Slashdot Mirror


Full Body Scanners Installed In 10 US Airports

Lapzilla brings word that airports around the US are beginning to use a new type of body-scanning machine which records pictures of travelers underneath their clothing. The process takes roughly 30 seconds, and the person viewing the pictures is located in a separate room. We've discussed similar scanners in the past. From USAToday: "[Barry Steinhardt, head of the ACLU technology project] said passengers would be alarmed if they saw the image of their body. 'It all seems very clinical and non-threatening -- you go through this portal and don't have any idea what's at the other end,' he said. Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth. Magazine-sized signs are posted around the checkpoint explaining the scanners, but passengers said they did not notice them."

454 comments

  1. Ewwww... by Plazmid · · Score: 2

    Gross.

    1. Re:Ewwww... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So..what happens if you refuse to do the scanner....and refuse to show ID to avoid being on any lists, but, are perfectly willing for a physical search?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Ewwww... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Informative

      They physically search you. The scanner isn't mandatory; it's just faster than a physical search and doesn't require you to remove much, if any, clothing.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    3. Re:Ewwww... by Verteiron · · Score: 4, Funny

      Since I'm pretty sure you can't board the plane without showing ID at some point, what will probably happen is you won't fly anywhere that day.

      Unless you look foreign. Then you'll fly down south for a nice vacation somewhere sunny. Like Cuba.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    4. Re:Ewwww... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can board a plane without ID. However, you have to go through more intensive security measures, and you go into a separate line for that.

      At some very busy airports, this has been occasionally used by seasoned travelers to get through security more quickly. It's a gamble as it depends on how busy the wand screeners are, but sometimes it works.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    5. Re:Ewwww... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      In 2006 I was taking a business trip to Orlando for a training seminar. It's about 1.5 hours before take off and I'm getting ready to go through the security. I take out my boarding pass as well as my license and I realize that my license is not in my wallet. I had already checked my luggage, without showing ID mind you, and I'm starting to panic that I won't get through security. As ask the screener if there is any chance I can even board the plane without the license thinking that I might be able to get the DMV to reprint a license and my wife FedEx to me on my trip. The screener said if the airline approves it that I could. The airline did approve it without even batting an eyelash as I was already checked in. Not sure what the logic in that was. The screener did say though that I could have problems with my connections as well as Orlando's airport likely wouldn't be as accommodating on the way back.

      Thankfully my wife was able to find and get me my license in time as renting a car was definitely not going to happen without a wallet.

    6. Re:Ewwww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you still had government-issued ID, which makes your observation pretty much irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

    7. Re:Ewwww... by infonography · · Score: 1

      ahhhh, you got the flash of that scene in Total Recall too? Not the one with the gun in the scanner but the crazy exploding head lady. Only it's not the lady's head that explodes but the viewer's eyes.

      How much does TSA pay for hazardous duty? I doubt it's enough.

      --
      Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    8. Re:Ewwww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I get searched manually all the time. The wankers see the scars and can't figure out that I'm not going to rip weapons from the body. I guess they think I'm a T-101 or some crazy s**t like that. Heck, it's not like I'm wearing concealing clothing either, standard shorts and tank top. I figure it's easier for them to wand me when the TSA boy's and girls can see the f**king scars. Winter obviously makes this harder.

      I was in a bike accident a little ways back. I have enough surgical steel in me to beep many place, but it has taught me a couple of things. The first being that many airports obviously turn down the sensitivity during busy times. I've had detectors that I've gone through and set off, not go off. Now if I, with 62 screws, 5 plates, and two pins don't set it off then WTF does? I doubt it's because they remembered me six months later at some busy hub.

      Still, you gave up your freedoms and privacy to be safe, right? I'd feel safer guarded by girl scouts at this point.

    9. Re:Ewwww... by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      There is no such a thing as not showing ID. I'm a frequent flier with 260,000 miles in my account and my ID gets checked 3 times average: first time at check-in, 2nd time to enter security area, 3rd time to board the plane.

    10. Re:Ewwww... by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      No you can't. Not in the United States.

    11. Re:Ewwww... by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how you got checked in without ID, but that was 2006 and this is 2008 and you won't get anywhere passed check-in desk without ID, much less past security. Try and come back and tell us. I fly nearly 40,000 actual miles every year.

    12. Re:Ewwww... by blacklint · · Score: 1

      Sure you can. You just have to be under 18. How that could be proven without ID I don't know, but it's the rules. (I'm under 18 but I just show my driver's license when I fly for convenience's sake.)

    13. Re:Ewwww... by Phroggy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now if I, with 62 screws, 5 plates, and two pins don't set it off then WTF does? A gun, one would hope. Or perhaps a knife.
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    14. Re:Ewwww... by masterzora · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just because you show your ID three times doesn't mean others can't get away with not showing their IDs. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/06/71115

      --
      Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
    15. Re:Ewwww... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    16. Re:Ewwww... by badfish99 · · Score: 1

      People often go through the scanners with metal objects in their pockets (coins, keys etc) by mistake. The scanners can be set so that they do not detect metal at waist height: when things are busy, the operators will turn off waist-height detection to speed things up a bit.

    17. Re:Ewwww... by BJH · · Score: 3, Funny

      So the best way to get a weapon through the metal detector is by sticking it in your pocket?

      Thanks for the tip...

    18. Re:Ewwww... by mh1997 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes you can, I was it IND about a month ago, the woman in front of me where you show your boarding pass and ID said she forgot her purse at home and wouldn't have time to go back. They took her to an alternate line where I lost track of her. About 45 minutes later she boarded the same Northwest Airlines plane that I did to DCA.

    19. Re:Ewwww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and doesn't require you to remove much, if any, clothing. so that's the new standard against which the "airport experience" is measured?
    20. Re:Ewwww... by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are metal detectors, not gun detectors. There is no magical setting which detects guns but fails to detect an identical amount of non-gun metal.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    21. Re:Ewwww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can verify this. I've accidentally walked through with a huge set of keys on me (various metals/alloys, including a largish steel keychain) and it didn't set the damn thing off!

    22. Re:Ewwww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "a little ways back" do you mean "in Monterrey Mexico last week"?

    23. Re:Ewwww... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "There is no such a thing as not showing ID. I'm a frequent flier with 260,000 miles in my account and my ID gets checked 3 times average: first time at check-in, 2nd time to enter security area, 3rd time to board the plane."

      Must depend on the city and airport then...I show it at the security check point....sometimes at check-in (if you don't have checked luggage, and print off your boarding pass at home, you never see a person at 'checkin').

      I don't know that I've ever been asked to show ID when boarding a plane in the past 5-6 years.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    24. Re:Ewwww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Omg..... Is that you? I would never have guessed.....

      lol

    25. Re:Ewwww... by Eastbeast314 · · Score: 1

      Just to throw a first-hand anecdote in there too, you don't need ID. My driver's license expired while I was at college, so I gave flying back without it a shot. They wrote 5555 all over my boarding pass, I got patted down, and they went through my luggage. Wasn't a big deal, and only took about 4 extra minutes. The agents seemed to have a good understanding of what they were supposed to.

    26. Re:Ewwww... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      I don't know how I did it either, but they never asked for any ID at the check in counter. I did have an eTicket and they took a look at that.

    27. Re:Ewwww... by mhollis · · Score: 1

      I feel your ... erm ... pain.

      Some years ago, I had my right knee replaced. I'll have my left one replaced fairly soon as it's beginning to go. This runs in my family. My mother had both knees and both hips replaced and needed her shoulders replaced. The arthritis that causes all of this literally melts cartilage and other joint materials until you're bone-on-bone.

      Prior to September 11, 2001, I never set off any Airport scanner. Now, after that date, I always do.

      --
      Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
    28. Re:Ewwww... by patches · · Score: 1

      Actually, you don't have to be under any age. A few months after 9-11 I was traveling, which I do all the time for my job, and I left my wallet in the rental car. I went through security and boarded my plane. And this was back during the time right after 9-11 where you had to show an ID through security, and also to get on the plane. I had all my stuff searched both in security and to get on the plane, and back when you could take liquids through, I had to take a drink of my Mountain Dew both at security and at the plane. Long story short, you can get through and travel without an ID, but it is painful, and a little long....

      --
      The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
    29. Re:Ewwww... by patches · · Score: 1

      I fly a lot every year as well, and they do not always ask for ID at check in. Most of the time I show my ID before they can ask, but sometimes when I don't they don't ask....

      --
      The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
    30. Re:Ewwww... by TastelessGarbage · · Score: 1
      From TFA re Schneier:

      ...Schneier picked up his spoon and jabbed the air with it. "We're one terrorist attack away from a police state," he said....

      All of the security theater contributes to swifter compliance by sheeple with more draconian rules when the next event occurs.

      --
      That ain't liver; that's beef kidney!
    31. Re:Ewwww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it has taught me a couple of things. The first being that many airports obviously turn down the sensitivity during busy times. I would have thought the first thing you were taught was regarding the unforgiving nature of a motorcycle accident.
    32. Re:Ewwww... by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      I traveled from Seattle to Tuscon recently. I neglected to remove a swiss army knife from my day pack. It passed through security Xray with flying colors. This was a mid sized pocket knife with about a 3" blade.

      I regularly leave a metal golf ball mark repairing tool in my pocket to see if the detector goes off. It's a piece of metal about 1/2" x 3". Kind of like a knife blade. In about 12 attempts now, I have -never- had the detector go off. The range of airports includes Chicago, Seatac, Denver, Phoenix, Atlanta, Dallas/forth wirth*, Honolulu and San Francisco.

      Airport security is worthless.

      *obligatory weak nerd humor

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    33. Re:Ewwww... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Of course I understand that, but a gun might contain MORE metal than the plates and screws inside this guy's body.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    34. Re:Ewwww... by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Possibly, although some are pretty small. A knife? No way. Knives can be absolutely miniscule. Remember that the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters, which are about the size of credit cards.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    35. Re:Ewwww... by potat0man · · Score: 1

      Damn guy. You're wrong. Get over it.

      Here's a link to John Gilmore's case. He sued the TSA over this issue and won. The 9th circuit federal court of appeals ruled that no ID needs to be shown when flying and it is in fact illegal for an airline to deny you service because you refuse to show ID.

      And get over yourself. I'll bet 10% of slashdotters fly "nearly 40,000 actual miles every year".

      How many links to evidence that you are wrong do you need before you stop replying without anything to backup your argument other than, "I fly a lot"?

    36. Re:Ewwww... by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      Well, that shows how consistent they are regardless of all these stupid measures.

  2. Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by gbulmash · · Score: 5, Funny
    Okay, first thing... the woman in the scanner looks like she's trying to keep a hula hoop in motion.

    Second thing:

    The scanners do a good job seeing under clothing but cannot see through plastic or rubber materials that resemble skin, said Peter Siegel, a senior scientist at the California Institute of Technology. "You probably could find very common materials that you could wrap around you that would effectively obscure things," Siegel said.


    Wonder if it would be legal to sell a line of rubberized scan-proof lingerie?

    "Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties: The TSA won't see your va-jay-jay today"
    "Bodacious Ta's Rubber Bras: If the TSA wants to see your nipples, make 'em buy you dinner first."
    "Mr. Happy's Super Sleeves: Take a 'tripod' through the TSA scanner."

    - Greg
    1. Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by Plazmid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Will covering my self with Aluminium foil work? What about sewing in copper wire into my clothing? Or how about a spazy self-ironig suit, that has titanium thread woven into it?(marketed for travellers)

    2. Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by megaditto · · Score: 1

      The photo made me recall this "Intro to psychology" course I took back when...

      Is it just me or does TFA photo look like a Skinner box for fear training?

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    3. Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by Ignis+Flatus · · Score: 1

      so basically, what you're saying is this technology makes us no safer than before? you could just strap on a prosthetic johnson with a hidden compartment, or rubber-cement yourself some plastique tatas. or stuff a snuke in your sneech. doesn't do a damn thing. nothing but shock and awwww.

    4. Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a bigger issue here. The first two posts on Slashdot have RTFA?

    5. Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by Mista2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd rather just write Fuck You in zinc cream or something I know will be reflective to the scanner all over my body 8)

    6. Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spinal Tap's bass player is gonna have some problems.

    7. Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by jforest1 · · Score: 1

      Forget that. Pop a couple of viagra and go commando through it with a pair of windsuit pants. When it's go time, wink at the camera. --josh

    8. Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      If you pop viagra, forgoe underwear, and wear windsuits, I don't think anybody is going to need some sort of x-ray scanner to see what's going on.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    9. Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by Starker_Kull · · Score: 1

      You know you can do that right now with strategically placed aluminum foil in a flat area of your bag? I like a big Smiley Face myself.... ;-)

    10. Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know the parent post was modded as funny, but you can get rubber clothing from adult stores/websites so it is perfectly legal to buy(I haven't got arrested for it).

      if you check out the forums on rubberist.net you'll discover that a lot of people enjoy wearing rubber clothing. perhaps airports will have a "no rubber clothes" policy soon?

      |R|

    11. Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by GCP · · Score: 1

      You can carry a lead-lined backpack today, but once they x-ray it, they'll pull it aside for a visual search. So, it's reasonable to assume that if you cleverly wear a shield when walking through a body scanner, they'll just pull you aside for a traditional strip search.

      --
      "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
    12. Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by GCP · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true spoiled child - the Standard Slashdot Sophisticate. The TSA is trying to keep you from being murdered on that flight. You think that finding ways to abuse them in return makes you a cool guy like, oh, say, Beavis, or maybe Butthead. A rebel. A free thinker.

      Intelligent people can and should debate the costs versus benefits of various security approaches. Adopting bad ideas is a bad idea. But those who think that automatically sneering at all security measures makes them seem sophisticated look like fools to me. They'd probably be glad to walk naked through their gym locker room to get a free beer, but to safeguard their lives....

      Still, there's clearly a large market of such sophisticates, so maybe they could start their own "no security hassles, bring whatever you like in carry on or just strap it on and come aboard because we're too sophisticated ever to raise an eyebrow" kinda airline. They could use the hub system to guarantee that most flights had at least one stop somewhere in the Islamic world to buy more sophistication cred. "See, we told you you were worried about nothing" could be stenciled on the sides of the planes.

      --
      "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
    13. Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by gbulmash · · Score: 1

      It's not so much any security measure, it's government intrusion and invasiveness that people object to. I mean, come on, if you take everyone who was ever killed by a terrorist attack involving an airplane in the history of flight and compare that to the number of people killed by tobacco, drunk drivers...

      We're spending billions on airport security not because human life is so precious. If we were, we might invest some of that money in invasive laws and procedures to stop drunks from driving and tobacco addicts from smoking or dipping. We might spend some of it on inspecting more cargo containers, protecting our power grid better...

      We're going overboard at the airports because it's really visible. Stepped up security around a Dow Chemical plant or a local reservoir barely gets noticed. But a new airport scanner that can count the hairs on your scrotum, and everyone goes nuts.

      Let's get real, if the TSA operated with the confidence, efficiency, and appearance of intelligence that some other airport security services do, and maybe people might feel better about it. But you get the feeling that some of these security screeners are working for TSA because the private sector has no use for them. Stuff that shouldn't slip through regularly does, the security is like swiss cheese, and the TSA's answer to it is not to hire better staff or give them better training, it's to throw money behind more invasive technology.

      That irks some people. Most of us wouldn't mind TSA doing its job if they could do it efficiently instead of making it look like one big scam on the American people.

      - Greg

    14. Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I don't care. I'll take my chances, I have better odds of being shot and killed by a cop on the street. A far better chance of dying in a car wreck than terrorist plane bombing.

    15. Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      What a fucking moron. You swallow everything the AUTHORITY tells you, don't you?

      Why not use some critical thinking? Which airline is the most dangerous in the world? Israeli Air. Which airline has never been hijacked or attacked? Israeli Air.

      Why don't we follow what *THEY* do?

    16. Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Wonder if it would be legal to sell a line of rubberized scan-proof lingerie?
      Yes, because it's always amusing to annoy immigration officers who can then insist on a full strip and body cavity search.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  3. Geez, by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Government-sponsored voyeurism has reached a new low. Who are we protecting ourselves against again?

    1. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thankfully that 1/3 of the population is overweight. so after the first week of watching 'naked' people, the person watching in the closed room would have to block out everything.

    2. Re:Geez, by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ....Who are we protecting ourselves against again? That is the most sane question to ask. period.

      Where are the threats? Where are the terrorists? Where is the danger? Is there ANYONE on /. that knows where the proven irrefutable answers are?

      These scanners are not necessary in any other country. Not even those that have actual terrorist living there (according to bushco). What is the real reason for these scanners?

      I'm betting that it is to acclimatize the populace to intrusive searches for 'security' reasons.

      Yes, put on the tin foil hat, pass the ammo pal. Only the most ignorant of terrorists would attack with airplanes again. While we are concentrating on making sure grandma is wearing her support hose and not disguised C4, they will be happily planning to poison water supplies or 'assplode' nuclear power stations... well, that is if there ARE any more terrorist plots.

      If you listen to what Bin Laden supposedly said, he has already won. He knew what the neocons had planned for the NWO, and was probably part of it. He played his part.

      Now, take off the tin foil hat and put on the thinking one. What are these scanners protecting us from? Where is the evidence,never mind proof, that we need protection from that? Go ahead, give us a list of things, and cite your original source of information provided as proof of such threats.

      This is an open challenge to anyone. Show me the money!! Prove that such measures are needed. Don't forget to prove how these measures stop airport staff from planting bombs or drugs in someone's luggage. ......

      time passes

      I'm waiting... well?
    3. Re:Geez, by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Funny
      From FTA:

      "Most passengers don't think it's any big deal," Schear said. "They think it's a piece of security they're willing to do." Yeah, most people just wish deep down they could walk around the airport naked in the first place.
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    4. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      MOD PARENT UP +5 INSIGHTFUL

    5. Re:Geez, by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1, Informative

      RTFA. This is used as a traveler-selected alternative to a pat-down when selected for a secondary screening. Your choice is a pat-down or a scan. It's not for the vast majority of travelers.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:Geez, by pipingguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm betting that it is to acclimatize the populace to intrusive searches for 'security' reasons.

      It has more to do with fear and making money than it has to do with your worry. Not that the former won't lead to the latter.

    7. Re:Geez, by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you've never flown El Al.

    8. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD PARENT UP +5 INSIGHTFUL Why?
    9. Re:Geez, by zappepcs · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nope, not posting anon. If you've flown El Al and find they need security, well, ask yourself why? Go ahead, history is not just for librarians, look it up, ask why? Find the answer.

      The nation of Israel has been called one of the biggest terrorist threats facing mankind in the last 40 years. So, again, why?

      I'm waiting for your answer too.

    10. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans. That's who.

    11. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From FTA:

      "Most passengers don't think it's any big deal," Schear said. "They think it's a piece of security they're willing to do."
      Oh, sure, I'm just going to take this guy's word for it that the passengers don't think it's a big deal.

      And also from TFA:

      Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth.
    12. Re:Geez, by furball · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      These scanners are not necessary in any other country. Of course not. But then other countries like Sri Lanka just put the metal detectors at the door to the airport and not just inside it.

      You should travel the world some before speaking about countries you've never been to.
    13. Re:Geez, by chaosite · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Mind you, El Al has tested these sort of scanners before, and gave up on the idea because Israeli privacy laws currently forbid it.

      Just saying.

    14. Re:Geez, by squidinkcalligraphy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, it's fat people that can compromise security. You could quite easily hide something such as a knife in a fold of fat (OK, obese people). That won't get picked up by the scanner.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
    15. Re:Geez, by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ....You should travel the world some before speaking about countries you've never been to. I have, trust me, that platinum card is not all it's cracked up to be, despite comforts provided by it.

      Here is an example of comparisons for you:
      http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/1566/1/

      There are simple, pre-9/11 ways of running a secure air transport system. I have been through Athens airport many times and it is considered a hub of terrorist traffic in it's day. It never needed the same intrusive checks that you see in the USA today. Perhaps before you take someone's comments as off-hand conversational fodder you might consider that they are not ill-considered or uneducated comment.

      The world was secure for airport traffic before 9/11, and it is safe now without all these security measures. Nothing on the plane will stop someone from hijacking it if they have enough manpower and willpower. period. think it through. The alleged story from the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania shows that it is not possible to hijack if passengers don't want it. It takes multiple security failures to allow it. Up until 9/11 everyone was told that hijackers don't want to kill everyone, they want money or some other media recognition etc. So on 9/11 things failed. Not because there were no scanners or people took toothpaste onboard, but because the terrorists stepped outside the standard paradigm. They will do so again IF they want to attack, despite extra precautions for air transport. If the general thought that terrorists are smart is true, airliners will be the last thing they would use next time. It's far easier to sabotage the electric grid, water supply, or nuclear power plant.

      BTW, terrorist acts on the infrastructure are next, not loss of life. The idea is to get us to spend tons of money trying to protect ourselves from what we are told is to be feared. To waste that money and resources. They will always be able to find an easy target that we are not watching.

      So, what again is the point of such measures in the airport? Do you mean to tell me that no one in the government whose job it is to predict terrorist acts has thought of this?

      What is the point of intrusive security checks again?
    16. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it's a good thing the US has so few fat people, otherwise...oh wait...crap, we're screwed!

    17. Re:Geez, by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hell, even after a week of working in a strip club filled with hotties... you pretty much cease to notice it.

    18. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not for the vast majority of travelers yet.
      There...fixed that for you.

      The choice of a pat down is just a measure to placate all those "privacy advocates" who believe that airline travelers should be treated with a modicum of respect. Give them 6 months before they quietly announce that since 98% of all passengers choose the scan, they're eliminating the pat down choice. By that time, the news organizations will have moved on and they know that without the media fueling the outrage, people will just bend over and take it (though to be fair they're not planning to take that literally for at least a couple of years).
    19. Re:Geez, by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      "Do you mean to tell me that no one in the government whose job it is to predict terrorist acts has thought of this?"
      It's not their job to actually do something effective. It's their job to LOOK like they're doing something effective.

    20. Re:Geez, by slashgrim · · Score: 1

      "the person viewing the pictures is located in a separate room" = images are transmitted electronically....I wonder what the buzz will be like the first time one of these machines get cracked and the images are all over the web. I certainly wouldn't want to be the TSA boss

    21. Re:Geez, by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      well, that is if there ARE any more terrorist plots.

      Jihadists are caught all the time, and there's no reason to assume that they will stop trying.
    22. Re:Geez, by Kijori · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nothing on the plane will stop someone from hijacking it if they have enough manpower and willpower. period. think it through. The alleged story from the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania shows that it is not possible to hijack if passengers don't want it.
      [...]
      What is the point of intrusive security checks again? Maybe we can't make ourselves 100% safe - but the closer we get the more difficult it becomes to hijack a plane. Yes there is no way to stop terrorists 100%, but if they can't get a weapon on board it's much harder, if they can't get into the cockpit it's much harder, if they can't...

      I'm not totally convinced that this is a worthwhile security measure - I don't know enough about it to make an informed decision and the article is rather sketchy. But even if it's not it's no reason to throw out all the post-9/11 security changes. People still successfully rob banks - but the security measures mean that very few people try. If someone tries to hijack a plane people can die - whether they succeed or not - so discouraging people from trying is a victory all on its own.

      BTW, terrorist acts on the infrastructure are next, not loss of life. The idea is to get us to spend tons of money trying to protect ourselves from what we are told is to be feared. To waste that money and resources. They will always be able to find an easy target that we are not watching. There's no way you can know that. Learning from the past is the only reasonable thing to do now; planes were hijacked, the loss of life and damage was significant, so we work to stop it happening again. Anything else would be reckless.

      If the general thought that terrorists are smart is true, airliners will be the last thing they would use next time. It's far easier to sabotage the electric grid, water supply, or nuclear power plant. Or they'll attack an airline - because even if it's harder and less effective in reality it looks much more impressive on the news and is hard to blame on freak accident. American airlines being hit once was damaging - if they are repeatedly targeted successfully the fear and the damage would be ten times as great. Not to mention that there's no reason to assume they'll only attack one target, not everything they can think of.
    23. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Did _you_ RTFA?

      First, 'traveler-selected'? Let me quote you some quotes:

      Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth.

      1) The only true consent is informed consent.
      2) 'they were directed into the booth' ... how is that a choice in the first place, rather than a default?

      TSA spokeswoman Sterling Payne said the agency is studying passenger reaction and could "get more creative" about informing passengers. "If passengers have questions," she said, "they need to ask the questions."

      How does this not sound like "We're trying to find ways of skirting the rules that require us to say what we're doing so people don't ask questions."?

      Passengers can decline to go through a scanner, but they will face a pat-down.

      To me, this sounds more like: "Oh, you don't want to go in? You don't _have_ to, but if you don't, we're going to pat you down..."

      90% of passengers choose to be scanned, the TSA says.

      If 90% of women had no problem appearing in naked pictures / video as long as their faces were blurred, porn on the internet would be old hat,

      Second/finally, you say 'It's not for the vast majority of travelers' ?

      Schear said the scanners could eventually replace metal detectors at the nation's 2,000 airport checkpoints and the pat-downs done on passengers who need extra screening. "We're just scratching the surface of what we can do with whole-body imaging," Schear said.

      I don't know about you, but I think there's a metal detector that _Everyone_ goes through. If they replace it with this, you are only right in that it is for _every_ traveler, rather than only the majority.

      Scanners are used in a few courthouses, jails and U.S. embassies, as well as overseas border crossings, military checkpoints and some foreign airports such as Amsterdam's Schiphol.

      Just a little reminder that airports are the tip of the iceberg, the toe in the water. This is just to test what you'll tolerate. Congrats, the water doesn't seem too cold yet.

      The TSA effort could encourage scanners' use in rail stations, arenas and office buildings, the American Civil Liberties Union said.

      This is why I like the ACLU. They worry about the things that I worry about, except they can help fix them.

      In conclusion, how can you so blithely say 'RTFA', when it is blatantly clear that you missed the vast majority of it yourself?
    24. Re:Geez, by infosinger · · Score: 1, Insightful

      One advantage Athens has over the USA is that they don't have the extreme fear of appearing to do profiling. We have to insist on inspecting every grandma so that we can inspect an equal number of dark haired bearded men.

    25. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't put on a tinfoil hat, write pithy comments on your torso with metal paint and enjoy the phun.

    26. Re:Geez, by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      people will just bend over and take it

      Hm, that makes me wonder what would happen if Mr. Goatse went through that scanner...

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    27. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are we protecting ourselves against... Women with booby-traps or concealed arms. Men who might have rockets in their pockets, or nuts that could go off with the slightest provocation.
      It's a dangerous world out there for lonely guards.
    28. Re:Geez, by joeman3429 · · Score: 1, Informative

      because it was insightful

    29. Re:Geez, by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is the real reason for these scanners? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say...

      Lining the pockets of the people who make the scanners. Manufacturing a device the use of which is mandated by the government can be quite profitable, I imagine.
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    30. Re:Geez, by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are almost there. For any given metropolitan area, I can find out how to bring it to it's knees in less than 30 minutes and no loss of life. If you want loss of life, I guarantee that it's possible. The whole idea was to make Americans afraid. If they are afraid, the world is (more or less) and the terrorists have won.

      There is no method to make any mode of transport safe, or any building other than restricting all access to it/them. So by spreading fear, they win. Logic loses, fear wins. Think it through, just for a minute. Any target but airlines is now easy, just as easy as the airlines were on 9/11 because all efforts are spent on screening passengers... not airport staff, not water supplies, not power stations.

      You are buying into the fear and somehow believing that this 'extra' measure makes you more safe? Who would want you to believe that? If there was genuine fear of terrorism in the USA it would cover every possible attack vector, not JUST airlines. See what the MSM wants you to be afraid of? remember who rattles their leashes?

      I'm not saying there is some big conspiracy, just saying hey! why wouldn't terrorists attack water supplies? If they really wanted to harm citizens, why try to smash into buildings when a small vial of poison is enough?

      They were making a statement, one that would put you and others in a frenzy, one that would cause you to waste all your money and liberties on protecting yourself from something that does not exist.

      They won.

    31. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I get a choice of being groped or ogled? Wonderful.

    32. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole idea was to make Americans afraid. If they are afraid, the world is (more or less) Yes, we are very afraid of you Americans being afraid. We're afraid of the terrorists running your country.
    33. Re:Geez, by ch0knuti · · Score: 1

      Nice choice there for an example. The LTTE , which operates in Sri Lanka is among the most dangerous terrorist groups in the world. True they do not target tourists but they have attacked the airport a couple of times.

    34. Re:Geez, by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's no way you can know that. Learning from the past is the only reasonable thing to do now; planes were hijacked, the loss of life and damage was significant, so we work to stop it happening again. Anything else would be reckless. No, what is reckless is to "work to stop it happening again" without regard to either the effectiveness or the cost of such work - both monetary and opportunity costs.

      These body-scanning machines have a very high cost and as long as checked luggage is not 100% screened, nor is service access to the airplane 100% screened (hell, its barely controlled at all as is) then these machines produce an ineffective increase in security. This isn't layered security, this a finger in a dike where the dike has already been completely washed away.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    35. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government-sponsored voyeurism has reached a new low. Who are we protecting ourselves against again? that question implies we are the government. its not us that are "protecting" ourselves. once you see it that way the answer is very clear. the governments purpose should be to serve the people. its vice versa in the united states today.
    36. Re:Geez, by catxk · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you're so fat you can hide stuff in your folds, I doubt you'll be able to cause much damage either way.

      --
      Don't be crazy anymore!
    37. Re:Geez, by JackassJedi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is just Bush and co taking things too personal. Like a hurt and wounded animal, after the 9/11 attacks, it's all just paranoia, there just isn't any reason for all this. As a good tactical leader Bin Laden knows that paranoia can and will drive an enemy into its own destruction. This really has to stop or we'll just end up killing ourselves and doing the job for him But seriously, this is a first step into losing the real perspective, not looking into the places where we SHOULD be looking for if we want to seek safety.

      --
      Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many.
    38. Re:Geez, by supremebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True... but you know the first time a Paris Hilton or Jessica Alba type celebrity walks through one of these scanners, the pictures will be on TMZ or The Superficial within a matter of hours.

      (Yes, I know that there are rules about bringing cameras into the scanner rooms. That said, the tabloid sites pay a hell of a lot more than the TSA does!)

    39. Re:Geez, by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You think that would really stop them if they were really useful? I'm sure the law could be changed to give an exception for this. Of course, Israel and El Al are both good at implementing actual security, as opposed to the rampant security theater we get in the US.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    40. Re:Geez, by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Learning from the past is the only reasonable thing to do now; planes were hijacked, the loss of life and damage was significant, so we work to stop it happening again. Anything else would be reckless. Excellent! The big lesson from the past is that passengers no longer allow airplane hijackings, so there is no longer any pressing need for security to be particularly watchful for them.
      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    41. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I just flew back from Israel yesterday on El Al.

      It was interesting that Israeli airport security doesn't make you empty your water bottles or take off your shoes. Just some questions when you enter or leave the country, the standard bag x-ray and walking through the metal detector and there ya go.

      Israel has its share of issues with national security, but the US takes the airport protection to an extreme...

    42. Re:Geez, by maxume · · Score: 1

      Atlanta, timed to coincide with the anniversary of Pearl Harbor.

      Cutting power would be a big deal there, but not as big if it wasn't air conditioning season.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    43. Re:Geez, by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Where are the terrorists?

      The real question is, who are the terrorists? Stories of their attacks (such as this one) come regularly.

    44. Re:Geez, by lordofwhee · · Score: 1

      It's all security theater. They tell us that shoe bombs are going to kill each and every one of us on a plane if they don't search your grandma's shoes. So, they search grandma's shoes, and the idiot population thinks they're safe, when anyone who really wanted to take down a plane could do so extremely easily (after all, if they're going to die anyway, why not plant the explosive INSIDE their body?).

    45. Re:Geez, by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      I don't see any reason why the machines need to be connected to the net, or why the images can't be transmitted via inaccessible wiring.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    46. Re:Geez, by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Most passengers don't think it's any big deal," Schear said.

      Unless I misunderstood TFA, most passengers don't actually know what the machine does.

      I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if they instead asked most passengers to step into a little room marked "strip search office" and take all their clothes off, the number of protests would be significant.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    47. Re:Geez, by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If 90% of women had no problem appearing in naked pictures / video as long as their faces were blurred, porn on the internet would be old hat,

      On that note, it's mad that porn - images of people who freely consent to it - is often demonised, yet coercing everyone into having their naked bodies viewed by random men is okay...

    48. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they told the passengers that the scanner was actually a big meat grinder, I'd bet a few would still walk into it.

    49. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the point of intrusive security checks again?

      i) to support the Terrorism industry
      ii) to keep people in fear and to ratchet up the level of intrusion
      iii) to cover that backsides of bureaucrats
      iv) to appear to be doing something

    50. Re:Geez, by WilyCoder · · Score: 2, Funny

      And yet I keep going back. Hmmmmm...

    51. Re:Geez, by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      you may still sit on the pilot and deal ultimate damage. Enforced door aren't a problem either if you will be able to gain enough speed.

    52. Re:Geez, by wurp · · Score: 1

      I disagree with the rest of your post, too, but the case against those points is pretty effectively made by other replies already.

      Nothing done today prevents anyone from getting a weapon on board. The current security measures might stop someone who makes a half-hearted attempt, with no preparation, to get a weapon on board, but those aren't the threat.

      Anyone with half a brain can shave their leg and duct tape an obsidian knife to it. Or fit a knife into complementary shaped plate and put it in their laptop.

      If liquids are really dangerous to bring on board a plane, they're dangerous no matter who brings them on board, whether they have easily faked paperwork indicating a medical reason to need it or not.

      The only effect of the "security measures" we have in place now are to make people who haven't thought it through *feel* safer, and to make everyone a little more used to letting authority figures search them and tell them what to do, regardless of whether they have any probable cause.

      Secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, my ass.

    53. Re:Geez, by labmonkey09 · · Score: 1

      50% terrorists, 50% the people that enable them.

      --
      /LabMonkey09
    54. Re:Geez, by kencurry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mods are sleeping this a.m.

      your post hits the nail on the head as to why these otherwise fairly lame methods prevail.

      This is CYA on the part of airport security: "we have the latest in technology, spared no expense, how can we be blamed for what happened?"

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    55. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call me a decoy. I always get stopped by police and have trouble with security everywhere I go while the heavy woman who has rubbed garlic juice all over her body passes security without much fuss. Police and security have to make decisions. When they pick me they are wasting their time so it is only a small win. Be it Pearl Harbour, 911 or drug traffickers, it is all about timing, and lots of little people operating to perfection. Luck never hurt either!

    56. Re:Geez, by Reziac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I used to have this bamboo forest surrounding my house -- it was really quite impressive. People always asked why it was there, and I'd say, "It keeps the elephants away. You don't see any elephants, do you??"

      And everyone agreed as to how it must work, since there weren't any invading elephants. But one day someone had a different response: "Only the pink ones..."

      It's the same thing with these scanners. They keep the terrorists away -- you don't see any terrorists, do you?? Nope, only the imaginary ones.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    57. Re:Geez, by mwsource · · Score: 1

      Great, now a job for the truly perverted. Airport Security.

    58. Re:Geez, by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Shit, why not just blow up the damned airport? You don't even need to step inside the security perimeter. Just drop a bomb in the lobby, or near the front entrance. That would be much more spectacular than anything you could do in flight, with what little you can sneak aboard in your hand luggage.

      Or hie yourself to the back fence, outside the airport entirely, and lob a few incidiaries in the direction of the fuel pumps. Fireworks for everyone!!

      Goes to show how stupid the whole security theatre thing is...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    59. Re:Geez, by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Exactly so. And fact is, if we weren't so accustomed to being sheep (keep your head down, and maybe YOU won't get picked to be slaughtered today!), stuff like hijackings would never have been successful in the first place, because the passengers would have swarmed the perps and beat their heads square. I'll see your box cutter, and raise you Aunt Mamie's spike-heeled shoe, smack in your eyeball. Try it again, punk...

      As to other attack vectors... well, the main difference seems to be the opportunity for theatre. Yeah, you can secure your municipal water facility, but you can't stop Random Terrorist from dropping nefarious substances into any of the hundreds of miles of the California Aquaduct.

      So, given that threat, we all panic and all buy bottled water. Great! now all I need to do is compromise one batch of Popular Bottled Water and I've got a captive audience! (And it's not like someone couldn't -- remember the Great Tylenol Scare??) But because this offers a choke point, Security Theatre can again rear its ugly head.

      I'm not sure where I was going with this, other than ... my response to a terrorist is not to be afraid; it's a desire to knock their teeth in.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    60. Re:Geez, by mdarksbane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Honestly, the smartest thing they could do would be a series of small bombs at high school football games, graduations, shopping malls - you can't be safe anywhere. It's a lot cheaper and easier than taking an airplane, and with people already riled up and scared, I think it would be just as effective.

      As for airport security... my company has had three laptops stolen out of checked baggage in the last year because people ignored the company policy of carrying them on. If they can't keep the airport baggage handlers straight (who have FAR more access to the plane than anyone riding as a passenger), why should we trust that any of their other "improvements" are worthwhile?

    61. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These scanners are not necessary in any other country. Not even those that have actual terrorist living there (according to bushco). What is the real reason for these scanners?

      They don't need the scanners because they have guards with machine guns. If you look suspicious you are are taken at gunpoint for an involuntary strip search. Instead of scanners maybe we should handle it the same way in the USofA?

      I had the misfortune of catching the guys with guns' attention in Riyadh several years ago. I had a pocket knife on me (you used to just drop pocket knives in the small bowl with your keys, watch, etc. They'd look at it and pass it back to you) and I forgot to drop it in the bowl and I set off the detector. That wasn't a particularly big deal, but when they scanned me with the hand held detector my shoes set it off. (I had boots with steel toes and shank on.) Before I knew it I was on the ground with guns drawn around me while they shredded my boots. They completely destroyed then ripping the insides out until they where satisfied that the metal was structural and part of the design. Then they didn't want to give me my knife back. In the end they acquiesced. I didn't need to buy a new knife but I still needed to buy new boots when I landed.

    62. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well as long as the 'terrorists' are coming in on international flights and not domestic it won't make a bit of difference - course this is obviously just another power play by the govt using the traditional excuse - but people are stupid.

      Hear that flush that's you tax dollars at work.

    63. Re:Geez, by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      In what way is scanning our persons any worse than scanning our belongings, which we have submitted since long before 9/11? I'm not a fan of either one, but realistically scanning baggage is a far more egregious privacy violation. You can learn a lot more about people by scanning what they carry their baggage or requiring them to turn on and use their laptops than you can by scanning their bodies.

      I realize that as a society that we're very paranoid about hiding our penises and vaginae from the world, but realistically there's very little privacy violation in a body scan in comparison to the existing searches.

      The time to raise the privacy raise outcry was 20 years ago when they started poking around into the things we carry with us and we make them stop.

      I'm fairly confident, though, that people will fight against the body scan - and if they win, they'll feel convinced that their privacy is somehow intact; that they've won a great victory when once again "only" scanning and searching of baggage is performed.

    64. Re:Geez, by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1
      Holy crap. I was beginning to think that I was the only sane person left; it seems like most people really are ignorant of the damage one person can cause essentially anywhere, without even putting a lot of effort into it.

      I could drive a homemade bomb into work at a major financial company if I wanted to. Water supplies are unprotected. I can cause a 100+ care pileup with dozens of fatalities whenever I decide to do it.

      When getting caught (or staying alive) is not a concern for the perpetrator, the methods of causing massive harm before you can be prevented are literally without limit.

      The point, of course, is that if anyone /wanted/ to do these things, they can't be stopped through pointless exercises such as the laughable airport 'security' we have today. We rely a lot more than most people know on the fact that the vast majority of the world's population does /not/ want to cause this kind of damage.

    65. Re:Geez, by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Israel has its share of issues with national security, but the US takes the airport protection to an extreme...


      Umm ... the U.S. is pretty bad, but its only #2 for "Taking Airport Theater to the Extreme". England is still #1.
      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    66. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly so. And fact is, if we weren't so accustomed to being sheep (keep your head down, and maybe YOU won't get picked to be slaughtered today!), stuff like hijackings would never have been successful in the first place, because the passengers would have swarmed the perps and beat their heads square. I'll see your box cutter, and raise you Aunt Mamie's spike-heeled shoe, smack in your eyeball. Try it again, punk...


      Keep in mind that in the planes on 9/11 large blocks of tickets were purchased for people who never showed up, specifically to cut down on the number of people who were on-board and could oppose the terrorists.

      Not sure if it was true for the one where the passengers fought back, but certainly it was true for the other three.
    67. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When getting caught (or staying alive) is not a concern for the perpetrator, the methods of causing massive harm before you can be prevented are literally without limit.

      Absolutely true.

      The one I remember hearing is that an Assassin ready to die is almost impossible to stop. I expect to see one of those being directed against our Executive branch soon.
    68. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its just security theatre, you couldn't possibly secure the infrastructure even if you had unlimited funds and manpower.

      Few months ago my city suffered rolling brown outs to stabilize the grid, the reason?

      Truck driver on the highway who should have pulled over and taken a nap fell asleep at the wheel, went off the highway straight into a power substation.

      No terrorist attack, no bomb truck, just a sleepy long haul driver. No big plot and he still took out half a cities power grid with out even trying.

      Makes you wonder what the point of all the invasive security is, why should we change our life styles because of the fear of what MIGHT happen? Fuck 'em, we're better than that. Terrorists operate with the intent of getting attention and recognition, I can't think of a bigger fuck you to the terrorist than to go on with my life as if nothing had ever happened, can you?

    69. Re:Geez, by Nemo's+Night+Sky · · Score: 1

      Actually... I'm sure my being a male is a factor, but there are probably females as well that JUST DON'T CARE. I am a huge privacy guru too. Having to carry I.D. makes me mad. Biometrics scare me (because they aren't reliable.) and I donate to the EFF regularly to help ensure RFID chips don't get implanted in my neck. So fellas do what I plan on doing next time I fly, and give them a little shake n' wiggle action while your in the booth. I seriously doubt the person in the other room is going to enjoy it. Yes its dumb. Yes its a waste. Yes they will see your balls. WHO CARES? Even if you had something you like kept secret, like being transgender or something, its not like your going to walk into the booth and the guy is going to burst out screaming oh my god it has boobs and a penis!!! So people, whats it going to be? Step into the booth for 5 secs or get felt up by Bruno? Now if they were storing the images that would be unacceptable as the SSA and IRS have both been victims of data theft because of negligence.

      "So, traveler, are those nipple piercings or is it just cold in here today?"

    70. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chalk that one up to certain religions practically demonising sex, and the general attitude that anything is justified in the name of combating terrorism - or at least the illusion thereof.

      Americans have one fucked up society.

    71. Re:Geez, by patches · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that is the point. Those questions are asked by people that are very proficient interrogators, and they are trained to determine if you are lying to them. If they think you are evading their questions, then there are more questions and tougher security.

      I think that TSA would do better if they learned from Isreal. and maybe we would have better security here, instead of this make-believe security that tries to make you feel more secure when you are no more secure then 20 years ago...

      --
      The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
    72. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you should mention El Al. I'm standing in line at TLV as I type this.

    73. Re:Geez, by Kijori · · Score: 1

      Nothing done today prevents anyone from getting a weapon on board. The current security measures might stop someone who makes a half-hearted attempt, with no preparation, to get a weapon on board, but those aren't the threat.

      Anyone with half a brain can shave their leg and duct tape an obsidian knife to it. Or fit a knife into complementary shaped plate and put it in their laptop. This isn't really true. You could make a tray in your laptop that holds a knife. And you could make it look fine on x-ray, and so that it looks totally normal and the laptop still boots. But you'd need a lot more than "half a brain".

      The fact that you can concoct ways that would allow a weapon onto a plane doesn't change the fact that airport security does catch people with weapons. It catches people with knives, it catches people with guns, and it catches people with bombs. If one attack succeeds it doesn't make the security a failure - no security screen can be 100% effective. Unless every attack gets through or every attack is stopped there will be a debate to be had.
    74. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      methods of causing massive harm before you can be prevented are literally without limit

      That word doesn't mean what you think it means. I can't leap outside and kick the planet into the sun, no matter how willing I am to ride down with it. I can't even kill you with my brain.

    75. Re:Geez, by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      Seriously... Just build a collection of a handful of celebs - bam you're ready to retire from the TSA.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    76. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government-sponsored voyeurism has reached a new low. Who are we protecting ourselves against again?
      Looks like the terrorists have already won. One can speculate 9/11 was engineered for this very purpose, to remove rights (pun intended) of citizens slowly, step-by-step.
    77. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are the threats? Where are the terrorists? Where is the danger? Is there ANYONE on /. that knows where the proven irrefutable answers are?
      There is no danger, no one wants to blow up overweight people, it's all about stripping rights away.

      Is there no law to stop these maniac lawmakers? Who knows, next time there is bomb blast in a store or a hospital or workplace they will install these ridiculous contraptions in those places.

    78. Re:Geez, by euri.ca · · Score: 1

      That is the most concise statement of why this is dumb:

      Airports pass all luggage by a group of criminals (or a group known to contain criminals) before putting it on the plane.

      And yet *this* is what they want to "fix".

    79. Re:Geez, by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      methods of causing massive harm before you can be prevented are literally without limit

      That word doesn't mean what you think it means. I can't leap outside and kick the planet into the sun, no matter how willing I am to ride down with it. I can't even kill you with my brain.

      I always use the words I want to use.

      # 2 (intensifier before a figurative expression) without exaggeration; "our eyes were literally pinned to TV during the Gulf War" Or how about:

      4. in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually. Or maybe:

      2 : in effect Try again?
    80. Re:Geez, by Reziac · · Score: 1

      An AC says,
      =========
      Keep in mind that in the planes on 9/11 large blocks of tickets were purchased for people who never showed up, specifically to cut down on the number of people who were on-board and could oppose the terrorists. -- Not sure if it was true for the one where the passengers fought back, but certainly it was true for the other three.
      =========

      So what?? if there are as few as 4 or 5 adult passengers for each box-cutter-armed terrorist, that's more than enough to swarm the perps and take them down. Smack 'em upside the head with your lunch tray, Uncle Bob's cane, your mom's purse. Fling your coat into his face and knock him over while he's tangled up in it. Weapons are all around you, and you need not even go hand to hand with the perp. Remember, they do NOT have guns anymore. They have to actually take hold of you do to hurt you.

      Yeah, one or two innocents may get hurt or killed; and you may have to decide to sacrifice one or two innocents in the name of saving everyone else. But it beats letting the wolves have their way with the entire flock, and maybe putting the whole plane in the ground.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    81. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they actually like fat people, which believe it or not is possible. They'd be a happy voyeur in that case.

    82. Re:Geez, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you notice the definitions you cited were always last among alternatives, and "frequently" or "often" criticized at that? This is a dictionary author's polite way of saying "the usage we're describing is wrong, though popular."

    83. Re:Geez, by collinstocks · · Score: 1

      I agree that intrusive checks are pointless if they are meant to save lives. Aeroplane transportation is still much safer than car transportation, terrorists or not. So more effort needs to be taken in order to make the roads safer, not "increasing security" on an aeroplane.

    84. Re:Geez, by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      It's an accepted usage in the four I cited, as well as the big fat Unabridged sitting here at home. You can pick the /one/ that hints at an opinion, but the fact remains that the usage was correct in all regards. Because something is "criticized" doesn't mean it's wrong - it means only that some people (such as yourself) think it's wrong.

    85. Re:Geez, by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the pictures which will soon be on sites of less .... legal nature.

      What happens when OH NOEEESSSSS!!!! THE TERRRRRRISSSTSS! bumps up against THINK OF THE CHILDRENS!? We'll find out soon enough.

  4. And this is one of the reasons why... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    I don't fly any longer.

    There are other reasons as well, but in a nutshell, the entire process has gone so far downhill I'd rather drive, even all the way across the country.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I totally agree -- but nobody will rent me a car for my trip to Europe. ;)

    2. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by SoapBox17 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It occurred to me recently when they started charging to bring almost any luggage with you at all, that actually they are trying to make flying such a ridiculous process that people will just stop doing it unless they really need to.

      Think about it. The new fees on checked luggage are just going to cause people to push the envelope of carry on bags to the point the boarding/unboarding process is unbearable. Add on to that the 3-1-1, you can't bring liquids with you at all if you can't check baggage and you're not allowed to carry them on. Now they also are going to be looking at basically naked pictures of you as you get on the plane, and, oh yeah, don't forget you are paying a lot of money for this poor treatment, and soon the sodas won't even be free.

      No one in their right mind would fly at all under these circumstances, and that's exactly what they want.

    3. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I totally agree -- but nobody will rent me a car for my trip to Europe. ;) AC, meet Boat.

      Boat, meet AC.
    4. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Add to that the fact that the average airline seat was designed to fit the human body perfectly... by testing the fit against a one-armed, one-legged midget with a fetish for being confined.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    5. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not what they want. Fuel has moved from 10% of the airlines' cost to more than half, in some cases. Nearly a dozen airlines have folded in the last few months, and even the largest carriers are getting panicky. If anything, this is more problematic than the post-9/11 jitters, because everyone knew they would subside, but no one knows if this is going to be a bubble or if it's the new standard for oil. As someone who likes to fly 3-5 times a year (and would like to fly more), I'm concerned that what used to be comfortable $300 flights (I'm 5'4") will become crowded $450 flights, and that makes it hard for me to justify the expense.

      The airlines would love to get back to competing on fares while also having a comfortable profit margin. It's just not in the cards right now.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    6. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by the_womble · · Score: 1

      What if you need to go further than that - outside the country?

    7. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ocean liner. Fine meals, suites, good company, pools, ocean view, time to reflect, luxury in general. When you get where you're going, rent a private vehicle, presuming you're going significantly inshore. Possibly train travel; depends on the country. Trains can be luxurious and fine; or they can be just like aircraft. Research is worth doing before you travel.

      When I compare going on an aircraft to an ocean liner, the aircraft comes off as an experience somewhat akin to a few hours in a hamster cage. With crowded, angry hamsters and mad scientists at the cage door.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    8. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      No one in their right mind would fly at all under these circumstances, and that's exactly what they want. .. that all those who are flying are not in their right mind? Isn't that supposedly what caused this problem in the first place?
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    9. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, well, if they're going to be charging a lot of money for an uncomfortable experience, it doesn't seem very smart to pre-annoy the living heck out of the customers before they even get on the aircraft.

      They don't need to be doing any of this nonsense. They just need to armor the cockpit and plop an air marshal on each flight. That reduces the threat to the less than it used to be; the trigger for all this hysteria was flying the aircraft into extremely high value and heavily populated buildings. So make that impossible and let the rest of us get on with our lives.

      The real problem here is that hysteria is meat and potatoes for political stumping. Politicians have every reason to push this crap around -- it saves them from having to deal with real issues. Like health care, the infrastructure, the national debt, erosion of the constitution... you know, stuff that actually matters. But a huge number of people are gullible and stupid, and that's why this crap will never end, barring total collapse of the government.

      Democracy is flawed from the outset. It allows any two uninformed people to outvote an informed person in a context where informed people are rare. Both in the general public and in the congress. Game rigged to fail, right there.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    10. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, spending a few weeks on a boat is such better deal.

    11. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I agree for the most part (except the number of marshals -- there are something like 30,000 domestic flights per day in the US, and that would be a very expensive program). There's no need to do most of the intrusive screening that goes on, and while I'm very much in favor of a strong defense, there are some very lame decisions being made by Congress that should be left to the Pentagon (they wanted to retire the USS Kennedy many years ago to save money, and someone in Congress wouldn't let them). I'm fine with metal detectors (and I'm actually fine with both this and backscatter scanning if it lets me bring my damned drink with me), but let's move the line along a little, hmm?

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    12. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by the_womble · · Score: 1
      Slow, expensive, view of very little other than the ocean.

      Have you done this? I imagine most of the long haul flights I have done (e.g. London- Colombo (Sri Lanka), Colombo - Sydney) would take a while this way....

      I have used trains to travel within Europe, and ferries between the UK and France, but avoiding flying for long journeys seems to imply having a lot of money and a lot of leisure.

    13. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then, now that you've given us that wonderful insight into why democracy is flawed, maybe you should tell us how to decide who is informed and who isn't? and who gets to decide what is informed and what is uninformed?

      I'd rather have democracy than fascism.

    14. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Trains are also a great alternative, where available. You even get proper food!

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    15. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've done it several times. I have a relative in Greece. Next time, I'm hoping to find network access on the boat; one can hope. Satellites, etc.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    16. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      There are something like 30,000 domestic flights per day in the US, and that would be a very expensive program).

      Have you seen how many people the TSA employs to annoy passengers at airports??? Plus the air marshals that are actually running around?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    17. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      maybe you should tell us how to decide who is informed and who isn't? and who gets to decide what is informed and what is uninformed?

      The same way you'd qualify anyone for any other important job. Test them. Would you hire an engineer who has no experience in engineering? Would you hire a doctor who hasn't passed the medical boards? Would you put a soldier in the field who doesn't know how to fight? No? Then why are you so bloody eager to employ anyone off the street to decide issues they have no expertise in?

      Qualification for any important job is only sensible. The myth that "we are all created equal" was a philosophical blunder that was probably meant to imply no more than "we should all be afforded the same opportunities, and what we make of them is what we get." The opportunity is to try for a job; not get it. The potential should be to pass or fail, not to get it just because you're breathing and slightly warmer than room temperature. As it is, the "qualifications" for political office are to pretend you believe in an imaginary friend and don't get caught doing anything the body politic can't afford to do themselves. As for who should issue the tests, just your average bureaucrat should do fine. I'm sure they could design them, too, that's the just the kind of thing they love to haggle over.

      I'd rather have democracy than fascism.

      Well, you have a democratic republic. Sort of. Insofar as its been able to obey its constituting authority, which isn't very far. Enjoy it.

      Me, I'd rather have some form of meritocracy. The idea of people running an enterprise who are actually qualified to do so -- as opposed to being "popular" -- is alluring to me. Americans made Paris Hilton popular. And Britney Spears. And Flava Flav. If that doesn't tell you how busted the idea of "popular" is, I don't know what will.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    18. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by curunir · · Score: 1

      Nearly a dozen airlines have folded in the last few months, and even the largest carriers are getting panicky.
      Not all the airlines are panicking. The large carriers with strong financial positions are mostly well-hedged against the rising cost of fuel. This allows them to have significantly lower operating expenses and will allow them to make even larger profits when their near-bankrupt competitors are forced to raise prices to avoid taking a loss flights. They also stand to make quite a bit by picking up profitable routes of the carriers that go belly up, or swooping in right before the bankruptcy to either purchase aircrafts for bargain rates or even acquiring them while the stock price is almost nil.

      IIRC the article I read (which, somewhat ironically, was in the free Financial Times that they gave us on my most-recent flight), the big US carriers (American, United, Delta, etc) are mostly toast. They weren't on stable financial ground to begin with due mostly to ancient infrastructure and large pension commitments to retired employees. The newer airlines (Southwest, JetBlue, etc) are in a good position to capitalize, since they've got cash in reserve and are actually profitable. In Europe, the best positioned airline is Lufthansa with AirFrance-KLM a close second, though things probably won't be as bad there since many of the European carriers that represent individual countries (Austrian, Alitalia, etc) will likely be bailed out by their respective governments. They covered the rest of the world too, but the only three I remember them mentioning as being in good shape were Quantas, Singapore Air and Emirates.

      If that article is to be believed, it doesn't seem like all the airlines are stressing over the rising fuel costs, just the ones who stand to be hit hardest. In the end, the extra cost will be passed on to passengers and the airlines that can either undercut their competitors or pocket more of the increased prices will come out of this period better off than they currently are.
      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
    19. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Trans-Atlantic takes about a week. And it is very pleasant. You can gamble; dance; swim; play all manner of games, both physical and table; there is wall climbing, there are shows, the meals are _unbelievable_, a lot of staterooms offer private balconies, the price is easily competitive (though you can step up and do very well indeed for what you'd pay for a "1st class seat" on an aircraft)... don't knock it until you've tried it.

      For anyone who is curious, I suggest you take a weekend jaunt down to the Bahamas on a cruise ship. That'll show you what it's all about, usually for very little money. They figure they're going to get it out of you gambling and drinking; so just don't gamble and drink. Unless you want to, of course. :)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    20. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by masamax · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Who makes the test? The people in power obviously. Systems like this are doomed to failure because in the end, the 'best' are not chosen, merely those who fit into the mold that will continue the current leadership. Not only that, how long until those excluded from power (which would be the majority by your definition) start to resent that? Your system would fall and we'ed be back at square one. Including everyone has its drawbacks, but not including the MAJORITY of people is unsustainable. History has taught us that your system would quickly devolve into an aristocratic oligarchy, and probably from there to a dictatorship.

      If you don't agree with me, I'd can cite many history examples to prove my point.

      --
      I like to kill your couch. HE DIED HARD! MOO.
    21. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      The large carriers with strong financial positions are mostly well-hedged against the rising cost of fuel.

      And who would this be? You mentioned Delta, American, and United as being in trouble. Add US Airways, Continental, and Northwest, among others. Southwest is only in shape as long as its hedging contracts continue, and at some point, they run out, and then Southwest gets smacked with higher fuel fees. JetBlue's financials have been shaky at best for the last three years, with income after tax only $18 million at the end of 2007, and 2006 and 2005 combining for $21 million in losses. The start of 2008 hasn't been good for them, either, losing $8 million after taxes for the first quarter.

      The industry will survive. Even at a diminished capacity and much higher prices, it will survive, though the end results may be new airlines snapping up assets at a tiny price, and contributing to 401(k) programs instead of pensions.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    22. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 4, Funny

      I take it you haven't been a patron of the British rail system then.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    23. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I wonder if sailing or hybrid sail/engine liners will make a comeback.

    24. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who makes the test? The people in power obviously.

      No, that's not obvious at all. Look, who picks those who qualify the physicists? How do they get qualified? Why don't we get a majority of dimwit creationists running around physics labs? What about lawyers? Why can't just anyone be a lawyer? Wouldn't that be "fair"? Subject the selection process to scrutiny. Let the academics work it out. Define it as working that way. Etc. This isn't insoluble.

      Are you seriously telling me that because it isn't easy, we should turn away and let this mess continue sliding downhill? I'm not saying its easy, I'm just saying what we have is BROKEN. Don't think my ideas are any good for fixing it? Fine. Fix it some other way. Just blinking fix it before our torturing, big-brother-esque, rights-eroding, liberty-crushing, save-the-everloving-children at the expense of anything at all society falls apart at the seams.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    25. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by PietjeJantje · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It allows any two uninformed people to outvote an informed person Like Slashdot.
    26. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by internewt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (and I'm actually fine with both this and backscatter scanning if it lets me bring my damned drink with me) I don't think we will see the return of being allowed to bring your own drinks onto planes anytime soon.... taking drinks off people, then sitting them somewhere hot and airconditioned where you control the shops must be just too much of a money spinner to give up easily.
      --
      Car analogies break down.
    27. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by zsau · · Score: 1

      There was something in the news a while back about a cargo ship crossing the Atlantic with a sail. Not, however, a sail like a conventional one; it was somehow raised very high up in the air and connected to the front of the vessel rather than to masts in the middle. Apparently it was meant to be competitive with engine-powered vessels although I heard nothing about it after the initial "hey look what we're going to do!" news reports.

      --
      Look out!
    28. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I don't fly any longer.

      This, incidentally, is why Alaskans have a fighting chance at a decent constitutional challenge. You must fly if you want to go to Congress to petition them.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    29. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by BJH · · Score: 1

      Might want to add Hawaiians in there too, as they don't even have the option of driving through Canada...

    30. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Amtrak. Bring your own food and water and booze.

      What you can get on the train is crappy, expensive, or both.

    31. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Ayuh. I'm /not/ flying now. It was really close to the edge once the liquids rule started, but now... no.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    32. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by gtx · · Score: 1

      Every time I see common sense like that used in your post, I grow a bit more faithful of humanity.

      thanks

      -c

      --


      "I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
    33. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's basically a really big kite (like you'd use to kite surf). But the ship still carries full scale engines so it can keep to schedule in case the wind isn't strong enough.

      You could use the same system on an ocean liner that had to keep a schedule. Or if you were more flexible you could take a ship with smaller than normal engines that relied more heavily on sail power.

    34. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Drathos · · Score: 1

      Unless you are sticking to a major 'commuter' corridor (like DC NYC), Amtrak is remarkably horrid. DC to NYC and back have been ok, generally keeping on schedule, but get outside that and it's pathetic. I've only had one of a half dozen trains outside that come anywhere close to on schedule. Most have been 4 or more hours delayed. One from Albany to NYC was 13 hours late arriving in Albany (think it originated in Buffalo or Rochester) and took almost 3 hours to get under way to NYC.

      And that food you mentioned? It's only there if you get a dining car, which is just long distance trains, and you have to pay through the nose for it ($8 for a burger, $5 for a salad, etc).

      --
      End of line..
    35. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, who picks those who qualify the physicists?

      Physicists qualify physicists. This works because physicists want to do physics.

      Lawyers qualify lawyers. This mostly works because most lawyers want to do lawyering.

      Politicians qualify politicians. To a greater|lesser degree, this doesn't work, because some|most|all (depending on your personal political viewpoint) politicians want power.

    36. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by masamax · · Score: 1
      In reality, the people who run the government day to day are qualified in the same way any other profession is. All the policy directives of gov't are created by those with university degrees. Our bosses are the ones elected.

      And not only am i telling you what you proposed isn't easy, I am telling you it is impossible, and dangerous. You suggest a system whereby the only people with any right to rule are those born with certain intellectual or financial advantages, and in fact suggested that the majority be left out. I suggested a history lesson. Don't try to talk about our system as a liberty crushing big brother on, and the suggest one that is far more likely of becoming such a system.


      The fact is that feudal systems were just what you describe. The 'academics' (i.e. nobility) were raised to rule. That worked out just well for the majority of people, didn't it? Oh, and it didn't result in any amount of inevitable social and political stife, did it? While your idea might work for a small while, inevitably, those in power will no longer be ruling for those NOT in power, they will be ruling for themselves, and then we are back at square one. Democracy has proven itself a viable long-term solution, and instead of attacking the system itself, the answers to holding corrupt leaders accountable is inevitably YOUR VOTE. That's what democracy is. You have the power to hold your politicians accountable, and if you have a good idea, run for government. I'm sorry you don't like the way others have voted, but just because you disagree with them doesn't give you the right to suggest we take away their vote.

      --
      I like to kill your couch. HE DIED HARD! MOO.
    37. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "Democracy, that ultimate triumph of quantity over quality." -- Peter H. Peel

      I've been saying the same thing for some time, and mind you I was raised in the era when we all took Civics class and were all taught to revere Democracy and the value of every man's vote. But I look around and see what amounts to mob rule; I see good people who can't get elected because the mob believes what bad people say, and elects the bad people instead (how else do you explain some of the destructive shit our elected officials pull??)

      Democracy only seems to work WELL when the population is 1) relatively small, and 2) all about equally well-educated. Otherwise, as some historians have pointed out, it invariably tends toward corruption, mob rule, and collapse.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    38. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I know. It's like the ID checks. They're not all that solid, but they're still mandated. But the airlines like them.

      One of these days, I'm going to bring some regular water with me in a contact lens solution bottle (these are allowed through) and have one of those powdered tea things in my bag. I just have to get a bottle first, as I don't wear contact lenses. I'm sure I can get a friend who does to give me one, though.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    39. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      You suggest a system whereby the only people with any right to rule are those born with certain intellectual or financial advantages, and in fact suggested that the majority be left out.

      No, in fact I didn't, and I think it's quite telling that you interpreted what I said that way. I suggest a system where people who are INFORMED on issues are qualified to be elected. If you can't show you're informed, you can't run. I didn't say the standard had to be sky-high, and I said NOTHING about degrees or money. I'm tired of people like that idiot Stevens running teh intertubes; I'm tired of people making law who can't quote back the constitution -- heck it's a short document, and most of these idiots couldn't quote it to you if their life depended upon it. I've seen the same from presidential candidates. Even the most basic level of competence would set a politician so far apart from the run of the mill pinheads that are in there now it would be startling, in my view. Look at them, inverting the commerce clause, making ex post facto laws, restricting freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, right to bear arms, habeas corpus, right to trial... it's like the local group home was raided to fill congress.

      The fact is that feudal systems were just what you describe.

      No, the fact is that only what sprang into your imagination is. What I suggest is no more than you'd ask of a manager of any enterprise. Not a bloodline, not money, not a degree. Information -- competence -- testing for same. Prospective national politicians should know the constitution. They should be able to tell you all about the creation of the document. They should know who our trading partners are. They should know how big the budget is, and the general way it is distributed. They should know where the money comes from in terms of corporate pocket taxes and people's pocket taxes and things like fines and fees. They should have a handle on immigration numbers; be able to clearly describe the difference between civil and criminal law, cite the national debt in dollars and recent trends, describe the social security obligations... this stuff isn't rocket science, but it would require work and study. And why not? If you can't understand this kind of stuff, as far as I'm concerned, no matter HOW bad it hurts your widdle feelings, you don't qualify for the bloody job.

      If you want to argue with me, argue with what I say, and if I haven't said something, ask for my position. Don't make up a bunch of stupid crap and attribute it to me.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    40. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      No. Politicians don't qualify politicians. Voters "qualify" politicians, only the metrics used usually range from "I like that guy" to "I don't like that other guy" to "I vote my party", all of which are insufficient to the task of getting informed, competent people into office. Which is precisely my point. Politicians that want to run for national office should -- in my view -- not be allowed to until they can demonstrate in a controlled and monitored test situation that they are competent to do so. From those who can cross that hurdle, by all means, let the voters pick whom they prefer.

      You want a position of great power and responsibility? Fine. Show me you are prepared to handle it, that you at least have taken the time to study the underpinnings behind the issues; I really don't understand the resistance to this idea. You wouldn't want a guy who knows nothing about mechanics working on your car for obvious reasons; why are you so hot to throw any idiot with a firm handshake and a knack for kissing babies at the problems that face the nation? No wonder the congress can't do anything right.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    41. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Democracy is flawed from the outset. It allows any two uninformed people to outvote an informed person in a context where informed people are rare. Both in the general public and in the congress. Game rigged to fail, right there.


      You are absolutely right, and the founders knew this. Democracy was never intended. A Republic was intended. Under the original constitution, the people did not vote for the president or senators. State legislatures elected senators and state legislatures sent electors to vote for the president. Why all this? Because the founders knew that people are stupid. But it's not just that people are stupid. Many issues are complicated, and can't be reduced to a 3 second sound bite, and a lot of people don't have time to be fully informed on every issue. You can blame the uninformed if you want; you can say they should read more or whatever, but we just can't expect people to be smarter or more informed than they are. You can't change people. You just have to design a system around the people you've got, and that's what the founders did. We've just managed to screw it all up.



      The founders are no doubt rolling in their graves at the current media circus we have in the name of electing a president. Just think of the money that could be saved if you only had to campaign to 538 highly informed, intelligent, patriotic electors instead of having to campaign to the entirety of the unwashed mass. Think of the dignity the process could have. There's no going back, though. No legislator is going to be the one to try to take away the "Right to Vote" from the uninformed.

    42. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      You're right: democracy IS flawed.

      Fortunately the US is NOT a democracy; it's a Constitutional Republic. UNfortunately no one pays any attention to the Constitution anymore.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
    43. Re:And this is one of the reasons why... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Indeed, but Alaska is the subject of the current test case in the making.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  5. First Post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    D*mn, I guess not. If only these scanners took less time.

  6. That's why I'm working on my . . . by rev_sanchez · · Score: 4, Funny

    Silence of the Lambs style human skin suit. A man needs his privacy.

    --
    If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
  7. Might be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This being the USA, land of the self-rightous puritans, there is some hope that this will finally make people stop behaving like sheep.

    Fake elections, illegal wars and torture are fine. But now they want to see our wimmin naked! That's going too far!

    1. Re:Might be a good thing by corsec67 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Fake elections, illegal wars and torture are fine. But now they want to see our wimmin naked! That's going too far!

      Even worse: They want to see our children naked!

      Please will someone (aside from the TSA and pedophiles) please think of the children!

      Would the recorded images of people under 18 be considered child porn?
      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    2. Re:Might be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Fake elections, illegal wars and torture are fine.
      The people who claim the election was fake remind me of people at the bar who complain about the refs fixing the game. The 2000 election was so close it was within the error rate of the system.
      Illegal wars? Unpopular, yes... illegal no. There is no real body that decides whether a war is illegal or not... beside it would mean France, UK, Germany, and a bunch of other nations are accessories to a crime.
      Torture? I've seen worse done to pledges at a fraternity.

      Instead of sitting around and griping, organize. The vocal minority has been ruling the US, and the only way a more moderate government will come to power is if the silent majority actually speaks up for a change. The US is ruled by 30% of the population - either the 30% who vote democrat, or the 30% who vote republican. Most people remain silent and just accept the motivations of the voting extremists, until that changes, then the country will continue to be ruled by extremists.
    3. Re:Might be a good thing by saitoh · · Score: 1

      At a technical level, yes. You have a recorded image of someone under the age of 18 that depicts sexual acts *or* shows genitals. A legal definition would probably be worded differently, but as I understand it (and guess what, IANAL), it would count.

      --
      We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
    4. Re:Might be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would the recorded images of people under 18 be considered child porn? Only in the UK as it could count as a "computer generated image"
    5. Re:Might be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree with your entire post...

      Is the silent-majority you speak of part of the 121% which make up this country?

      'cause otherwise, the math or language (The word you'd be looking for would then be 'plurality') doesn't add up...

    6. Re:Might be a good thing by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      No, it must be sexual in nature, period. Nude, even "full frontal" photos are allowed (if looked down upon in many regions of the globe). On the other side, very suggestive dancing of young, but fully clothed, girls has been ruled child porn by the courts in America.

      See, among other things, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity#Nudity_and_children and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Sturges

    7. Re:Might be a good thing by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Aah... TSA pedophiles...
      God bless them. God bless them all...

      It is going to be hilarious when photos snapped from the scanner's screens start leaking out.
      Naturally, all the screens will then have to be replaced with brand new anti-photo defense.
      Better yet... Why not buy and install a whole new machine instead?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    8. Re:Might be a good thing by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The people who claim the election was fake remind me of people at the bar who complain about the refs fixing the game. The 2000 election was so close it was within the error rate of the system.

      The real issue IMO is that one of the guys got the seat despite the populace being almost evenly split between the two. Either both or none should've gotten the seat and yes I know that's not supported in the current system.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    9. Re:Might be a good thing by LordEd · · Score: 1

      Would the recorded images of people under 18 be considered child porn? Um... no. Nudity does not always mean porn. Not unless you have something really wrong happening during that scan.
    10. Re:Might be a good thing by dogdick · · Score: 1
      *Brain power high five*

      By the way on a side note, from the article:

      "Some of this stuff seems a little crazy," Reardon said, "but in this day and age, you have to go along with it."
      Emily Reardon, you are the kind of douchebag that is making this country a collection of total pussies. You fucking have to go along with it. No one has to go along with anything, you fucking sheep.
    11. Re:Might be a good thing by LeafOnTheWind · · Score: 1

      Actually, I had the pleasure of going through one of these things at BWI a month or so ago. I will note that they quickly steered children towards the regular metal detector - it seems they might have thought of the same thing.

      However, having gone through one of these I will say that I didn't know what it did until I read the info page after going through. Also, it took much longer than a metal detector scan (although not as long as taking my laptop out of its case, that is the worst rule ever).

    12. Re:Might be a good thing by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Only until they were older than 18.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
  8. Constitutional law by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wouldn't this fall under the auspices of unreasonable search and seizure? It seems to me this manner of search invades personal privacy for no other reason than everyone is a criminal in the eyes of the TSA.

    I would hope that this matter gets brought up in SCOTUS

    1. Re:Constitutional law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, it would not, because you fail to realise this:

      security > constitutional rights

      Now it would probably be true, if every politician nowadays didn't shit all over the constitution.

    2. Re:Constitutional law by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      You don't want to consent, fine. You don't fly. Flying isn't a guaranteed right and you are more then welcome to drive.

    3. Re:Constitutional law by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Informative

      No.

      Firstly, it's your option to fly, not your right. That other methods are slower and less convenient doesn't matter from this perspective.

      Secondly, you may refuse the scan and instead opt for a physical pat-down search.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re:Constitutional law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Secondly, you may refuse the scan and instead opt for a physical pat-down search that does not address the concern of unreasonable search.
    5. Re:Constitutional law by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's not unreasonable search. This has been addressed before by the courts and many times here on Slashdot. Flying is a choice. If you choose not to go through the security measures, that means you choose not to fly (at least commercially). You are free to take other routes that do not have the same level of security.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    6. Re:Constitutional law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      you may refuse the scan and instead opt for a physical pat-down search.

      From the article:

      Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth.

      How does a passenger refuse the scan if they're not told what's going on until after the fact, or given the option of refusing the scan?

    7. Re:Constitutional law by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but no one's forcing you to fly anywhere. You're only searched if you /choose/ to use civilian aircraft. Don't want to be searched? Drive or do a videoconference instead.

      (I'm not justifying this, just pointing out a potential legal loophole)

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    8. Re:Constitutional law by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Informative

      And that would be correct.. BEFORE THE TSA. when the airlines were contracting private security companies to do the screening, they could set whatever terms they wanted on the ticket.

      But TSA doing it, as an agency under a cabinet level department, is pretty squarely in the unconstitutional realm.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    9. Re:Constitutional law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Flying isn't a right no, but the 4th amendment is damn solid, and 'desire to board an airplane' falls WAY short of 'probable cause' considering the HUGE percentage of the population that flys regularly.

      Lets consider the actual text of the 4th shall we?

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The last bit is great, it prevents the issue of blanket warrants, warrants have to be specific.

      Of course the 4th isn't the only problem, we have the tenth to worry about too.

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Though admittedly the 4th is far more applicable here, and easier to prove violation of thanks to loop holes you can drive a convoy through like the 'commerce clause'.

      Either way the TSA and its activities are unconstitutional. Notice I didn't say illegal, there is a difference.

      Want to have some fun? email the TSA (I did shortly after they launched their blog) ask them how their reconcile their existence and activities with the 4th amendment. I'm still waiting for a reply.
    10. Re:Constitutional law by Bane1998 · · Score: 1

      The real scary thing for me is they say 90% of people aren't bothered and go through with it. Bullshit. When the alternative is a pat-down.... I'd go through the scanner. That doesn't mean I agree with any of it. And to say it means I do, is insulting.

    11. Re:Constitutional law by BungaDunga · · Score: 1

      ... or just consent to a pat-down. It's optional.

    12. Re:Constitutional law by gbutler69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      * Noone is forcing you to drive. You choose to! So, accept whatever search and seizure or don't drive!

      * Noone is forcing you to walk on the public sidewalk. Accept the search or don't walk there.

      * Noone is forcing you to live in this country. If you don't want to be searched, then leave!

      * Noone is forcing you to breathe the air. Accept the search or stop breathing!

      Funny how that works, isn't it?

      --
      Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    13. Re:Constitutional law by blacklint · · Score: 1

      And, of course, driving isn't a right either. Better start walking.

    14. Re:Constitutional law by Starker_Kull · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Flying is a choice. If you choose not to go through the security measures, that means you choose not to fly (at least commercially). You are free to take other routes that do not have the same level of security theatre.


      Fixed that for ya'.
    15. Re:Constitutional law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the courts agreed with that then searching every single person's bags would have been outlawed years ago. But it hasn't. Why? Because they say you don't HAVE to travel by airplane.

    16. Re:Constitutional law by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      If you want to voice an opinion that I should have used different phrasing, please do so. If you're going to quote me, then quote my words faithfully. "Fixing" it, even in jest, is altering the quote of my words. The meme isn't funny or clever, and never has been.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    17. Re:Constitutional law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Devil's devil's devil's advocate) You mean . The advocate of the devil's advocate would be agreeing with said advocate, or trying to present him in a favorable light. Rather, you are an advocate for he who seeks to portray the devil's advocate in a negative light, and that entity for which you are advocating is to the devil what the devil is to mankind. Ergo, you are the devil's devil's advocate. You also missed a slash in your closing tag.

      (/devil's devil's devil's advocate)

      I will now wait patiently for the devil's devil's devil's devil's advocate.

    18. Re:Constitutional law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know too much about law, but that still may be a non sequitur.

      For example, is it legal for a cop to randomly stop you on the street and search you? No. But why not? One could just as well argue that if you don't want this to happen, you shouldn't use public roads and just stay on your own private property all the time.

      Where is the fundamental difference to airports?

    19. Re:Constitutional law by Starker_Kull · · Score: 1

      If you want to voice an opinion that I should have used different phrasing, please do so. If you're going to quote me, then quote my words faithfully. "Fixing" it, even in jest, is altering the quote of my words.


      Actually, I'll do as I see fit - thanks for the marching orders, though. Do you always order people around when you disagree with how they do things?

      The meme isn't funny or clever, and never has been.


      Strangely, I do think it's funny, and an effecient way to provide commentary to the clueful. You have a habit of stating your opinions as facts; hence my making fun of that habit.

      But since you need an opinion clearly stated, here is one - the security at our airports is a big, expensive, ineffective, intrusive show. Flying is apparently a fun choice for you, and you don't seem to object to either the waste of resources or the invasion of privacy heaped upon it. Many people do, and you answer their objections by stating, (wouldn't want to misquote you here!):

      It's not unreasonable search. This has been addressed before by the courts and many times here on Slashdot. Flying is a choice. If you choose not to go through the security measures, that means you choose not to fly (at least commercially). You are free to take other routes that do not have the same level of security.


      This dismisses the fact that the searches provide little practical value in deterring hijackings, but are highly invasive, and an excuse for all sorts of legal fishing expeditions.

      Let me put it to you like this - 40,000 USA folk are killed in driving accidents, the vast majority due to driver error, typically exacerbated by drunk driving. This exceeds the number of USA folk killed by aircraft-caused security failures by many orders of magnitude. Driving should, logically, have much more severe security measures applied - for instance, authorized drivers for each car, backed up with a biometric sensor that refuses to let an engine start for non-authorised drivers. A built-in breathalizer that you need to blow into to let the engine start. Built in GPS in every car that police can call up based on a licence plate number so that drunk driving reports can be more effeciently tracked. I'm sure you could think of additional measures that would reduce the death toll, like governers built into every engine that prohibited speeding, etc.

      Perhaps you would object to this. I'm guessing here. But I could dismiss those arguments with the same, handwavy dismissal: (not an exact quote! Warning!) "Driving is a choice. If you choose not to go through the security measures, that means you choose not to drive. You are free to take other routes that do not have the same level of security." (end of non-exact quoting)

      At least the above measures would probably drastically reduce driving deaths. The current measures at airports have probably done nothing to enhance airline security. So on a practical level, your argument dismissing people's concerns is even weaker.

      But rather than spell this all out in nauseating detail, I thought a pithy little addition to your quote would make the point. My mistake.
    20. Re:Constitutional law by twizmer · · Score: 1

      That a government agency is performing the search doesn't change the fact that you are submitting to it. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=576821&cid=23693651

    21. Re:Constitutional law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Want to have some fun? email the TSA. I'm still waiting for a reply.

      Emailing government agencies to no discernible effect doesn't sound fun to me.

    22. Re:Constitutional law by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Good points either way you put it.

      And here is probably a good benchmark for whether a security measure is theatre or not:

      How effective would it be, and to what degree would it be regarded as intrusive, if the exact same measures were applied in a parallel venue?

      Your example of driving vs flying is the most obvious, of course -- NO ONE would submit to airport-style security measures before being allowed to drive on the public streets (despite that a malicious driver could cause even more havoc than a hijacker). Oh, but you can opt for a less-secure transportation method, so not really a problem, eh? Okay, how about being sec-screened before you're allowed to walk on the public sidewalks? Because you COULD be packing a vest-bomb and it MIGHT go off in a crowd... yeah, better scan everyone before letting 'em out of their house!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    23. Re:Constitutional law by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      First, please forgive my tone. It was quite late for me at the time. I still do not find the meme in any way amusing, and I actually find it disrespectful, whether done to me or to others, and the basic sentiment stands -- I'd rather my words not be edited to change their meaning. But I was too harsh in the wording.

      On to the points at hand. My post was about how it is seen by the courts, not how I personally see it. Here's how I view the flying experience.

      My ID is checked twice (at least) along the way to the gate. This doesn't solve much, as a good false ID stands a good chance of getting past the guards. As Bruce Schneier has pointed out, the check is useless anyway because I can say I don't have my ID and instead go through a pat-down (or get checked using this technology), even if I'm a highly-wanted or criminal. The ID check should probably be scrapped. The airlines like it, though, because they can then block ticket resale.

      I go through a metal detector, and my bags are scanned via X-ray and maybe some explosives detection gear. That portion is fine -- enough people would want to slip a bomb through that it's useful.

      I can't bring any drinks through, which so far as I've seen is pointless, because I can bring it through in a bottle of contact lens solution. That part should definitely be scrapped.

      I have to leave behind anyone who went with me to the airport but who is not flying. I'm of mixed feelings about this, as it moves greeting out to the already-crowded baggage areas, but it also makes it a lot easier to move around in the airport itself. It can be bypassed with a little HTML manipulation of a boarding pass, but that's not for everyone.

      I go and sit at the gate for a little while, then board the plane, which has a reinforced cockpit door. This is good, though a little regretful for kids these days who cannot see the cockpit. But again, there are enough people who would like to cause problems that it's a reasonable solution.

      Two significant pieces of the security infrastructure can come out because they're easily bypassed, and therefore security theater. That leaves us with what we had in 2000, plus reinforced cockpit doors. I'd be perfectly happy with that, and any presidential candidate who went down that path would get my attention.

      But legally speaking, you do not have a right to fly. You have a choice, and that choice is contingent upon you accepting certain requirements. You also have no right to drive -- this is made clear upon getting one's license. If you don't want to drive safely, then you choose not to drive (or else risk tickets or arrest, depending on the violation).

      The courts will occasionally allow for limitations which mean someone who does not accept them will have to take some other, less-preferred course of action. Limitations on those, however, will almost always be subject to greater scrutiny. I want security restrictions lifted somewhat, but I also trust the courts to hold open options. In fact, I trust the courts more than any other part of government, because they almost always do the right thing eventually. There are technical exceptions, and there are serious errors in logic (eminent domain comes to mind for recent decisions), but by and large, they're the ones keeping society safe in the long term through an indirect influence.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    24. Re:Constitutional law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, since its the TSA doing it, thats what causing the issue, its a government search without a warrant.

      If it was JUST the airport then it would be in a legal grey area, because a private business can set conditions on who it serves. Its a private citizen asking. Its a constitutional issue because its a government agency doing it now.

    25. Re:Constitutional law by Starker_Kull · · Score: 1

      First, please forgive my tone. It was quite late for me at the time. I still do not find the meme in any way amusing, and I actually find it disrespectful, whether done to me or to others, and the basic sentiment stands -- I'd rather my words not be edited to change their meaning. But I was too harsh in the wording.


      Accepted, and understood - thank you for taking the time to consider my point.

      I have a rather jaundiced view of it, because I work for a major airline, and daily see the silliness of it.

      As you point out, ID verifications consist of a stern staring at an easily fakeable picture ID. The metal detector scan is almost useless, as many bags have metal frames that can be repurposed, many explosives and weapons do not have any metallic components, etc. The liquid restriction is a similar joke. Frankly, the only way to increase the security of carry-on baggage is not to allow it, and make everyone check all bags - i.e. subject it to the same standards as checked luggage, which now does have significant inspections applied to it. Passengers would probably revolt.

      Banning all non-flying folk from significant areas of the airport is also presently toothless, since you can print out boarding passes, and probably useless, but definitely annoying.

      I go and sit at the gate for a little while, then board the plane, which has a reinforced cockpit door. This is good, though a little regretful for kids these days who cannot see the cockpit. But again, there are enough people who would like to cause problems that it's a reasonable solution.


      Sadly, the door is quite solid, but the surrounding superstructure is not. To really make it solid, the entire partition needs to be built to the same standard, and there needs to be two partitions/doors; an airlock system. But, this would cost money... so the reinforced door alone will have to do. Tip if you have kids; come after the flight is at the gate, and we'll usually be quite happy to show them the cockpit - most pilots as kids were shown a cockpit - it's usually a vivid memory - and we like to pass that on.

      So, we basically agree - reinforced cockpit doors are pretty much the main improvement in security. There are other small improvements - mandatory and complete screening of checked bags, increased number of air marshals, allowing a Federal Flight Deck Officer program thus arming a significant percentage of airline pilots (although Schneier disagrees and considers the increased risk of access to guns inside the security area as outweighing the gain)... but probably the biggest improvement is that passengers would now instantly know what was up, and move to prevent it.

      But legally speaking, you do not have a right to fly. You have a choice, and that choice is contingent upon you accepting certain requirements. You also have no right to drive -- this is made clear upon getting one's license. If you don't want to drive safely, then you choose not to drive (or else risk tickets or arrest, depending on the violation).


      I understand the present legal situation. I was pointing out that it is highly inconsistent in balancing the public good with individual privacy when I compared the two cases. I think that such large inconsistency in the legal landscape breeds disrespect for the law in general. The lawmakers then make sillier laws, the enforcers exceed their given powers under the law more easily and its citizens ignore the law more when its convenient. This kind of environment has often lead to dictatorships and corruption. I don't like that, and I don't want to see it here.

      I hope you are correct that the courts will eventually correct some of this nonsense, but after seven years, I'm getting a bit impatient. I had a sincere hope after 9-11, that finally after such a horror, we might get serious about security for the airlines. We all knew it was a joke before then. Instead, we were (literally) not allowed to laugh at the joke anymore.
    26. Re:Constitutional law by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is my right to fly. If an airline and myself come to an economic arrangement whereupon I give them money and they agree to fly me to a different airport, then it's NONE OF YOUR F*CKING BUSINESS! Saying I don't have a right to fly is like saying I don't have a right to buy a sandwich at a sandwich shop.

      If the airport wants to make rules about the passengers using their property, fine. But it's not the airports doing this, it's a government agency imposing it on the airports. I'm lucky enough to live less than an hour from three different major airports. If one airport pisses me off, I can take my business elsewhere. But if the TSA pisses me off, I have to say "yessah massah!"

      For my next business trip, I've simply chosen not to fly. I'm going to drive six hours instead.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    27. Re:Constitutional law by deblau · · Score: 1

      Firstly, it's your option to fly, not your right. That other methods are slower and less convenient doesn't matter from this perspective.
      I hear this a lot, but I don't buy it. My right to be secure in my person against unreasonable searches by government agents shall not be violated. Full stop. I don't see anything in the fourth amendment saying "except when I choose to fly on an airplane". As for whether the search is reasonable or not, that's for the airlines to decide. If they don't want their planes blown up, they'll hire private security to do strip searches -- perfectly constitutional, and then I'd buy your argument. When the government strip searches me without probable cause, it's a violation of my rights, end of story.

      Secondly, you may refuse the scan and instead opt for a physical pat-down search.
      I don't like having a stranger's eyes on my genitals, much less their hands. No thanks, I still don't buy the argument.
      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    28. Re:Constitutional law by keraneuology · · Score: 1

      Since when did the constitution matter to the supreme court? I can't think of very many times they've put legal ahead of "secure".

      --
      If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
  9. just say no by drDugan · · Score: 5, Informative

    I recently saw signs for this when going through LAX - but the serurity point I wnt through did not have them installed yet.

    The sign I read had one line at the bottom that said you could opt/ask not to go through the screening process. It did not say what horrid, annoying or time conuming process was the alternative.

    Like so many other times when dealing with law enforcement, simply say "no, I'd rather not."

    1. Re:just say no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In another article I read they said that the alternative was a pat-down by an officer.

    2. Re:just say no by NormalVisual · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the alternative was a pat-down by an officer.

      i.e. another form of warrantless search where no probable cause exists that is allowed "because it's just too important not to do it!"

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  10. Me want Pics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wanna see sample pics of what the output looks like. If they are pretty good and these machines become more popular I expect leaked videos/pictures in a torrent source near you!

  11. um, radiation by drDugan · · Score: 0

    FTA
    "The scanners bounce harmless "millimeter waves" off passengers"

    What the fSck does that mean? In the many years I studies physics, there were no particles I knew of that created something called "millimeter waves". Marketing 1-0-1: tell people it's harmless.

    The correct words they meant to use were: "backscatter radiation". Those are photos, baby. Granted, it is a very low dose, but the biological effects of radiation are extremely complex. Even though there are some documented cases where low radiation doeses can have beneficial side effects, almost all cases of increased exposure to radiation are harmful to some degree.

    1. Re:um, radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's the wavelength. It uses radio, I'm assuming like ultrasound, except it doesn't penetrate your skin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave
      It would be within the range of 57-64 GHz.

    2. Re:um, radiation by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the many years I studies physics, there were no particles I knew of that created something called "millimeter waves".

      Er, studied physics where?

      There's nothing mysterious about millimeter waves. They're from about 30GHz to 300GHz. They're not ionizing radiation, like X-rays. Here's a simple scanning millimeter wave radar system with pictures of the components and images from the system. Note the tiny waveguide and feed horn. It's a radar in miniature. This little unit runs at 35GHz, so it's just barely into the millimeter range.

      In the millimeter RF range, it seems to be possible to get up to about 100GHz with off the shelf components using Gunn diodes and GaAs transistors. Above 100GHz is still mostly an area for experimental work. There are people working on "to 100GHz and beyond!. But not much is really working up there yet.

      This isn't a backscatter X-ray system. That's a completely different technology.

    3. Re:um, radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Millimeter waves are EM waves with a wavelength of one millimeter. Something between a microwave and a a run of the mill radio wave. It's basically radar. I hope you brought your steel panties.

    4. Re:um, radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Obviously, he spent many years studying physics 101.

    5. Re:um, radiation by bcmm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another student of physics here. You can make pretty much any frequency of radiation you like by moving electrons at that frequency. The difficult part tends to be how to move them about that fast. :-)

      Efficient emission and detection of Submillimeter radiation has not been practical for very long, which may be why you haven't heard of it. It's most often refered to as Terahertz Radiation.

      If you want stories of people being purposefully mislead, they outright lie about these things in Heathrow airport, London.
      The signs tell people that the machine uses a "very low dose of x-ray radiation". I was picked for a random security check, and given the choice of the scanner or a manual search. The manual thing sounded kind of scary, so I went for the scanner, in the full knowledge that it involves someone looking at my naked body.

      Now, because it sounds a bit frightening and was very new then, they were obviously instructed to reassure people about it, so when I insisted on seeing the images, they let me (they showed me the shot from behind, presumably in the hope i wouldn't realise they'd obviously looked at my cock). It was very obviously a Terrahertz-band scanner, but the staff and all the signs stated it was an x-ray machine, because everyone is used to those.

      Guess not everyone is a physics student who knows that X-rays are more dangerous than T-rays! I wouldn't have gone in the machine if I hadn't been totally sure that the ionising radiation was a lie.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  12. Those ominous TSA emblems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Might as well be hammer and sickles. Or swastikas. Socialism, here we come!

  13. What a waste by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 1

    of our money. Where is the approval process? Who said this was a good thing worth every penny?

  14. I'm allergic to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember those guys who said they were allergic to WiFi?

    I think I've come down with an allergy to Millimeter Waves. Hell, I wonder how they deal with clausterphobic people - it sure as hell is still a closed and confined place, even if it is clear glass.

    I say, fake a panic attack in the device, then collapse. Sure its a spectacle, and sure it will delay your departure, but think of the stories you'll tell later!

  15. Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing by SonicSpike · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    People bitch and moan about airport security yet they keep voting for people who give them bigger and more intrusive government.

    US Congressman and Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) voted against the DHS / TSA nonsense. Why did he receive as few votes as he did?

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
    1. Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing by Hungus · · Score: 1

      Because most Americans do not take the time to be informed, let alone think about the implications of various actions (This is likely true worldwide not just with Americans)

      Note I am an American

      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    2. Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Because he's running as a Republican, and a lot of them, whatever their initial feelings about the war, don't want to leave Iraq right now, because it looks like we can't finish what we started and/or can't clean up after ourselves.

      There are things about Ron Paul that I like quite a lot. But despite the bungling of the war that was the result of meddling and improper planning on the part of Rumsfeld, among others, (we were supposed to learn from Vietnam that wars are never to be micromanaged by politicians), we caused a mess in Iraq, and we need to see it through to its end.

      A number of politicians in Iraq -- some of them quite powerful -- are moving in favor of a forced draw-down of US and allied troops, especially as Iraqi forces are doing much better at handling operations, and are suffering fewer desertions, though the rate is still startlingly high. Gen. Petraeus has said that he believes the draw-down will continue after the July pause. It's not going to drop below 100,000 this year, but it very well may do so next year, and it may continue to the point that, aside from a few rapid-reaction forces and air cover (think West Germany in the Cold War, though not quite at that level), the US doesn't maintain much there at all. There's still time to further break things, of course, but I think there's a generally positive path right now.

      That's getting a little off-topic. Back on the main point, aside from Iraq, there's no chance at all that Paul would have been able to do most of the things that he wants to do. The IRS isn't going away anytime soon, nor is the Department of Education. He's just not going to get that with a Democratic Congress. He would probably have issues getting strict constructionist judges onto the courts. I have to wonder how effective he would be as president.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    3. Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to wonder how effective he would be as president.

      On the flipside, he could and probably would veto pretty much any needless expansion of government, funding bills, etc...

      Total Stalemate.

      On the plus side, in my experience a government that does nothing is doing better than usual.

    4. Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      Exactly... something about a truck load of veto pens.

      But really you hit the nail on the head. The President's job is to uphold the Constitution (read the oath of office sometime). And if legislation passes across his desk that he feels is unconstitutional than it is his duty to veto it.

      Since Ron has a better understanding of the Constitution than most people in Washington, he probably would veto almost everything as you have said.

      Stale mate, or Congress would go around him. Either way he would be doing his job which we haven't had from a President in decades, maybe even a century or more.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
    5. Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Stalemate presumes that he has the votes in Congress to avoid an override. Congress has shown that when it comes to passing out money to constituents, they will override by a very large margin. He would lose to the court of public opinion if he decided that any spending bill funding things he doesn't like would get vetoed.

      His views work for his state, and he's a welcome part of politics to me. He brings up issues that others don't want to talk about. There are people on the left who are the same way in my eyes. It's good to debate these things. But in a government like ours, idealism must sometimes give way to pragmatism.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    6. Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      People bitch and moan about airport security yet they keep voting for people who give them bigger and more intrusive government.

      No one bitches and moans. No one. Americans, at best, grumble and murmur under their breath.

      In a nation infamous for its loud and litigious protesters, the silence, the absolute and utter _silence_ on this issue is screaming. Where are the protestors? Where are the acronymed activists groups? Where are the calls to senators and paid for TV ads against these intrusions? Where are the B-list celebrity messages? Where are the class action lawsuits?

      Jesus. Even the ambulance chasers have been battered into submission. You're not going to be able to fix this for decades.
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    7. Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      That's a very general and over simplistic statement. I know very well what Ron Paul stands for and I disagree with most of what he says. Therefore I did not support his candidacy. Just because people disagree with you, it does not mean they're stupid or ignorant.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    8. Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing by Hungus · · Score: 1

      Regardless of Ron Paul, I stand by my statement. Most people do not consider long term consequences of their actions they merely react instead of act. Most of my experience is with Americans and the British so I constrained my comments to them.

      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    9. Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing by PRMan · · Score: 1

      //Why did he receive as few votes as he did?

      It was the comments about the aliens, I think...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    10. Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ron Paul's an idiot. For some reason, this is an unpopular opinion to have amongst the Slashdot crowd and if I was a betting man I'd bet money I'll get modded troll.

      There are *some* ideas of his that aren't entirely terrible, but if he did everything he wanted the US economy would be screwed, and economies elsewhere in the world would suffer too. There are things it's a good thing he's arguing for, but the man is most definitely not who should be running a country.

    11. Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      Dennis mentioned aliens. Ron Paul did not.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
    12. Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul doesn't care about the court of public opinion; he cares about the Constitution. That should be obvious by the way his voting record in Congress.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
  16. Alone? Separate Room? by D+Ninja · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...airports around the US are beginning to use a new type of body-scanning machine which records pictures of travelers underneath their clothing. The process takes roughly 30 seconds, and the person viewing the pictures is located in a separate room. So, basically, it's like one of those "private rooms" in a porn shop. Except, the slide show pictures come every thirty seconds and you could get anybody from the hot blonde who is heading to Florida with her friends to...well...this guy (possibly NSFW).
  17. Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves by IvyKing · · Score: 4, Informative
    If I recall correctly, the systme uses ~30GHz radiation for the scanning. Power levels are in line with a normal urban environment (I've read the safety report on the machine) - think people walking by with cell phones. Since the wavelength is about 1 cm, the image resolution isn't going to be much better than 1 cm - which is certainly adequate to determine gender.


    Probably the most embarrassing thing that would be revealing some of the locations of body piercings.

    1. Re:Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      the image resolution isn't going to be much better than 1 cm - which is certainly adequate to determine gender.
      You're new around here, aren't you?
    2. Re:Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves by cats-paw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably the most embarrassing thing that would be revealing some of the locations of body piercings.

      No the most embarrassing thing would be that people will willingly submit themselves to this absurd violation of privacy without even knowing, or more importantly, caring, why they should.

      --
      Absolute statements are never true
    3. Re:Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >Probably the most embarrassing thing that would be revealing some of the locations of body piercings.

      Or perhaps the dreaded, "Its a man, baby!" scenario.

    4. Re:Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      No the most embarrassing thing would be that people will willingly submit themselves to this absurd violation of privacy without even knowing, or more importantly, caring


      I normally charge my er customers for this type of exhibition. More if they want glossies.
      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    5. Re:Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      Hey its American Baby! Give up your freedoms! It's the in thing now!

    6. Re:Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      Are you nervous that the millimeter imaging technology might think you are a female because your body "parts" are smaller than the resolution available?

      HA HA HA!

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
    7. Re:Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves by chris.evans · · Score: 1

      Better to use the body scanner than be patted down by a complete stranger, IMHO.

  18. Diseases by WetCat · · Score: 1

    Cancer, etc?
    What happens if the operator of this machine detects some disease of a passenger? May be cancer in early stage? Or tuberculosis? Should he notify a passenger?

    1. Re:Diseases by MiKM · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that the operator has the medical knowledge necessary to diagnose tuberculosis or cancer.

    2. Re:Diseases by robo_mojo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only if the tumor is in the shape of a gun or knife.

    3. Re:Diseases by WetCat · · Score: 1

      He/she MAY have this knowledge. Why not?

    4. Re:Diseases by WetCat · · Score: 1

      A surgeon's knife forgotten by a doctor in routine surgery? o_O

    5. Re:Diseases by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      What happens if the operator of this machine detects some disease of a passenger?

            I doubt very much the operators of these machines are qualified to detect any sort of disease apart from the "I am carrying a bomb" disease; this makes your point rather moot. All this without getting into the fact that these machines are designed to look under clothing, not into your body.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:Diseases by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      He/she MAY have this knowledge. Why not?

            Because it requires a few years of study, and these machines are not designed for that.

            But look at it this way - when you get an ultrasound, MRI or CT scan, try asking the radiology tech for the results of the scan. The answer will be "this is something you will have to take up with your doctor". Why? Because a diagnosis is a medical act (even if the answer is fairy simple for a technician to answer), and telling a person a diagnosis is practicing medicine, and if you don't have a license to do this, then you're in trouble.

            Any "security screening expert" or whatever they call themselves who claims to diagnose a medical condition had better 1) Be damned sure of himself/the diagnosis and 2) Be damned sure he knows how to "break the news" to his "patient" without this person committing an irrational, impulsive act. The hallway of an airport after 15 hours of travel is not usually the best place to find out that you're going to die.

            You can say "what if" to anything, but basically the chances of this happening are much less than a Tarot card reader detecting malignancy, because after all the Tarot card reader wants to convince you enough that you'll send him/her more clients.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Diseases by bcmm · · Score: 1

      The radiation does not penetrate the skin. It would have to be a big, obvious cancer which sticks out of your body, which you'd probably notice every time you shower.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  19. It's a millimeter-wave imaging system by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    This isn't an X-ray machine, or even a Z-backscatter machine. It's a millimeter wave device. TSA has a web page for the thing. It's not as detailed as a Z-backscatter image.

    Here's the product page for the ProVision scanner. It's made by Level 3 Communications.

    This thing was first announced last year, so the story is out of date.

    1. Re:It's a millimeter-wave imaging system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      This thing was first announced last year, so the story is out of date.

      Oh, the story was about announcement of this device? I thought it had something to do with deployment. But you're right, we should never mention anything after it has been announced.
    2. Re:It's a millimeter-wave imaging system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's L-3 Communications, often confused with Level 3 Communications. Entirely different beasts.

    3. Re:It's a millimeter-wave imaging system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Level 3 Communications is an ISP. This device is made by a different company, called L-3 Communications.

  20. Actual images of scans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Actual images of scans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to dust off my tinfoil shorts.

  21. Stupid yankees by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Those stupid yankees oughta do something about their hangups about nudidy.

    I'm looking forward to go tomorrow to the naked bike ride, where I'll have thousands of people look at me wearing only my bike on the street.

  22. Sheep by minion · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    Schear, the Baltimore security director, said only 4% of passengers decline.
    ...

    "Most passengers don't think it's any big deal," Schear said. "They think it's a piece of security they're willing to do."
     
     


    Can we all say "baaaa?"

    --

    -- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
    1. Re:Sheep by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      Can we all say "fuck this shit, I will never fly at an airport that has this absolute BS?"

    2. Re:Sheep by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      Can we all say "baaaa?" What would be the point if only one of us said it?

      --
      Fnord.
  23. I'm going through with a hardon by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 3, Funny

    Gotta give those TSA pukes a little thrill. Or maybe I'll go through wearing a wig and a dress. The female screener will REALLY enjoy that. I wonder if anyone ever rubbed one out as the passed through the metal detector?

    I'm just trying to make travel more enjoyable for everybody.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    1. Re:I'm going through with a hardon by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      1. Take a dildo and wrap it in tinfoil.
      2. Place dildo in your co-workers carry-on bag.
      3. Allow co-worker to be the first to have his bag scanned.

      4. Enjoy that moment!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:I'm going through with a hardon by deniable · · Score: 1

      Just get the pat down and show them how much you enjoy it. Oh, right there, keep going big boy.

  24. SCHWEEET!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's try it out on some Muslim babes!

  25. Not everyone is a Libertarian. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't support Ron Paul precisely because I am well-informed about his positions and the policies he advocates.

  26. I pity you, Fool. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Ocean liners might be great for transatlantic crossings (well.. they were, anyway, until the queen mary stopped doing that), but your friends will never let you travel that way.

    Somehow, you're going to end up drinking drugged milk yet again, and have to cut yourself down from the tree after you wake up.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:I pity you, Fool. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Cunard does transatlantic crossings with the QM2, and IIRC, several other lines have transatlantic and transpacific crossings too. Of course, there's not too many, it's not cheap, and it's pretty seasonal. But if your travel schedule and budget coincide with what's available, you can do it.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    2. Re:I pity you, Fool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well.. they were, anyway, until the queen mary stopped doing that
      They still are...prices are a bit more than flights, you pretty much have to plan your trip around their limited schedule and it takes 6 days, but it's an option none the less and, from what I can find, it's not that much more expensive than an airline flight (looks like the cheapest rooms are about $800 each way).
  27. Stupid americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While 1000s of Americans are jobless the business of fear keep making big $$$.

    Serves you right American fucking pigs. Hope you all get raped in the ass in the false name of freedom.

    Viva Canada!!!!!

    1. Re:Stupid americans by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      While 1000s of Americans are jobless

      Unemployment rate of United States: 5.5%
      Unemployment rate of Canada: 6.1%

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    2. Re:Stupid americans by jo42 · · Score: 1

      5.5% Not only was the 'intelligence' faked to enable the travesty in Iraq, and successive and massive profit taking , but the US gooberment also fakes other 'facts'. The true unemployment rate is around the 11% mark in the land of the 'brave' and 'free'.
    3. Re:Stupid americans by servognome · · Score: 1

      What assumptions are made for that 11%?

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    4. Re:Stupid americans by Henry+Pate · · Score: 1

      So at an estimated population of 301,139,947 the United States has 16,562,697 unemployed adults. Nineteen out of twenty isn't so good when a job is such a necessity for prosperity.

      --
      Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
    5. Re:Stupid americans by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I've been countered with that argument before. It's based on the number of people of working age who are not working. Stay-at-home parents, for example, are unemployed under that thought process.

      The government's numbers are based on surveys, and attempt to determine statistically the number of people who are not working more than a certain number of hours and also are actively seeking full employment (you can regularly work a few hours a week -- I forget the exact number -- and still be considered unemployed for the purposes of the survey).

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    6. Re:Stupid americans by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. You need to look at the employment report to understand it. That link goes to whatever is the current version of the report at the time (it's issued monthly), though archives are available.

      There's a population of about 300 million people in the country. Many of them are retired or too young to be able to work. Some are infirm, others do not need to work. Others simply aren't looking for work. All of these are not counted in the statistics. Everyone else -- those working and those actively looking for work -- are considered the civilian work force. Of them, 5.5% are not employed. That works out to about 8.4 million people. Of these, about 38% have been unemployed for fewer than five weeks. Another 29% have been unemployed for 5-14 weeks, and the remaining have been unemployed for longer than 14 weeks.

      The unemployment rate in the Europe Union is even worse than in Canada, at 7%.

      Full employment is reached at about 4% unemployment. Anything lower than that, and inflation starts to set in because it becomes a sellers' market. Employers have to come up with exorbitant salaries to hold onto their workers, and it becomes an arms race among the employers, who then have to raise their own prices to avoid taking financial losses. This happened in the last couple of years under Clinton, when the unemployment rate dropped under 4% and things started to get messy.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    7. Re:Stupid americans by servognome · · Score: 1

      I've been countered with that argument before. It's based on the number of people of working age who are not working. Stay-at-home parents, for example, are unemployed under that thought process.
      By your definition we're really examining the non-working % of the population which would be:
      (# looking but can't find work + # not looking for work) =
      (unemployment rate*labor participation rate)+(1-labor participation rate)

      based on Apr 2008 numbers
      (5.5%*65.8%)+(1-65.8%) = 37.8% working age population not employed
      Given your definition the labor participation rate is the key driver when examining the total population. The problem with using that number is the demographic breakdown doesn't necessarily reflect the true nature of what generally is considered the core workforce. It includes non-adults(16-18) who are dependents, and retirees(60+) who no longer need to work.
      Yes the unemployment rate does miss the part of the population that has left the labor pool because they couldn't find a job, but that is a small percentage of workers compared to those who choose to not work for other reasons.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    8. Re:Stupid americans by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      You seem to have misunderstood what I said.

      jo42's number is based on the non-working portion of the population. My number is based on what the BLS uses, which is the number of people looking for work divided by the civilian workforce, which is defined as the number of people working plus the number of people looking for work.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    9. Re:Stupid americans by servognome · · Score: 1

      But you said "Stay-at-home parents, for example, are unemployed under that thought process," which are workers not actively looking for work. That number is captured in the labor participation rate.
      The 5.5% unemployment rate is the number of people in the civilian workforce actively looking for work but are not employed.
      If you want to extend it by including those who want a job but aren't searching the unemployment rate is 9% though the majority of those workers aren't looking because of reasons other than being discouraged.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    10. Re:Stupid americans by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      But you said "Stay-at-home parents, for example, are unemployed under that thought process,"

      Yes. Under jo42's thought process. Not mine.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  28. Nice! by DolomiteZipper · · Score: 0

    Cool!

  29. Make it fair by mathkicks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about the officer watching remotely sits in one of these things so all passengers can look at who is looking at them. I bet they'd get a ton of applications for that job...

  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok ~30 sec per person. That's 1 hour to pass security for 1 757 ~120 people. How many planes an hour does an airport serve? How many people? How many security lines do you ever see open? 2, 3? And they are placed at the busiest airports. And lastly the article says, 38 machines in 10 airports, thus just short of 4 systems per airport. That's 480 an hour.

    Enjoy.

  32. The most telling... by FSWKU · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...and saddening part of the whole mess is this little gem from TFA:

    "Some of this stuff seems a little crazy," Reardon said, "but in this day and age, you have to go along with it."

    This is exactly what they want EVERYONE to think. But the truth of the matter is, no, you DON'T have to go along with it. People need to wake up and stop being a bunch of ignorant sheep in the face of all of this. Refuse the scan, refuse the pat-down, refuse to even fly anymore. Prices are going up and so is the amount of bullshit they make you go through to squeeze yourself into a cramped metal tube with not but a package of stale peanuts as food.

    Really, why is all of this crap even necessary? All it does is create more headache for everyone involved. I'm not saying we need NO security, but this is honestly going completely overboard. Metal detectors? Good idea. Keeps people from bringing certain bad things on planes. X-ray luggage? Also good, for reasons stated above. Air marshalls? I'm not keen on the idea of firearms at 35,000 feet, but someone in law enforcement is a good idea if someone gets a bit drunk or stupid. Re-enforced cockpit doors? Should have been done a long time ago. That's just common sense.

    Beyond that, I don't really see any of it as more than an excuse to spend vast sums of money. Air travel is still one of the safest (albiet nowhere near the most comfortable these days) ways to travel. The only reason incidents get so much media attention is the number of people killed in one event. Wait a couple hours and the number of deaths on the highway will take the lead once again, however. Bombings went out of style in the 80's, and you can forget about any more hijackings. After 9/11, do you REALY think passengers are going to stand for that sort of crap anymore? Not a chance. We're throwing money at phantoms, here. Attacking air travel is pretty much dead these days, but not because of any new security measures. All the same, I think I'll take my chances on the highway. At least nobody is going to attempt coercing me into a full-body scan and cavity search just to get into my car.

    One final aside:
    Wasn't the whole mantra several years back one of "We musn't change our way of life, or THEY will have won."? Now look at us. We allow draconian measures to be passed in the name of "security". We freak like children with imaginary boogeymen under our beds when someone even THINKS the word "terrorist." We happily give up privacy because we are sold on the illusion that it's for our own good and it will only effect those who have nothing to hide. We have become completely paranoid and changed the way we do pretty much anything, out of fear that we will get hit again. I'm sorry, but isn't that the very goal of a terrorist act? To have us do EXACTLY what we have done in the past seven years?

    Society has become so caught up in going apeshit trying to prevent THEM from winning, that the exact opposite effect seems to have occured. Eight years ago, almost nobody had ever heard of the names being tossed about on the news. Now, it's foremost in everyone's mind. Their goal wasn't to savagely murder thousands of people, that was just the tool they chose to use. No, their real goal was to make themselves known, and us frightened. I hate to say it, but they succeeded.
    --
    "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
    1. Re:The most telling... by Bane1998 · · Score: 1

      Air travel is still one of the safest (albiet nowhere near the most comfortable these days) ways to travel. I argue it IS the most comfortable way to travel. A few hours of being uncomfortable and annoyed and pissy is better than a 4 day road trip that is mildly comfortable. The problem is air travel you get all your lack of comfort all at once. A road trip you spread it out. Let's not even think about what it would be like to travel by boat across the ocean. And I'm not talking a cruise, I'm talking mass transportation.
    2. Re:The most telling... by rts008 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From US President Franklin Roosevelt's First Inaugural Speech:

      "So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

      "Wasn't the whole mantra several years back one of "We musn't change our way of life, or THEY will have won."?"
      Yeah, I remember hearing that often in all of the press conferences, speeches, etc. right after the attacks.

      As a society here, we have lost our balls and our backbone.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    3. Re:The most telling... by x1n933k · · Score: 1

      The point is that you're government is investing into it's own industries to help keep your economy from completely falling apart. Airports are a place and have an excuse where one can spend billions on equipment that are not used for war and people seem to not fight against it.

      Outside of that, anyone flying into the US has to have all the US travelers completely quarantined from the International and domestic travelers, the scanning equipment has to be certified (and usually made by a US company), and your bags go through a multi-tier of scanners, usually 1 to 5 times (from what we have at my work) more that domestic or international flights.

      I fly a lot, but I rarely fly into the US in the end, its what make people feel 'safe'. There isn't much inconvenience, put my bag on the belt and walk through a scanner, answer the same dumb questions and occasionally have an extra scan. If the US wants me to fly in a special suit then if I have business I'll still probably do it, it's still much faster and it beats driving across the boarder and having to deal with the assholes put there that can really ruin my day.

      [J]

    4. Re:The most telling... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      All the same, I think I'll take my chances on the highway. At least nobody is going to attempt coercing me into a full-body scan and cavity search just to get into my car.

      Don't be so sure. Cops are very fond of stopping out-of-state drivers for even the most trivial of reasons.

      After all, if you're driving and not flying cross-country, you MUST be a drug mule. And what are you going to do, drive several hundred miles out of your way to come back and challenge a ticket?

      With the latest DNA retention laws, it won't be long before every speeding ticket gets you a cavity search, fingerprinted, and swabbed.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:The most telling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this stuff necessary?

      Simply put, there has not been a hijacking incident involving a US Airline since these enhanced security measures went into effect. Furthermore, there hasn't even been a catastrophic crash of a US Airline since these enhanced security measures went into effect. It's clearly not only about finding any Al-Queda terrorists, but also finding ANY would-be foreign or domestic terrorist that may jeopardize the safety of the flight. Is it really that hard to understand?

      Those who wish to try to compromise any of these security measures by resisting and challenging them, well they are free not to fly and I personally think that they really should be placed on a no-fly list for life.

    6. Re:The most telling... by FSWKU · · Score: 1

      Simply put, there has not been a hijacking incident involving a US Airline since these enhanced security measures went into effect. Furthermore, there hasn't even been a catastrophic crash of a US Airline since these enhanced security measures went into effect.

      Correlation != Causation

      Tell me something. When was the last hijacking incident involving a US airline BEFORE 9/11?

      • Pan Am 73, 1986: Karachi, Pakistan. 16 hour seige on the ground, 22 dead.
      • TWA 847, 1985: Departs from Cairo for Athens, diverted to Beirut.

      These were 15 and 16 years prior to 9/11. There was FedEx 705 in 1994, but they are a freight carrier and as such do not deal with passengers. That was a disgruntled employee. We're not even 7 years past 9/11, so there is no way to tell if these measures are having any effect without them actually catching people in the act of trying to interfere with a flight. Another interesting thing to note is that while both of these incidents involved a major US air carrier, they had NOTHING to do with US soil. These flights originated from airports outside of the US, so domestic airport security cannot be factored in.

      Those who wish to try to compromise any of these security measures by resisting and challenging them, well they are free not to fly and I personally think that they really should be placed on a no-fly list for life.

      So because some people don't like to give up their privacy without a damned good reason (at the very least, probable cause) in the name of "security", then they should be banned from flying for life? This attitude both saddens and sickens me. It's the very same "roll over and do what your told because we want you to believe it will keep you safe" mentality that I was talking about in the first place. It's not about safety, it's about control. We have PLENTY of safety already if we only stop flinching away from shadows and stand up for doing what's right.
      --
      "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
    7. Re:The most telling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AGREED! Well said (even though it is said that it's the truth).

  33. Arms Race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm getting tired of the terrorism arms race. We don't really get anywhere in the end, other than inconveniencing innocent people and wasting tax dollars. What's worse is that it's not even a symmetrical arms race. We re-up our side many times in-between each successively more advanced attack attempt by the enemy.

    If I were Al'Queda, do you know what I would do? I would just keep coming up with nifty ways to hide a knife or a bomb that are novel, and send people through airport scanners using these ever-changing techniques and looking suspicious, just to be sure that every one of them are caught anyways. The net result would be that every caught "terrorist" results in the US wasting more money and pissing off more citizens in a futile attempt to improve security against each new method. What easier way to inflict pain on the US is there than that?

    New methods that beat the current system are always easy to invent at any given point in time, especially for someone with money and determination on their side. The article says these things can't see through skin or rubber. Like all systems, this new one is fallible too in many ways.

    The correct way to combat air terrorism is a 3-pronged approach:

    1) Stop pissing people off. I'm *not* a terrorist apologist. Far from it - terrorism is always wrong in my moral book. But you can go a long ways to towards preventing it by not pissing off large groups of angry people to begin with. By this I mean improve our foreign policy.

    2) Focus on smart human intervention. There has been some DHS focus lately (I'm not sure how much) on training psychological profilers to patrol airports undercover. This is likely far more effective than anything the TSA screening stations are ever likely to do, and much less susceptible to the arms race problem.

    3) Stop trying to turn your own population into sheeple - teach them to be observant, responsible, and empowered. A citizenry which is self-confident and alert is a great watchdog against all kinds of bad events. A citizenry who gets treated like cattle (as in, current TSA practices) act like cattle: they keep their head down, don't observe and react to strange events. They just start assuming the Nanny State must be taking care of things for them, no need to be vigilant.

  34. Youtube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone bets on how many days it takes to get the first video posted on youtube?

  35. Uh oh, scanners! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean that scanners no longer affect just heads and computer systems? If that is the case...we are all DOOMED!

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081455/

  36. Fourth amendment?? by spineboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What ever happened to freedom from unreasonable search and seizures by governmental bodies (TSA)?

    I mean seriously - what has happened - have we slid down the slippery slope, or been boiled to death one degree at a time?

    I'm just waiting for a clothing manufacture to come out with millimeter wave blocking clothes or underwear. Need a little metallic weave in the cloth to do the trick.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Fourth amendment?? by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't have a right to fly; your constitutional right to travel works whether you walk, drive, take a bus or a train, or fly. If you choose to fly, you submit to a different set of security measures than if you walk, drive, etc.

      I fully agree with everyone saying how pointless these devices are, just as with the fluid bans, the taking your shoes off, etc. But just because they're pointless doesn't mean they're unconstitutional; just stupid.

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    2. Re:Fourth amendment?? by lordofwhee · · Score: 1

      It's the TSA that's doing the searching, and they have to abide by the constitution (or what little of it is left). If it was a private company, then all they'd have to do is make you agree to be searched, but as it stands, you have a legal right to walk through an airport without anyone so much as touching your hand.

    3. Re:Fourth amendment?? by TheFlannelAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe you do not have a right to fly. What I do have is a guaranteed Constitutional right to be safe in my person and my effects from warrant less searches by the government. That is not debatable. If the airlines themselves had their own security, and they were the ones doing the searches, fine, their plane, their business, their rules. The TSA is a government agency, they need a warrant. This latest nonsense with millimeter wave peeping tom scanners is just another reason I haven't been on a plane in years, and won't be anytime soon.

    4. Re:Fourth amendment?? by bignetbuy · · Score: 1

      Nice strawman. Don't change the argument. He didn't suggest a "right to fly" he was talking about the freedom of unreasonable search and seizure.

    5. Re:Fourth amendment?? by twizmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They don't need a warrant if you submit. This is a basic premise of 4th amendment case law; if the goverment asks if they can search you or your property, and you say yes, that's all they need. Works for personal searches, houses, cars (this argument was used to defend certain kinds of drunk driving checkpoints because people were free to drive around them). You are not compelled to enter the secure area and board a plane; the TSA will not detain you if you walk away from the airport and go home. You are submitting willingly to a goverment search so your rights are not violated.

    6. Re:Fourth amendment?? by atriusofbricia · · Score: 3, Interesting
      But the question is, is a choice of no choice, still a choice? Say I have to be on the other side of the country by the next day, or I get fired from my job. Is the choice of a) potential economic ruin or b) submitting to a search of my person and effects really a choice? I know it isn't life or death, but still.

      I suppose they would say that even that is a choice and you 'willingly' submitted when in reality you did no such thing. You did it because if you didn't you'd get fired.. and if you don't submit they won't let you fly. I say, it is a choice of no choice.

      Furthermore, if your argument is correct, then at best the only Constitutionally protected mode of movement is walking. So as long as you are free to walk from Tennessee to Washington state then your rights are just fine. Is that what you're saying?

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    7. Re:Fourth amendment?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you there on the "no flying" thing.

      Question, though: I work in IT and it seems like every time I turn around, someone wants me to get on a plane ("Hey, there's a conference here..." or "We need you in the Cleveland office next week").

      I've had poor luck convincing management that I'm better off taking a train or driving (or even doing a teleconference). Worse, when I try to mention issues like personal privacy and the circus that is airport security, I have difficulty not sounding like a tinfoil hatter.

      Do you have any suggestions on how to avoid flying while not screwing one's self professionally? I'd appreciate any input.

    8. Re:Fourth amendment?? by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      Do you have any suggestions on how to avoid flying while not screwing one's self professionally? I'd appreciate any input.

      Get first class written into your contract. Or get a shrink to write you a letter stating that you have an debilitating fear of flying, they can't fire you for a medical condition. But most likely of all is to tell management that you want to steer your career away from out of town travel, business travel = airplanes.

      --
      We are all just people.
    9. Re:Fourth amendment?? by jimicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's the TSA that's doing the searching, and they have to abide by the constitution (or what little of it is left). If it was a private company, then all they'd have to do is make you agree to be searched, but as it stands, you have a legal right to walk through an airport without anyone so much as touching your hand. The airline's a private company. They have a perfect right to refuse to let anyone who's not been searched on the plane.

      In fact, there's a strong chance that the airport itself is owned by a private company. In which case, they can decide who is allowed into various parts of the building - and they could easily argue that submitting to a search is a condition of entry to being allowed airside.
    10. Re:Fourth amendment?? by ThatFunkyMunki · · Score: 1

      Airports are an area of implied consent, ie if you set foot in an airport you automatically consent (waive your 4th amendment rights) to searches.

      --
      If patriotism is racist, is racism patriotic?
    11. Re:Fourth amendment?? by TheFlannelAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just noticed I was modded troll. I find that very interesting. I merely stated my opinion on the matter. Although you may choose to submit, and voluntarily give up your rights, I do not. You may either not fly, or you may give up your rights. There is no choice, there is an implied consent at airports, and nowhere else in my experiences traveling by bus, or train, have I been required to give up those rights afforded me as a citizen of the United States. Why is it that Americans just accept that an airport is a magical place where the Constitution does not apply?

    12. Re:Fourth amendment?? by twizmer · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting question, to be sure. In the drunk driving checkpoint case I mentioned, the court upheld the checkpoint because there was another way around; drivers could simply take different roads. Of course that would increase travel time somewhat, but it did not fundamentally remove the ability to drive from point A to point B. Here the government checkpoints cover all substantially similar routes (i.e. air travel), so perhaps the court would consider this a different situation.

      Regarding the first question: what if your job required you to go to a government building where you go through a similar search? What if your job requires you to obtain a security clearance and submit to a poly and background check? Private jobs can require all sorts of things—the government isn't per se forcing you to submit to the search. I see your point, but I don't think it really holds up here (in particular because air travel is not mandatory for rather a lot of jobs).

    13. Re:Fourth amendment?? by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Why is it that Americans just accept that an airport is a magical place where the Constitution does not apply?

      Because no one's figured out how to drive a train into a building?

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    14. Re:Fourth amendment?? by Floritard · · Score: 1

      That's not true. I've done this many times at Disney World. The Contemporary I think it was called. No one seemed too alarmed.

    15. Re:Fourth amendment?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Disney World is a magical place, so it has an excuse!

    16. Re:Fourth amendment?? by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      If you'd thought of it when it was all starting, you could claim a fear of flying. All it takes is one traumatic fall from a tree or window as a child, and boom. Now that you've been flying, they'd probably see your fear of flying as the bullshit it is, though.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
  37. The airline experience in ten years. by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 1

    Let's take the downward trend of the overall airline experience and extrapolate.

    In ten years, this is what it will be like to travel across the country by airplane: Buying the ticket online for $400 or so, plus a $200 security fee tacked on for every flight segment. All fares will be nonrefundable and nontransferable, and being late for your flight means automatic forfeiture of your fare and ticket, as there will no longer be an option to wait "on standby" for another flight. Then you'll show up at the airport, where the first thing that happens is that you're put through one of two processes. Most people will go through a general process, which will be as follows: You get in line at the check-in, where you are questioned as to where you live, where you work, where you're flying, the purpose of your flight, what you're carrying in your luggage and on your person, and why. During this time you will present ID and be photographed and fingerprinted; these will be input into the agent's laptop, which will immediately search through a computer network of known terrorists, known criminals, known fugitives, people who are delinquent on child support payments, people who owe taxes, people who have been arrested in the last five years (even if not charged or convicted), people who are on the sex offender registry, people who haven't showed up to jury duty, people with bad credit, people who didn't register with the Selective Service System, people of other than Mexican origin who are in the country illegally, or people with unpaid parking tickets on their record. A match on one or more of these results in your being taken to a special room for additional questioning, which will mean one of three things: Either you will be denied boarding privileges without a refund of your fare; Or you'll miss your flight because the questioning will take so long, without a refund of your fare; Or, if you're very, very lucky, you might still make your flight, but this will occur less than one percent of the time. If you survived the questioning, you go to the next step, which is to be weighed; at this point, you'll pay a dollar for each pound that you weigh, plus a hundred dollars per checked bag plus a dollar per pound of that checked bag's weight plus fifty dollars for a single carry-on and twenty-five dollars for one personal item, plus a dollar per pound of those items' weight. Then it's time to actually check in and get your boarding pass. Checking in will be free, but to obtain your boarding pass, you'll have to pay a ten dollar printing fee. The routing labels placed on your luggage will cost five dollars each, and tags to put on your bag with your name and address will be a dollar each. Now it's time for security, which happens in several stages. First, you'll bring your checked luggage to the TSA luggage scanner, where they'll pile up bags for flights that are about to take off somewhere on the side while scanning and pushing through the bags going on flights that aren't taking off for another two hours. One out of every ten bags will be chosen randomly and moved to a holding area where it will be held for a month, and then the airport will try and search for the owner, a process that won't succeed very often. Of those bags that are not randomly selected, each bag will be scanned electronically, and following that, each bag will be opened not to perform a physical search, but for the sole purpose of wrinkling up clothing and moving breakable objects such that they'll be more likely to break during transit. Then the bag will be passed on to the baggage handlers, who according to the 2013 Airport Security Passenger Luggage Contents Protection and Loss Prevention Act will be required to produce proof of at least two felony convictions in order to be eligible for the job. The same act will give all baggage handlers the right to take and keep any items they find in luggage which they like. Now that you've handed off your bag (and don't know if you'll ever see it again), it's time for security. You will not be allowed to bring any ge

    --
    McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
  38. Nudism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be pointless to use one of these on a nudist, correct? So why doesn't everyone become a nudist, them their attempt to invade our privacy will be thrawted by our shamelessness.

  39. Cavity search? by spineboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean - what's to stop a hijacker from hiding a ceramic knife up his rectum? or C4... this and metal detectors wont find it. Can we expect cavity searches next?

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Cavity search? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      If anything seems suspicious, presumably a wand will find the C4. Not a ceramic knife though.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    2. Re:Cavity search? by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 5, Funny

      If someone puts a ceramic knife in his rectum, then my bet is that he's so hardcore he can't be stopped.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    3. Re:Cavity search? by Skreems · · Score: 1

      How would a wand find an explosive? They're magnetic substance detectors, which C4 is decidedly not.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    4. Re:Cavity search? by risinganger · · Score: 2, Funny

      I mean - what's to stop a hijacker from hiding a ceramic knife up his rectum? Hopefully common-sense.

      /me looks for the guy that screams in pain when he sits down too fast...

    5. Re:Cavity search? by ijakings · · Score: 0

      You still need a detonator though, which it would detect. You can just ask the C4 very nicely to explode.

    6. Re:Cavity search? by Hydian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A detonator doesn't need to be metallic either.

    7. Re:Cavity search? by Grym · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You still need a detonator though, which it would detect. You can just ask the C4 very nicely to explode.

      Easy. Bring along (or buy once you get at the gate) a disposable camera. When the leads to the flash are removed, it can deliver quite a shock. I would assume it is strong enough to set off an unstable material like C4.

      I think the truth of the matter is that if somebody wants to sneak something on board, at some point you're not going to stop them. Why is it that some people are constitutionally unable to accept that remote possibility?

      -Grym

    8. Re:Cavity search? by ijakings · · Score: 0

      *cant, damn it i knew I should have checked it first

    9. Re:Cavity search? by josecanuc · · Score: 4, Informative

      C4 is not unstable. Even so, an electric shock will not cause C4 to detonate. Such explosives require a large and quick physical shock (pressure) to start detonation, usually supplied by a blasting cap, which can be triggered electrically.

    10. Re:Cavity search? by archont · · Score: 5, Informative

      You need a blasting cap. One or two grams will be just enough. All you need to do is hermetically seal off that amount of substance (depending on which substance you're using and it's ignition temperature it can be anything from resin to wax), wash it in a solvent or any aggressive substance that'll remove traces of the primer and then put it inside your digital camera, watch, laptop or any other physically complex device. Modern blasting caps are detonated by very low voltages. I used to detonate them with those flat little button cells. Considering it's really easy to blow up a plane today there are only two possible explanations why it's not raining aluminum: 1. The terrorists are idiots and can't do this kind of attack because they lack knowledge. 2. There are no terrorists willing to hijack planes and kill civilians in modern countries just for the fun of it.

    11. Re:Cavity search? by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      i'd be more concerned about the person behind him if he farted, i'm guessing the blade would not be aimed inward :P

    12. Re:Cavity search? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I recall reading a recipe for a homemade explosive powder that merely required that you take off your shoe and give it a good whap. *BANG*

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    13. Re:Cavity search? by Nemo's+Night+Sky · · Score: 1

      C4 is a really dumb idea.

      Step 1: Combine Trinitrotoluene, alkali-metal, and some wax.
      Step 2: Go buy a happy meal at McDonald's, shape explosive like hamburger patty and swap.
      Step 3: Go to airport, throw bag in X-Ray, offer guard some fries.
      Step 4: Board plane, wait until above favorite state, flush explosive into lavatory tank. Mission complete.

      There is no way to secure against a determined, prepared attacker. However security is highly effective at thwarting Average-Joe with his six pack and poorly made crack pipe after the government stops his food stamps. Which of course causes him to steal his sisters CC#, buy a ticket, and try to get famous or die.

      Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about.

    14. Re:Cavity search? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      1. The terrorists are idiots and can't do this kind of attack because they lack knowledge.

      2. There are no terrorists willing to hijack planes and kill civilians in modern countries just for the fun of it. Considering that in the UK we've had a bunch of failed attacks like this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_July_2005_London_bombings

      And this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack

      Neither of which have caused any significant damage (and the second one was never particularly likely to cause damage, seeing as even if they'd tampered with the safety valves the cylinders they were carrying were big objects which would have taken some time to warm up to anything approaching a dangerous temperature, and airports have an onsite fire control team).

      I'd say it's probably a bit of both. Anyone who's smart enough to blow up a plane is probably smart enough to find a solution to whatever problems they think they face without blowing up a large number of people.
    15. Re:Cavity search? by archont · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd say it's probably a bit of both. Anyone who's smart enough to blow up a plane is probably smart enough to find a solution to whatever problems they think they face without blowing up a large number of people. Blowing up large numbers of people isn't meant to solve anything, that's ridiculous. Especially civilians whose only wrongdoing was at most putting an X by the wrong name.

      If you're determined to go and kill civilians you're out for revenge and to cause fear, panic and mayhem. There is no solution to having your family killed for no apparent reason. No matter how smart a man there's no way to resurrect your family and undo the injustice. In such cases intelligent men are even more determined and capable of carrying out such acts than their less gifted counterparts.
    16. Re:Cavity search? by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      If anyone wanted to just kill the number of people on an airplane (or more) and cripple air travel, they could just pick a busy day and detonate a bag full of ball bearings (or several bags at different spots in the same area, if they've got even a couple of accomplices) in the security line at an airport. Trivial, cheap as hell, possibly not fatal to the attacker(s) (if they have a timer) and there's no practical way to defend against it (unless "practical" includes increasing the air travel security budget tenfold).

      Slightly less spectacular than taking down an airliner, but it'd kill plenty of people and probably disrupt air travel even more than one or two downed planes.

      It's pretty obvious that there just aren't very many motivated people interesting in pulling stunts like this. If there were, we'd see it way, way more often.

    17. Re:Cavity search? by Phroggy · · Score: 1
      Sorry, I meant an Explosives Trace Detection (ETD) wand.

      ETD is commonly used at airports by TSA screeners, who use a dry pad on the end of a wand to wipe a surface - baggage, shoes, clothing. They then put the pad into an ion mobility spectrometer that can detect traces of explosives. Source
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  40. EWWWWW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stop it.

  41. Just add biometrics! by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

    I personally can't wait until they store the naked body scans on file and use them in conjunction with biometrics. After all, why not? When have government agencies not wanted to collect all kinds of information on us and use them for purposes other than originally intended? And by agreeing to go through the scanner you're consenting to the scan being used for security purposes..

  42. A land of disgust and derision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much lower can a country get than pseudo-stripping its tourists and citizens in the name of faux security?

    I encourage everybody - especially tourists - to stop travelling to countries that violate your rights through the use of scanners, fingerprinting and other invasive technologies.

    Where possible, take the trains.

  43. Remember the night view settings on the video cams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least these machines have the potential for yet another Pr0n site on the internet.

  44. What happens if they can't see anything? by Starvingboy · · Score: 1

    I wonder what happens if you wear RF shielded clothing and go through one of these? Do you get the rubdown treatment like when you don't bring ID? I'll have to place an order to the folks at lessemf.com and try it out next time.

  45. Very good results! by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

    By doing so the boarding procedures will be slower, more people will prefer other ways to travel whenever possible, layoffs in the air travelling industry ... nice.
    Looks like a very good advancement.

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
  46. Swallowed bombs by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

    Can this machine see also swallowed bombs?
    Or should we also have an X-ray body scanner?

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
  47. My personal philosophy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to see my ass that clearly, I'll gladly show you in person by dropping my pants right there in front of everyone... but you'll then have to kiss it in front of everyone to pay for the privilege.

  48. pics pls by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    I can't really judge the matter without a sampling of pictures now can I?

    1. Re:pics pls by JimboFBX · · Score: 1

      Its basically a grayscale picture of your naked body with a lighter gray outline of your clothes. It blurs out your face. Originally they claimed it could blur out your genetilia too but I guess they changed that.

      I guess some people don't consider it any different than going to the doctor and pulling out your junk for a physical.

      My question is, how do they choose who gets hired for that job? A newspaper ad?

      "Need person to look at naked people all day"

  49. Not terribly revealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not that revealing... I've repaired a Rapiscan system and when we tested it I was the test dummy and you couldn't really make out my bits and kibbles. It would make me feel more secure having one in the airport than to not have one. This will aid in safer travel, sure it wont eliminate risk, but it is a tool. In the world of anti-terrorism and force protection, thats all you really have is tools to prevent, but not eliminate.

  50. Good Riddance by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Anything that makes air travel less appealing and other forms moreso is a positive force in the long run. The rising fuel costs make trains more appealing than cars and the rising PITA factor makes anything more appealing than getting on a airplane in this country.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Good Riddance by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I'm planning to travel from Los Angeles to Dallas in August. If I make that trip by train, it's approximately 47 hours on the Texas Eagle or 48 hours on a combination of the Sunset Limited and the Texas Eagle. Taking the first, since it's less expensive, I can pay $131 each way for a coach seat. If I want a roomette (essentially a sofa bed), I pay $545 there and $477 on the way back, for a total of $1022, or $996 with a AAA card.

      If I rent a compact car and get, say, 28 miles per gallon average driving the trip, it's about 1400 miles (I've driven it before), would take about 20 hours of driving, cost ~$400 for round-trip fuel and $150 for the car rental for the same time period. That comes up to be about $450 less than the train (factoring in the AAA card), and with that $450, I can stay at Marriott hotel rooms on the way there and back, enjoy room service for dinner and breakfast, and still have money left over.

      And all this while Amtrak is losing money. At least the companies from which I'm renting the car, buying the gas, and sleeping the night away aren't begging the taxpayers for dollars.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    2. Re:Good Riddance by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      And all this while Amtrak is losing money. At least the companies from which I'm renting the car, buying the gas, and sleeping the night away aren't begging the taxpayers for dollars.

      Oh, you're one of those loony train bashers. Wake up! AMTRACK HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN RAILS! You think the rental companies aren't "begging" for money? Where on earth do you think the roads come from? Amtrack is losing money because people like you seem to think that trains with no subsidy shoud be able to compete with the car/road system which is subsidised with many tens of billions each year.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Good Riddance by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind if the subsidy were relatively small. But it's not. In order to get Amtrak down to a competitive level, almost the entire ticket would have to be subsidized. That doesn't count that tens of billions more would have to go into rail expansion just to use current technology. And then there's the convenience factor -- I can fly to Dallas in about seven hours, all airport hassle included. I can drive there in two days, or one if I have someone with me. It takes TWO DAYS to get there by train.

      Trains are great for hauling vast quantities of cargo long distances, or for regional human transportation. I was upset when a local light rail project that would have run the length of the major county population center was canned because some NIMBYs at the southern end didn't want it. But the cost of making a train even vaguely comparable to air travel for long-distance travel is simply too high.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re:Good Riddance by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind if the subsidy were relatively small. But it's not. In order to get Amtrak down to a competitive level, almost the entire ticket would have to be subsidized.

      Volume can solve the problem, but the rail network was all but dismantled. Amtrak has demonstrated dramatic incompetence on more than one occasion; I don't think the problem is inherent to rail. If we stop blowing money on subsidies for highways, which require even more money to be "profitable" there's plenty for rail. In fact, the highways can probably only ever be considered profitable indirectly, because making it into one big clusterfuck of tollways probably wouldn't come off well, but with trains you know who is taking what where (by volume and weight if not by contents) and it's much easier to make sure everyone pays their fair share.

      The only reason it takes so long to get places by train is that in this country we do not have the demand for high speed trains, including express lines to lower latency.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  51. Protest Day by paulthomas · · Score: 1

    Maybe a day of protest, where all participating travelers, regardless of body type disrobe completely while standing in the screening line would get some attention to what is going on.

  52. Millimeter-wave radar... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    To me, the guy who is apparently seriously behind the times, the exciting part is the millimeter-wave radar. Now, how long is it going to be before I can get armor that can tell me what caliber of gun I'm being shot with?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  53. Mod: -1 Troll, -2 Clueless, -5 FUD by rts008 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why did you not also quote the VERY NEXT SENTENCE FTA?

    Here peabrain, I'll save you the trouble:
    "Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth.

    Magazine-sized signs are posted around the checkpoint explaining the scanners, but passengers said they did not notice them."

    Didn't notice all of the signs around the checkpoint....hmmm just like 6 year olds.

    "How does a passenger refuse the scan if they're not told what's going on until after the fact, or given the option of refusing the scan??
    They (and YOU) can start by pulling your heads out of your rectums and PAY ATTENTION to what's going on around you.

    Yeah, I know your type:
    'Me!Me!Me!-Gimme!Gimme!Gimme!'

    That's what is wrong now:not scanners in airports per se, but idiots like you who DO need a nanny. You have brought the whole deal on all of us.
    *sarcasm* Thanks, asshat!

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:Mod: -1 Troll, -2 Clueless, -5 FUD by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're right, people who fail to notice the importance of one small sign among the dozens which populate an airport screening area are the ones at fault, not terrorists or insane politicians.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    2. Re:Mod: -1 Troll, -2 Clueless, -5 FUD by SpiderClan · · Score: 1

      Have you been to an airport? Do you have any idea how big the signs are that they actually want you to see? People being herded through security and not holding up the line in order to read everything on every wall don't necessarily have their heads up their asses. Perhaps they have enough faith in the system to assume they're not being forced into a nudie booth.

    3. Re:Mod: -1 Troll, -2 Clueless, -5 FUD by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      So I take it you don't fly often.

      Let's see, at the checkpoint I get to: Pull out my laptop, take off my belt, take off my shoes, pull out any other electronic device that may have an optical drive.

      I get to pull out any liquids I may have and stuff them into a plastic bag if I haven't already done so. I get to try to grab enough bins from a pile that's shared between five lines and hope I grab enough the first time around. This while having at least 10 other people trying to do the same thing.

      You generally get to try to balance all of this at the same time as well since they expect you to be ready by the time you get to their little conveyor. Oh, then you get to try to figure out a way to watch your baggage go through the scanner to make sure someone doesn't decide that macbook would be much better in their care than yours.

      So you get pulled aside for a scanning booth, while your luggage is going through their conveyor. Can you believe I was too busy trying to make sure my $5,000 worth of electronics don't get stolen to notice a "magazine sized sign", that was most likely posted in such a way that they could usher me past without noticing?

      Hell, I know what I'm getting into when I go to the airport, and that sounds like a BS way of informing me of their new procedure.

    4. Re:Mod: -1 Troll, -2 Clueless, -5 FUD by rts008 · · Score: 0, Troll

      "So I take it you don't fly often."
      So, you are wrong. I fly often, but as I actually pay attention to my surroundings by nature, I am not caught off guard.
      There are more than "one" sign, and yes, I see them. All of them, because I make a point of actually looking around me to tell what is going on.
      Get over yourself and your '5,000 dollars' worth of electronics you feel the need to travel with.
      I was raised to pay attention to what was happening around me and to make reasonable decisions based on that reality.
      \
      There is no excuse for not having your stuff squared away. I have been doing it for decades with no problem.
      What I hate the most are those that want to try to 'game' the system. I despise those that want to hold the rest of us up with their 'entitled to bring it with us' mentality.

      Good luck trying to 'work/play' with their laptop next to me on a flight.

      I separate my work from travel, and will happily disrupt my co-seat mates.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    5. Re:Mod: -1 Troll, -2 Clueless, -5 FUD by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      Get over myself? I'm sorry, some of us have real jobs, and we travel for those jobs. The electronics I *feel* I have to travel with just so happen to be vital to that job. Welcome to slashdot, where geeks actually USE technology.

      There's a reason we're called BUSINESS travelers. We're ON THE CLOCK while traveling. Work IS traveling. I'm glad you feel it's your duty to disrupt those of us actually earning our paychecks.

      Fortunately, the content of your posts makes it obvious you're anything but a frequent flier. And you're just running your mouth. Should you sit in business class and attempt to prevent anyone from working/using their laptop you'd be promptly removed from the flight. So troll on brotha.

    6. Re:Mod: -1 Troll, -2 Clueless, -5 FUD by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Real jobs?"
      Ha!Ha!Ha!
      "...you're anything but a frequent flier..."
      Duuude! I don't pay for shit- I have so many miles built up that I don't even think about it when I have to hop on a plane.
      It's just a matter of how self-centered you want to be.
      Get your shit together and you won't have this problem.

      I've got enough 'frequent flier' miles built up that for the next three years my family and I don't have to worry about where we take our holiday.

      How would I be "...promptly removed from the flight" in mid air? I have no problem with a HALO jump, but how is that implemented on commercial flights?

      "VI'm sorry, some of us have real jobs..."
      So, you are the only one that has a 'real job'?
      Get over yourself, many of us have 'real jobs'!
      Don't try and complicate the world for your perceived entitlement. You are the one that has to take responsibility for your life/job, not the rest of us.
      If you are in such a bind on the flying, e-mail me and we might be able to transfer some of my 'frequent flier miles' to you.
      Otherwise, STFU!.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    7. Re:Mod: -1 Troll, -2 Clueless, -5 FUD by skeeto · · Score: 1

      Didn't notice all of the signs around the checkpoint....hmmm just like 6 year olds.

      If most people are failing to notice/read an important sign, this is most likely a user interface failure than the passender's faults. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Education's National Adult Literacy Survey, 48% of the U.S. population has low literacy. (Note that this percentage is found in just about all advanced countries, so it's not some kind of "stupid Americans" thing). To quote that page,

      Lower literacy is different than illiteracy: people with lower literacy can read, but they have difficulties doing so.

      The most notable difference between lower- and higher-literacy users is that lower-literacy users can't understand a text by glancing at it. They must read word for word and often spend considerable time trying to understand multi-syllabic words.

      Lower-literacy users focus exclusively on each word and slowly move their eyes across each line of text. In other words, they "plow" the text, line by line.

      That means for 48% of the population, reading a detailed sign is a significant chore such that, with balancing with everything they have to worry about in an airport, they simply don't have time to do it. If that sign is really explaining what is going it, it is going to be more than just a few words. That magazine-sized sign completely and automatically fails for about half the population.

      Before anyone goes blaming them, people with low literacy are not that way because they are stupid and lazy or whatever else you might immediately blame them for being. That's just how it is, and it is not going to change anytime soon. And just because they are low literacy does not mean that they don't deserve to know what is going on when they proceed through a needless security checkpoint.

      Improving the flow of information for low literacy passengers also improves the flow of information to high literacry passengers too. It's better for everyone. The lack of knowledge of what is going on is what allows this ridiculous security theater to get even worse. The more people know the privacy implications involved (that the man behind the curtain gets to see you naked), the less accepted these machines will be. Why do you think they are hiding their implementation in the first place?

  54. Denial of service attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They say you can opt for a pat-down instead of this scan. If enough people really dislike it, and it may be that ACLU types are joined by religious types with modesty objections here, it can be easily defeated. If enough people opt for the pat-down, the lines will move too slow and the airlines will put pressure on the government to get rid of these scanners.

    So, are people worried enough about this to ask for the pat-down? Judging by the comments of that woman in the article who said you have to submit to stuff like this in "this day and age" I would guess not.

  55. spreading fear and humiliation by nguy · · Score: 1

    These measures spread fear, humiliate people, and breed distrust and suspicion. So do the constant "threat level orange" announcements, announcements that you're the eyes and ears of the state, and that you should watch your fellow citizens. People who are afraid and humiliated vote for "strong leaders" that promise to keep them safe, and a general feeling of distrust prevents civic organizations and organized political opposition.

    The administration's political consultants and propaganda machine figured this out; in part, that's how Bush got through his mid-term election.

    A side benefit to the administration is that all this gadgetry is enormously expensive and allows them to funnel R&D money and lucrative contracts to their friends in industry.

  56. I don't feel any safer... by ScreamingCactus · · Score: 1

    ...from the terrorists. But I do feel more afraid of the government. In fact, almost... terrified. How ironic. Call me stupid, but I always thought our government was a democracy of and for the people. Which people asked for this, again? I don't recall anyone putting this to vote.

    If the American people would prefer to go back to the way things were, regardless of whatever perceived threats there may be, then who is the government to tell us no?

    --
    The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
  57. Bio-mech tattoos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what does a bio-mech tattoo look like to these scanners? I sure as hell hope they don't think I embedded a bomb in my arm... Oh well, I guess I'll get a new tattoo next around my belly button that says "Such This" and has an arrow pointing down.

  58. No... "now more than ever, you need ExtenDik" by JavaRob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, anyone want to place bets on how long we have before the penis "enlargement" industry starts mentioning this in their spam?

    ExTEND YUOR "MEMBER"! Did you hear that hot airport security worker snickering and pointing at your tiny P3N!S when they scanned you?????

    Buy now!! Upto 8 inchs loonger!!!! http://as09s8asdfasl.djssef909.com/

    1. Re:No... "now more than ever, you need ExtenDik" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i clicked the link.

  59. Looks like fun! by HansF · · Score: 1

    The girl in the picture seems to like it very much.

    --
    --> Insert Funny Sig Here
  60. millimeter waves by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Ya kno'... mil-meter...

    Its tham tiny things they use in that Urp country to measure thangs. Much smaller than inches.
    'Mercans are used to inches of waves, which goes to show that tham there mil-meter waves are harmless.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  61. embarassment? your Mum might know it was you ... by pbhj · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's no more a violation of privacy than having your bags xrayed.

    Or are you scared that someone will find out you've got knees in your trousers, or other human body parts. The scans produced aren't exactly colour photographs.

    Look on the bright side if an image of you from the scanner becomes public you'll be able to sue for a few hundred thousand dollars.

    As for knowing why they should - you may have heard of this thing called hijacking, it's popular with the dissident crowd. Illegal narcotics? Ringing any bells with you?

    I'm sure everything would be much safer under the scheme of bury-your-head-in-your-arse and don't check anyones person or baggage as they go on board instead just assume that the countless terroist groups worldwide prefer to attack powerlines.

    Sheesh, nobody cares if you have a small penis, OK.

  62. Surely you mean fascism? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Seen any Star Trek? Federation is a classic socialist utopia.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  63. Auschwitz? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Anyone else reminded of concentration camps by these photos?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Auschwitz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. And this is a weak troll to try and make the link between the two.

    2. Re:Auschwitz? by denzacar · · Score: 1

      OK, that is one brave Anonymous Coward.
      Balls, hard to come by these days.

      Anyone else willing to comment?

      FYI - I had no intention to be trollish about it.
      I am guessing that I was simply combining the memory of the photo above with this one.
      Had the photo been say... shades of blue or green, it would probably not register that way.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  64. I call BS by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I have a silver belt buckle that always sets the darn thing off. Though it isn't at waist height, with me being a short bastard and all.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:I call BS by maxume · · Score: 1

      So why not stow the buckle before going through the detector, or get a different belt?

      Those are pretty obvious ideas, so you must have some reason not to execute one of them...

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:I call BS by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So why not stow the buckle before going through the detector
      My pants will fall down.

      or get a different belt?
      I like that belt and I like the buckle. Plus I'd probably forget to put on my special flying belt anyway.

      It's not as if a thirty-second pat-down or search with the wand bothers me that much; I'd be waiting for the bags through the machine anyway.

      Point is, it's still BS that the detectors don't work at that height.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:I call BS by SpiderClan · · Score: 1

      Like you, I wear a big belt buckle to hold up pants that are too big, but I've never actually lost my pants going through security. I find holding them up works well.

    4. Re:I call BS by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      How do you hold them up with your arms outstretched? Are you MC Hammer?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  65. FTA, It can't scan through plastic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...diapers... that would be more embarrassing :)

    squeek....
    "Hey Johny, the man I'm seeing on the screen now hasn't got any penis!"

    squeek...
    "Erm... maybe he's a she ?"

    squeek...
    "No no, pat him down, no risks"

    squeek...
    "Sorry sir, please stand over here, just have to pat you down..."
    ...(pats subject down...)
    "Sir, sorry to ask, but are you a woman ?"

    "No... I am wearing "... whispers..."diapers"

    "Ah, in that case, you're good to go"

    squeek... (loud voice)
    "No problem Jack, the dude is wearing diapers !"

  66. What am I missing here? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    FTA: "You probably could find very common materials that you could wrap around you that would effectively obscure things," Siegel said.

    So it's useless? Somebody help me understand...

    --
    No sig today...
  67. Re:embarassment? your Mum might know it was you .. by Hydian · · Score: 1

    Scared much?

    These scanners will do nothing to stop airplane hijackings, which is a vastly overblown event in the first place. Far from being "popular with the dissident crowd", hijackings are extremely rare events. You are more likely to be shot in a drive by shooting in the US than be on a plane that is hijacked.

    Armored cockpits and air marshals on each flight are a much sounder strategy for handling all incidents that occur in air. Believe it or don't, there are solutions between being a complete slave to the man like yourself and the total anarchist that you incorrectly paint those whom you disagree with as. Only presenting the extremes as possibilities certainly hurts your credibility even further.

    If you are that scared and/or want your privacy and rights violated so much, then there is an opportunity for an airline to step up and cater to your needs. For the rest of us, we'd rather live in a sane world with realistic risk assesment. I don't see why we all need to put up with systems that only function to address your personal issues.

    I do hope that you volunteer for extra screening every time you go through security. I'd hate to think that you'd pass up the opportunity for a friendly pat down. Worse yet, it'd be a real shame to find out the hard way that you are a terrorist.

  68. Dennis Kucinich by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

    Dennis Kucinich objected to these measures too. The good thing about Kucinich is you get all of Ron Pauls concern about civil liberties and opposition to intrusive police state tactics, without is fanatical ideas about cutting off foreign civilian aid and emergency assistance programs, that you know, keeps children here and in other countries from starving to death.

    1. Re:Dennis Kucinich by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      But Ron's platform is about adherence to the Constitution; Kucinich's is not.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
  69. The United States! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Land of the free. Home of the brave.
    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free.
    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    Perhaps more relevant:

    None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.
  70. Not 100% efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can still sneak a snuke up your snizz.

  71. hAHAHAHAHHA by Albert+Sandberg · · Score: 1

    Good one!

  72. Re:embarassment? your Mum might know it was you .. by pbhj · · Score: 1

    So if I prefer [my local] society as a whole to have a greater control over corporate activities - such as mass transit - then I'm a "slave to the man".

    Ha ha.

    What does having a marshal and locked cockpit achieve - one definitely dead guy for every hijacking attempt* and (at least) one dead stewardess to convince the pilot to open the cockpit door.

    I'm not particular scared incidentally of hijacking. We don't allow the proliferation of small arms over here (UK) so drive by shootings are far less likely here. Getting hit by a car is a problem - that's why I choose to be a "slave to the man" and use pedestrian crossings or (shock!) look both ways before crossing. I know taking precautions against death marks me as a complete sheep but, you know, I quite like being alive. I'm sure you 'stick it to the man' by crossing busy roads at there most dangerous points without looking ...

    ---
    * if he's armed, well either he'll be shot before he has chance to reach his weapon (remember you don't want body checks for concealed weapons) or he'll be beaten to death or shot with his own sidearm.

  73. 30th birthday approaching... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh really, this is the final straw. Let me tell you a story... back in 1978 when I was born in sunny London the USSR was in full swing. As a kid in the 80s I was scared of those guys, really. Duck and cover, fallout... the usual stuff. Oh, and I really liked American TV. In fact, when I was a teenager I wanted nothing more than to go to the USA. Mr T was my hero. America was free, full of good guys like the A-Team. That's what I used to think of the USA.

    And now? How things have changed. A month ago I was let through the EU border and into the Ukraine with a just a passport. Into the former USSR without a hassle. The USA, however, has gone from being the land of dreams for many into our worst nightmares. Now I am expected to give my all personal details to foreign power with no way to access the data at a later date, get strip searched at the airport, have my phone and laptop riffled through and even confiscated and then be treated with suspicion and contempt by the locals as I might be a terrorist.

    I am not saying that the USA has dramatically transformed, but the perception of it certainly has. Basically, the US government is now making a trip to the USA so painfully unpleasant, that they're killing off the tourist industry. Well done! I'm guessing that lots of wealthy Germans, Brits, French etc will not be spending their cash in Las Vegas or Florida this summer. Another kick in the balls for the American economy. In fact, getting into demonic commie China is a lot easier than the USA, a guess we can go there - soon even vacations will be made in China!

  74. The Truth Is Out There by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I told you all I was abducted by TSA agents!!

  75. no, it's not useless ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would only be useless, if it were intended as a device to detect weapons etc. It is still extremely useful as security theatre. And additionally it's an interesting way to test how much people are prepared to put up with under the banner of fighting the terrorists.

  76. Speaking of those evil terrorists, where are they? by DrYak · · Score: 1

    I'm sure everything would be much safer under the scheme of bury-your-head-in-your-arse and don't check anyones person or baggage as they go on board instead just assume that the countless terroist groups worldwide prefer to attack powerlines. Yeah. Those evil terrorist that are so overwhelmingly numerous. Where are they ?

    Everytime some random new inconve^H protection from new threat is added to airport security, that assumes that until now, that threat has been completely open.

    So were are the thousands of evil terrorists that up until now used ceramic, ivory or plastic knifes to hijack planes and kill thousand of innocent citizen each day ?

    As repeatedly written by other /.er, currently in the USA, there are lots of way to die which are much more likely than dying because of some terrorist attack. How many die each day in car accidents ? How many die of cardio vascular complication due to their obesity ?

    Every time the population shows signs of scare, every time the government manage to cut away one more peace of personal freedom or privacy, the terrorists have managed to inspire terror and have won.
    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  77. Who are we protecting ourselves against again? by quickgold192 · · Score: 1
  78. This is next. by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 1

    Two weeks!
    [twitch]
    *BOOM*

  79. We've ballsed up security by gtx · · Score: 1

    I was flying out of Schiphol recently when I realized how nice it was over there. They had bag scanners at every gate. Their security people made pleasant conversation with everybody going through the line. It was like we weren't being packed onto a steel tube by anti-social cretins who couldn't pass fourth grade english.

    It was nice.

    Later, I flew out of Dulles. They siphon everybody going through the airport into one or two lanes. The screeners do not converse. They screech: "MOVE ALONG, SIR" "TAKE YOUR SHOES OFF!"
    Listen, let's not pretend that TSA isn't a complete and total clusterfuck. There's no reason to be screaming at me. The security checkpoints are just bizarre anymore. They change the rules every so often, or don't follow them consistently from one airport to the next, and then act all indignant when I don't know what they want from me before they yell. "TAKE YOUR LAPTOP OUT OF THE BAG, SIR" funny, the TSA says laptops don't have to come out of bags anymore. Maybe that's changed? Maybe you're a mongoloid?

    I hate to admit it, but the USA has ballsed it all up. If overly intrusive, endlessly inconvenient searches minimize the threats of terrorism, you'd expect Amsterdam to have all of the terrorists flying through. I can't remember one hijacked flight leaving Schiphol. Not one.

    --


    "I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
    1. Re:We've ballsed up security by gtx · · Score: 1

      I just realized that I can't spell Schipol. Nads.

      --


      "I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
  80. Other uses of RF by NewAmeriRevolution · · Score: 1

    I was reading on the TSA site that these things use low level RF frequencies to produce the images. Now if the conspiracy theorists are right, this would go hand in hand with the metaplan to get everyone tagged with RFID chips. When you consider the implications of future mandatory RFID chips and devices like these installed everywhere... that slice of freedom we all like to think we enjoy gets smaller everyday. After reading the article, I would say the government has done a fine job of practically making everyone sheep. When people stop questioning and simple think "these days you have to go with it" then the ruling elite have obtained their goal of pacifying the masses into mindless wage slaves.

  81. Not any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about CGI KP? Manga?

    Heck a mother was arrested for a picture of her baby daughter in the bath!

  82. Naked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When this thing was being developed, officials were saying that you would have the option to be scanned by hand if you objected to being seen semi-undressed by this machine. As all such promises by governments, it was apparently just another lie. I personally will object due to religious reasons to going through one of these machines and refuse to go through. As sexually loose as most people are today, however, most people won't care.

  83. Nor do I have a constitutional right to... by spineboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Drive, take a train, ride a bike, horse or walk. But when it becomes necessary to do so, so that one may live in the USA, then restrictions on that activity essentially infringe on our rights.
    Obviously some lose this right because they are a menace to others (drunk drivers, etc).

    As someone else pointed out, the TSA is my problem, since it is a governmental agency.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  84. Humph by BigBadBus · · Score: 1

    Why not have these scanners linked directly to your doctor's surgery? Then you can phone them up, something like this:
    "Hello, I'd like to book an appointment with Dr.Hu for next week please."
    "No, need, Mr.Zen, you only have two days to live. We got your airport scans."

  85. 10th Amendment is also an issue by pebcak · · Score: 1

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

  86. time to invest in flying cars by wikinerd · · Score: 1

    The acceptance statisticts they collect suggest that most people prefer to be scanned when the alternative is a stripsearch. What their statistics don't count is how many people choose to travel by other means rather than big aircrafts (there are so many ways to get wherever you want to go: private plane or heli if you have one, rail, bus, private car, or even by walking, and in the near future maybe even by using a private spaceplane if you can afford it). If security theatre and paranoia continues, people will just stop paying for air travel and seek other means to move. We had no airplanes in 500 BCE, 1600 CE, or 1800 CE and yet economy funtioned so well. Unless you are in an emergency, there is rarely a real need to use an airplane, especially if you embrace telecommuting. While I agree that terrorists should be eradicated, I do not think that eroding our freedom-loving culture is the way forward. Except from that, it's also extremely costly: Terrorists surely laugh as our economies burn millions of dollars or euros in an attempt to protect ourselves, while they can do lots of damage to us simply by spending a few hundreds or thousands. Basic economic theory suggests that we need to find cheaper ways to protect our lands, or else we are screwed. Big spending doesn't seem the right way, and I think that if we don't want to risk future terrorist attacks we should invest in decentralisation (it gets harder for the terrorist to attack if there are no big concentrated targets). So, instead of continuing to build huge airports and massive airplanes, start investing in lots of small airstrips all over the rural and urban communities and develop small flexible planes carrying just 10-15 people each, or even flying private cars. If there is mass production of small airstrips and private planes and sufficient demand to support it, the prices will be cheaper than the airfares we pay today, and thanks to decentralisation terrorists won't be a problem for air travel anymore.

  87. Someone with legal know how steer me straight. by dogdick · · Score: 1

    What would happen if i just took off all my clothes when I got up to the scanner and put them in that little shitty plastic bin.
    Or I write TSA is 'tupidfuckingdouchebags' on my chest in magic marker.

    Goddamn, I love how our country as a whole is some of the smartest fucking idiots on the planet.

  88. picture in article by shipbrick · · Score: 1

    Anyone else find the picture a little strange? They just happened to be checking an attractive woman, and the guy that appears to be near the monitor seems to be grinning a little to much.

  89. A lawsuit waiting to happen? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    As soon as someone decides that this is not for "security", but for prurient interest? My wife notes that attractive women, both younger and up to her age (including her) are far more frequently the ones chosen for "closer inspection".

    Remember the boarding scene in Airplane II?

              mark

  90. I can't walk away from this article. by dogdick · · Score: 1

    Im sorry, I know this is like the third time Ive posted on this article, but it makes me so fucking mad. What I dont get, more than anything is why the god damn TSA exists. Hey, WE fucked up and let 9/11 happen.

    OMG. Did he just say that? How un-american, what a terrorist.

    Fact is people want to kill people. Fact is, the people that are supposed to protect our country, well, some of them fucked up. Whether it was Air Force, Air Traffic Control, the Army, whoever. Someone fucked up, didn't do their job right and let a bunch of innocent people get hurt.

    How do we address the situation? Better defense? Maybe, but fuck, why dont we go ahead and harrass the shit out of everyone that flies, some hundreds of thousands of people a day, maybe more, in the event that one of them is a terrorist.

    I have an uncle, replaced hip. Carries a medical card stating his hip is metallic. Got back room strip searched when the TSA couldn't find what was making the metal detector go off, despite him showing his card. I have a metal ACL brace, I wore it THROUGH FUCKING JFK. Metal detector goes off, hand wanded. Hand wand goes OFF.

    TSA: Whats in your pants sir?
    Me: ACL brace *I knock on the brace for effect*
    TSA: Go ahead your clear.


    IM FUCKING CLEARED?! He let me just cruise onto a plane departing New York City with a HUGE metal object in my pants he didn't inspect. Our harassment and security is up to the scrutiny and discrepancy of HUMAN BEINGS, some of which are total fuck ups and completely illogical.

    Someone else said it and I agree. 9/11 happened, will there be more terrorist attacks? Who knows, probably. Will it be with another fucking plane? Probably not and if so, hey how about this. AirForce, Army, do your fucking jobs and keep us safe. And by do your jobs. I mean, yeah, if you have to, shoot down the fucking plane. Its fucked up to say that I know, but, if your are going to save the lifes of a few thousand people for the lives of a hundred or so, its worth it. Purely on numbers of course, which is what we all are.

    The TSA is NOT going to keep America safe? Why? Because people can be insane, its their right, well not their RIGHT, but you understand. People are bat-shit crazy. Could someone today, right now, hi jack a plane or at least scare the shit out of everyone in the US.

    They could, and they could do it by going on the plane with nothing but a tshirt and jeans, fuck it board shorts and flip flops.

    Flight Attendant: Excuse me sir would you like a beverage?
    Psycho Fucking Passenger: Yes, ma'am I'd enjoy a Coca-Cola classic, could I have a full can?
    FA: Sure. *Gives can*
    PFP: Drinks soda, goes to bathroom. *In bathroom rips aluminum can up to create a MORE FUCKING POTENT WEAPON THAN A FUCKING BOX CUTTER.*


    Psycho fucking passenger leaves the restroom, grabs the first person hes sees, probably the back of the plane flight attendant, puts make shift knife to throat. Threatens to kill, looks for a child, swaps attendant for child. NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT FUCKING MIND WANTS TO SEE A KID DIE, THATS WHY A CRAZY ASS PERSON COULD USE IT TO GET INTO THE COCK PIT.

    PFP: Kid dies, or open up the cabin.
    Captain: No way
    PFP: *Puts a one inch incision on the kid to show he means business*
    Everyone on plane: *FUCKING LOSES IT*
    Captain: *opens door* (OK maybe not, but at this point everyone in the US is completely fucking going nuts because it got this far, and TSA "did their jobs" => Imagine the chaos we'll have to deal with the next time we go to the airport)

    Just suppose that psycho got into the cockpit. Its the end of january, over a football city, CRASH => the fucking super bowl. Two major major money making franchises destroyed. But you know whats worse than losing all that money or a couple of companies almost collapsing financially because of the WTC? Losing the 30000 attendees of the super bowl. Why? Because they are people, the same people we are treating like shit every time they want to fly somewhere.

    We are focusing on the wrong people and the wrong place for securing our country.

  91. Solution for the guys by NIckGorton · · Score: 1, Funny

    Decline the scan, then when it comes time for your pat down, gay it up so much that you when in comes time for your pat down, gay it up so much that you make Carson Kressley look like Chuck Norris. Then make a joke about a full body cavity search.

    You will be out of there in 3 seconds flat.

    I had to go through the Lubbock TX airport. I was wearing a superqueer shirt, and when they pulled me aside, I was like sure honey, but are you gonna buy me dinner first? Blink-blink.... he chuckled nervously at which point I said, well if you want to do a full body cavity search would you mind if I brought BF in here to watch?

  92. All Scanner Operators... by Illbay · · Score: 1

    ...are required to ingest saltpeter with breakfast every morning.

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
  93. Re:embarassment? your Mum might know it was you .. by SpiderClan · · Score: 1

    What does having a marshal and locked cockpit achieve - one definitely dead guy for every hijacking attempt* and (at least) one dead stewardess to convince the pilot to open the cockpit door. There doesn't have to be a door between the cockpit and the rest of the plane.

    (remember you don't want body checks for concealed weapons)
    Remember that opinion I pretended was yours earlier? Don't forget that you still believe it.
  94. Achilles Heel by busydoingnothing · · Score: 1

    So they create this elaborate machine that violates peoples' privacies in the name of safety, and in the banner article explaining its purpose and future plans, they say that it can't see through plastic or rubber. Oh, what a grand idea! The people who you are actually trying to CATCH now have a way out, and every other Average American airline passenger is subjected to this for what?

  95. Re:embarassment? your Mum might know it was you .. by pbhj · · Score: 1

    (remember you don't want body checks for concealed weapons) Remember that opinion I pretended was yours earlier? Don't forget that you still believe it. Perhaps I read too much between the lines, you prefer pat downs, fine, my bad. In which case perhaps you could just choose the pat down instead of the scanner?

    Re the door: what about when the pilot has a heart attack (seems to be the most common problem), you just leave him to die ... that's going to be pretty distracting for the co-pilot, no?
  96. So.... since privacy is gone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When are the laws going to change about having IMAGES of underage kids? Last I checked, kids fly too. After all, when the TSA says that toddlers can't fly because their name is on some watch list, I guess it's now ok to see/make/store naked images of under 18 year olds. Why hasn't anyone brought this up? I've seen the images of what this machine can do. Am I the only one that has this concern or is it no big deal?

  97. oooh ooooh I know the answer ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The particles are called photons!

  98. Yeah, just like the Carter years by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

    Total stalemate is only good for one election, and Congress still will get some of what they want done, think veto override.

    Checkmate, stalemate broken.

    Ron Paul would be a lame duck president, until you can replace Congress, you're wasting your time electing a decent person as president. Congress chews up and spits out decent folks.

  99. There's a comedy by deesine · · Score: 1
    sketch in here, somewhere....

    --
    damaged by dogma
  100. Been in the movies for years.. by bjbest · · Score: 1

    Haven't you seen the old movie "Airplane!" from around 1980? Women passengers on their way to the airport gates walk past a security and a camera. From this angle you can see the male guard watching the monitor -- which shows the woman with no clothes on! Or Total Recall from 1990 (protraying the world nearly a century in the future), anyone entering the subway rail system freely walks past a large X-ray scanner screen, with security observing skeletons walking through. Attempting to bring a gun results in an immediate alarm. Of course, the guy from "A Fish Called Wanda" easily makes it through airport security with a gun..

  101. Out of control by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    It all seems very clinical and non-threatening


    Yeah, that's what that creepy doctor told me during my last prostate exam...

    I think we've hit the peak and are irreversibly headed towards outright totalitarianism (and I'm not just talking about the US). We've given up our precious freedoms for counterfeit security. The only choices we seem to be left with are fascist totalitarianism or socialist totalitarianism. Frankly, I don't want either one.
    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  102. I'm not worried by extrasolar · · Score: 1

    I have skin covering all the important parts.

  103. E Strip Searches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's electronic strip searching. How embarrassing!

    If strip searches are not normal and are considered humiliating, how is this reasonable?

  104. As a transwoman by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

    ...in mid-transition, I find these scanners terrifying. I don't want some 24yo punk in the backroom going What the F*CK when they see my body scan.

    But of course, when did the public ever consider us anyway? We trans don't exist, and we have no rights. We are the bottom class among the American caste system.

    --
    Camping on quad since 1996.
  105. They can afford to piss you off... by AnotherScratchMonkey · · Score: 1

    ... you've already paid! Now if they ran you through security before you paid, they might lose some serious business.

    1. Re:They can afford to piss you off... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      There's that next flight to consider -- or in my case, not. Therein lies the problem.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  106. Scan Induced cancer, Breast cancer for the ladies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These scans or X-ray ionised particle scans kill.
    Over 10 years, a planeful of people will be dead, or have life threatening cancers, courtesy of these security scans. Or the cancers pushed forward a few years.
    Any or all incremental radiation is dangerous - all cumulative radiation is dangerous, both detectable and non-detectable. In theory it is a little, multiplied by number of passengers flown.

    With certainity, the new machines are killing people or giving them cancers - almost silently, and under the radar, while wiping out billions of dollars in GNP as valuable people waste productive time in stupid airport frustration queues. The people crunching the risk management numbers will have a lot to answer for. Meanwile certain oil producers will profit from the extra energy needed to run these machines, and the avgas consumed because of security theatre.

    It's not wise to subject people to unnecessary x-rays. Such follys, will kill a planeload of people with certainty - think about it.

  107. I've said this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but you US idiots keep adding more layers to your country bullshit that makes me repeat myself over and over again - I am never coming to your country. I'm Canadian and all I can hope for is that Canada doesn't follow in your footsteps too much. The US is a fucking joke.

  108. Add it to the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Add it to the list of personal pieces of data that can be mishandled, lost, stolen, and then end up on the web.

    You may have stolen my identity, but at least I have my dignit...never mind.

  109. Re:Speaking of those evil terrorists, where are th by pbhj · · Score: 1

    Every time you try to stop someone smuggling drugs on a flight the terrorists have won?

    To imagine body scanners only purpose is to capture terror activists with political agendas ("terrorists") is nutty. How many random shootings do you guys have in the US? You want gang members to pwn an airline route or the guy from "Falling Down" to decide death on an airliner is the way to go.

    Yes people are more likely to die of prostrate cancer than die in a gas explosion, but I still think it's worthwhile to try and prevent gas explosions by having a building code and gas shut-off valves in houses.

  110. Konstanse by Konstanse · · Score: 1

    Why don't we do something about this? We can email our representatives. We can boycot the terminals that are using this nasty equipment. We can email the TSA with what we think and why. What I don't understand is that we talk to everyone else about how much we don't like what is happening, but then go along with it. If all of us email in exactly what we think, then maybe we can stop this before it really takes hold. If it does take hold, I am willing to find a way to take it to the Supreme Court. I do think all this airline trash is getting way out of hand and is definately against our rights and freedoms as Americans.