLU along with other whining pansies like Bob Barr and Dick Armey.
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
Wait til Paris Hilton has to fly someplace and her pix show up on the front page of the tabloids. She'll be getting frequent flyer miles to get the free publicity.
So is it going to be separate male-female lines? And will the women's line always be longer?
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
I'm sure most people would. It's not like they're going to X-Ray only the people who would have been strip searched though, they're doing it to everyone. Maybe if they only did this to people who failed at the metal detector and/or did something else to spook security then they would be subjected to the X-Ray people might have fewer problems with it.
You have the right to enter into contracts as you see fit, as an adult, but not into contracts that violate any of your rights... you can't sell yourself into slavery. This is, um, how to say this ....? I think the words "totally false" come into mind. Some rights are waivable. For instance, I have the right to a jury trial if I am accused of a crime. I can, however, plea bargain with the prosecutor and give up my right to a jury trial in exchange for a charge of a lesser offense. This happens all the time.
I have the right for police officers not to search me without probable cause. I can, of course, consent to a search for which there is probable cause.
I have the right to a jury trial in certain courts and certain jurisdictions for many civil actions; I can waive those rights (in many states) by signing a contract that requires that disputes be arbitrated.
Now, some things -- like your status as a free person -- are not waivable. Those rights are very few and far between.
Most personal rights, however, are very waivable. Including the one about people looking at your buttocks. Yes, folks, you heard it here first: a porn star's employment contract is enforceable, despite the U.S. Constitution!
The real reason the contract argument is drop-dead stupid is that there is no contract that requires me to subject myself to an invasive search. Take a look at the conditions of carriage -- see anything there saying they can see me naked? I didn't think so.
It's a federal regulation, not a contract. And that's why the privacy argument matters.
Read Bujold. Free (as in
Now where can I get the 'flyer list' and cross out the names of all the ugly, fat people.
I think that we should demand the right to fly naked and get speeded up to the front of any security check point.
If the religious establishment objects, they can just hold their ankles to get inspected for 'security.'
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Freedom is risk. It's that simple.
We should not be so afraid of risk that we are willing to give up freedom and privacy. We put up with greater risks every day and don't take such extreme precautions. We drive down the street in 2 ton weapons within feet of people we don't know. We go to work in buildings with hundreds of people we don't know. Risk is all around us. As a matter of fact, the entire US system of government is based on increased risk in favor of freedom.
Don't believe me?
A simple example is the basic idea that a person innocent until proven guilty. That assumption assures that more guilty people will go free than innocent people will go to jail. We, as a society agree we are willing to walk among dangerous criminals so that we do not endanger the freedom of individuals. Why is this any different? What are my chances of being involved in an attack on a plane? How much will this reduce that risk? Is it worth the loss in personal dignity? Wait till airport X ray photos end up on some fetish internet site. I say it's not worth it.
The whole risk for freedom idea also implies that we all share responsibility for our own safety and that of others. The people on the 9-11 flight that crashed in PA were right. They took matters into their own hands and did not rely on a protecting government, which is incapable of helping anyway, to save them. Their death, though completely tragic, was a victory & a wake up call. I can't say for sure how I would have acted before 911 but I am sure now.
The passengers on the other flights were told to stay calm and all would be OK. The thought being that they would be released by their captors or that they would be rescued. Both assumptions put the responsibility of their personal safety in someone else's hands.
Both are wrong.
You're either a cretinous Fox News slave or you're knowingly mendacious. Either way, fuck you
What did I do to get this kind of language??? From ACLU's own website: The American Civil Liberties Union today told a House subcommittee that airline passenger profiling would be a dangerously ineffective, invasive and potentially discriminatory practice
The grandparent post was about a 2 year old getting searched in the name of being fair to everyone and I pointed out that it would be discriminatory and the ACLU would be all over them if they picked only on suspicious characters. Are you seriously telling me that the ACLU would be in favor of not screening small children but only suspicious characters??? How do you reconcile your claim with their own news release say that profiling better not be used because it might discriminate??? It's all very fine if you want to support searching small children in the name of being fair, but don't blast me if I agree with the grandparent that it's silly to do so.
Here's a quote from their site:
"Due to new federal regulations, it is a felony offense to carry the CIA Letter Opener into an airport.
After about five years, we have revived the CIA Letter Opener. Designed in the mid-1970's, it was based on the A. G. Russell(TM) all steel Sting 1A and has been one of our most popular items of all time. This is the world's toughest letter opener. Made of fiberglass reinforced nylon, it weighs less than one ounce, but with the reinforcing ridges and blood groove to stiffen the blade, it can literally be hammered through a board. The uses are limited only by your imagination; self-defense to tent stakes. Measures 6-1/2" and weighs only 0.8 oz. Made in the U. S. A."
Dunno how you'd hijack a plane with a freaking knife after 9-11.
What worries me far more than the terrorists is the continual erosion of civil rights that far too many seem happy enough about: A free society bent on cooperation has at most to worry about psychopathic freaks in the world; an oppressive state that curtails freedoms and imposes its will with increasing force breeds discontent and enemies.
Is it just me or is all this fear over security a sign that we are stuck in a vicious circle of paranoia that's becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy?
--Udo.
If you get to the airport really early, you could simply go back through the line again.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
While this would be fun, beware of the police powers that Homeland Security has.
A TSA Administrator admitted publicly that they put certain names (in this case people that had banned items) in a "secret" database (ie. you don't know what information they're keeping or even if you are in it) for an indefinite period of time.
They even use "attitude towards screeners" as one of their criteria for fines and entry in the database. Nice!! Disagree!! We'll make your life miserable. Now, who else wants to disagree?
That will then be used against you in the future (more secondary screenings and who knows what else yet). You'll essentially be black-listed, you know -- unless you rat out your other "commie" friends.
You liked 50s McCarthy-era right? Because they're back!!
I'm amazed at the fact that people are so fearful of terrorists that they would allow this. The murder rate in America is between about 10,000 and 25,000 people. Even at the low number, each year about four times more Americans get murdered by fellow Americans than died in 9/11.
We don't allow ourselves to be randomly strip searched at the mall, in bars or before entering our cars, yet we're far more likely to be murdered in those places than on (or by) a plane. Why do we look at run-of-the-mill murder as something that we can't afford to give up our rights to prevent, but terrorism as something that is so fearful that almost anything is fair game.
I don't think I'm in a position to not travel on a plane, but I can still protest if they impliment this. I will find a non-metalic substance that's high contrast to one of these machines and I'll spell out the words "go fuck yourselves you nazi whores" on my chest or back, but under my shirt. The only people who will see it will be the screeners. I will continue to be completely cheerfull and cooperative in every other way. After they get finished looking at my cock and my ass cheeks with their machines, I dare those mother-fuckers to accuse me of being crude or mean to them.
TW
at 36k feet, 6 miles up
:)
Small nit: 36,000 ft is 7 miles, not 6. 1 mile is 5080 feet.
There was one where the wrong screw sizes were used in a window in the cockpit.
I saw a special on that accident. Interestingly, the pilot actually survived. His legs remaind inside the cockpit below the knees (his ankles actually caught on the control column, forcing it forward, and thus forcing the plane into a steep nosedive), and he was pinned to the outside of the fuselage. I saw it on "Mayday," on Discovery.
However, this was not due to rapid depressurization. When the cockpit window blew out, air was rushing directly into the cockpit at over 600 mph. Given that the cockpit is a closed environment, this caused a tremendous whirlwind effect in the tiny, closed space. The captain wasn't "sucked" out so much as "blown out."
A similar opening in the cabin, where the window is parallel to the airflow rather than perpendicular, wouldn't have nearly the same effect. Besides, Mythbusters broke this myth.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
So you're one of those people who are relieved and dance in joy when gas falls from $2.60 back down to $2.49?
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Heh, by the book. I believe they're really sorry, they were probably just minimum-wagers following a procedures list, any deviation from which would incure their PHB's wrath, whos's also just a little guy afraid of what would happen to his job if the MIB hear of said deviation.
What a sorry little world we live in. Who wants to hitch a ride outta here, the next spaceship is flying by next Thursday.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
You know...I'm worried abit about all this X-Ray exposure...it isn't like this is a really SAFE technology. For someone that travels a lot, this could potentially be dangerous. I worked in radiology for awhile, and it is serious business. Are the going to outfit the TSA agents with full lead aprons? I prefer to only be irradiated when absolutely necessary for medical reasons....
Wonder when the first airport security cancer lawsuits will take place?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
No doubt this will get read by only one or two, since I entered into the discussion so late in the game.
Perhaps someone has even already suggested it... but why don't we simply fly naked? If security issues are so terrible that we have to be implement these outlandish meausres, why not simply make it impossible to carry anything on your person.
I envision a simple scenario. You check into the airport, where you are shown to a private changing area. You are issued a nice terry cloth robe and a pair of slippers and told to change into it. The clothes brought with you are held in special bags for re-issue once you arrive at your destination. After you change, you collect your carry on and continue throught the metal detector as usual. The difference now would be walking through would be a cinch. You've already taken off all metal objects, so the scanners could be set to a rather high sensitivity. The lines through the scanner would be quick, no more idiots having to walk through ten times removing one ring each time, no more removing of shoes to be put through the x-ray machine. Aside from all that, you'd feel like you were taking a nice trip to the spa in your sexy robe (no doubt emblazoned with corporate logos).
'The poets are strangely silent on the subject of cheese...' - Gilbert Keith Chesterton
The government has no rights. None whatsoever. Absolutely not one right at all.
The government has only limited powers granted it by the people through the Constitution.
A fundamental misunderstanding of this issue is a common problem, apparently it is not taught well in general education. No one can make educated and rational decisions about the government if they do not understand this fundamental underlying concept.
If the People wish to limit the Government's actions, even in national defense, because of infringements on personal rights and liberties, it is the People's prerogative to do so.
Jim
Wouldn't this also increase the cancer rate over your lifetime if you travel alot too?
It's the buzzword effect. It turns off the parts of the brain responsible for critical analysis. "Terrorism" is probably the most powerful buzzword ever invented, edging out even "for the children".
... crap, I think I just invoked Godwin's Law :/
;)
As to relative odds, your chance of dying in an accident in your own home is far greater than your chance of being murdered (in your bed or elsewhere). So with safety in mind, lets ban individual houses, and all live in nice safe enclosures
As to your high-contrast message (an excellent idea! Do come back and let us know when you do it!) I suggest putting it square across your ass, so they're forced to take a good close look if they want to read it.
[Wondering if metallic "temporary tattoo" ink would work]
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
for underwear which has a high contrast on these things.... Maybe ceramic-composite plates similar to those used in certain types of body armor....
Honestly... This is fundamentally *bad* technology. If it can easily be manipulated, it is even worse technology.....
Honestly, we are setting ourselves up to be more vulnerable rather than less. A tightly organized terrorist group could cause *more* damage to the US using very little force than they could prior to Sept 11th. Consider the following scenario:
1) Terrorists engage in a large number of fake plots. Maybe leaving luggage stuffed with weights and paper in airport restrooms, giving annonymous tips about ships importing produce being contaminated with chemical and/or biological agents, etc. As a result air traffic is largely shut down in this country, as are produce imports.
2) Once people discover that these are all hoaxes, a real attack is set off somewhere. Security is either distracted or not taking it seriously. So the damage is greater. THis could be kept up for a while. Bear in mind that the goal of terrorism is to scare us into being manipulated. We are well on the way to giving them that.
What we need to do is focus on how to minimize the impact of attacks and then work carefully to find political ways to cut terrorists off from their support base. Prevention is less important than containment.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP