TSA Employee Caught With $200K Worth of Stolen Property

The plane moves me or I move the plane? writes "After years of people complaining about their luggage locks being broken in the name of the Transportation Security Administration, and after countless properly-stowed utilities and tools had been scrutinized from a paranoid point of view, an employee of the TSA (which is part of the Department of Homeland Security) has been captured with evidence of over $200,000 worth of stolen property he was selling on eBay. With the help of local police and the USPS, a search of his house found a great deal of property pilfered from the un-witnessed searches that occurred after luggage had been checked, where the rightful owner was not allowed. 'Among the items seized were 66 cameras, 31 laptop computers, 20 cell phones, 17 sets of electronic games, 13 pieces of jewelry, 12 GPS devices, 11 MP3 players, eight camera lenses, six video cameras and two DVD players, the affidavit said.'"

Comments

thieves standing around

[pxlmusic]

jesus christ.

i'm mailing my shit next time.

Re:thieves standing around

[Anonymous Coward]

66 cameras, 31 laptop computers, 20 cell phones, 17 sets of electronic games, 13 pieces of jewelry, 12 GPS devices, 11 MP3 players, eight camera lenses, six video cameras and two DVD players

$200K? That can't be right. 11 MP3's are worth that much according to the RIAA.

Re:thieves standing around

[johndmartiniii]

Yah, that doesn't always work either. I live in Egypt, and once your shit hits the border here it gets opened so that a tariff can be levied, but half the time you never get the tariff notice, because someone who works in the postal service, the trade bureau, or wherever just steals it.

You also face import tariff in almost any country if you ship certain items. That can make it very expensive.

Soon, it is only going to be safe and easy to take whatever you can carry in your pockets or shove up your ass.

Re:thieves standing around

[pxlmusic]

which is why my laptop, camera, and phone never leave my sight.

Re:thieves standing around

[SterlingSylver]

The summary is trying to make this about "un-witnessed searches," but this is about dishonest transport employees. Lazy employees have been stealing random valuables being transported from the time that the first wagons and boats got invented.

Re:thieves standing around

[Timothy Brownawell]

The summary is trying to make this about "un-witnessed searches," but this is about dishonest transport employees.

...who only have the opportunity/incentive to be dishonest because of the "un-witnessed searches", yes?

Re:thieves standing around

[Neoprofin]

Right, because nothing was ever stolen from baggage until a few years ago...

Re:thieves standing around

[Russ Nelson]

We weren't prevented from locking our baggage until a few years ago.

Re:thieves standing around

[interstellar_donkey]

You shove your laptop, camera and phone up your ass?

Re:thieves standing around

[tacocat]

Actually, it used to be that you could carry on all your most valuable items and be able to travel with some degree of personal property security because you were personally in charge of it.

Today the less you carry on, the less hassle you get. Problem now is that everything you check is likely to be rummaged. I've lost diving gear without recourse. Kind of a pain.

I have little interest in traveling by air anymore for just this reason. The less you carry, the better chance of you arriving. I don't think there is any real security considering. For $200,000 from one person, I wonder just how many travelors are victims of robbery there are since HSA versus the number of travelors turned victims from terrorists.

Re:thieves standing around

[UnderCoverPenguin]

which is why my laptop, camera, and phone never leave my sight.

You don't have a choice. The TSA has the authority to seize anything. You either give it to them or get arrested and they take it anyway.

The issue here is that instead of following procedure and putting the items in the TSA system, the agent decided to keep them. This is not new. I remember, as a kid, reading about about a customs agent caught keeping items he had seized. Legally. The government charged him with stealing government property. The items in question where never returned to their original owners.

Re:thieves standing around

[pxlmusic]

LOL

no, i just keep them on my person.

Re:thieves standing around

[lgw]

The summary is trying to make this about "un-witnessed searches," but this is about dishonest transport employees

The problem is: the Toiletry Seizing Agency does not make us safer at all, so any downside to the program (like this) is not offset by any upside at all. This is not a mixed bag, this is pure evil.

Re:thieves standing around

[AngryLlama]

You can see up your ass?

Re:thieves standing around

[schon]

$200K? That can't be right. 11 MP3's are worth that much according to the RIAA.

I'm sure all of these players had nothing on them, so they wouldn't be using the RIAA's numbers. :)

Re:thieves standing around

[pxlmusic]

what i mean is, they don't go into checked luggage, they go with me as carry-on.

and yes, i know that they can do whatever the fuck they want and get away with it.

but what really burns my ass (other than the obvious bullshit with the TSA) is the increasing authoritarianism in the US. and what else really gets me is that people in other countries criticize Americans for this as if we had some say-so in the matter.

Re:thieves standing around

[BillGod]

66 cameras, 31 laptop computers, 20 cell phones, 17 sets of electronic games, 13 pieces of jewelry, 12 GPS devices, 11 MP3 players, eight camera lenses, six video cameras two DVD players and a partridge in a pear tree.

Re:thieves standing around

[sdturf]

Soon, it is only going to be safe and easy to take whatever you can carry in your pockets or shove up your ass.

So you're saying that the watch my dad wore in Vietnam is the only thing safe when I'm traveling?

Re:thieves standing around

[SL Baur]

For $200,000 from one person, I wonder just how many travelors are victims of robbery there are since HSA versus the number of travelors turned victims from terrorists.

There have been 0 acts of terrorism in the US since 2001 unless you count the recent US$700^H^H^H850B bailout.

I am a victim of theft of by the TSA, sometimes they leave a little piece of paper saying that they took something and sometimes they do not. They do not say what they decided to steal.

And no, no matter how many times they ask me at the border, I never lived in Oakland and why do you keep asking me that every time I go through?

Re:thieves standing around

[houghi]

Soon, it is only going to be safe and easy to take whatever you can carry in your pockets or shove up your ass.

And you think that they won't start searching there?

Re:thieves standing around

[Kandenshi]

Of course they do. You, personally, might not have voted for the incomptents that are pushing for this sort of thing/not actively working to make it illegal... But many of your peers did.

I'd say that in at LEAST 2/3rds of the conversations I've ever had with Americans about the 2nd amendment, they bring up the idea that a well armed populace will keep the government from doing illegal things, because the populace will call them to account.
I'm not suggesting that shooting people is the appropriate response to luggage being stolen, but I've never once gotten a satisfactory answer as to what will cause the people to rise up. It seems to me that the ability to own shitloads of guns hasn't been used very effectively over the history of the USA to enforce the constitution or the rights of human beings. It still might in the future, but I'm not optimistic. As long as American Idol is still playing, and Walmart is still selling clothes for cheap, the vast majority of the American people seem unwilling to risk their own comfortable lives over things like the contitution, their rights or more particularly, the rights of others.

Re:thieves standing around

[TheLink]

Calm down, it's still only October.

Then again maybe the TSA employee felt it was Christmas everyday. Hohoho.

Re:thieves standing around

[pxlmusic]

correct.

we could, but we *won't*..we won't throw these fucking tyrants out because, because people are fucking sheep.

individuals can't do it, because they'll be arrested and/or shot in the process. we would have to have the whole fucking populace just up and storm the capital buildings, oppressive police districts, etc.

i mean, all at fucking once -- and that's never going to happen.

the slow, steady decline into authoritarianism has no foreseeable end. god, it's depressing.

it's almost enough to make me want to just end it all.

Re:thieves standing around

[electrosoccertux]

Yep you can lock it. With TSA approved locks. This way, the locks won't be cut off. They'll just be put back on, after the agent has "confiscated" for "your safety" what he pleases.

They have a keyhole in the bottom that unlocks for keys which they *only give to TSA agents*, because you see, the government can be trusted.

Re:thieves standing around

[TheLink]

Why should they rise up?

If they were genuinely upset, they should start voting for some other parties.

I'd say most appear satisfied with either one of the Two Parties given that 99% of them voted for one of the Two in 2004 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004 )

So it'll be going against the People's will if some misguided patriot started a revolution or shot people.

Or is it really a case of lots of people not voting for The Other Parties just because they all think it will be a wasted vote? If that's so, maybe they should do some polling so they can figure out how many would actually vote for "Some Other Party" assuming they're not playing the "game theory"/"voting game" stuff.

But I honestly doubt it, judging even from the remarks on Slashdot. Most are like the Pro Wrestling Team supporters.

Re:thieves standing around

[riceboy50]

When the government acts with malice towards the populace, they can make it so difficult to monitor and defeat their initiatives that the average person just does not have enough time—let alone willpower—to act against them. Those that are willing to make that sacrifice are demonized and discredited by the media.

Re:thieves standing around

[jc42]

i'm mailing my shit next time.

I've read a number of stories about people who have been doing that routinely, for years. The original motivation was the sorry record of most airlines for "losing" luggage. The postal system has a much better record, and usually delivers a package to your destination well before you arrive.

Mailing your luggage makes even more sense, now that your luggage can be opened and its contents stolen or damaged by the TSA. The postal system, on the other hand, will insure the contents and will usually pay off if anything is damaged or "lost". It makes even more sense with the airlines that are charging extra for luggage.

The sensible thing to do now, if you have anything of value in your luggage, is to send it separately via any of the package carriers, and only take a small carryon with you. It works. People have been doing it for years, and are usually happy with the results.

(Of course, when you write about mailing your "shit", I'm assuming that you're speaking metaphorically. Though I once worked with a zoologist who was doing field work in a remote part of the world, and did fly packages of feces samples back to his lab. But they were various wild animals' shit, not his own, and were packed in dry ice. ;-)

Re:thieves standing around

[ultranova]

we could, but we *won't*..we won't throw these fucking tyrants out because, because people are fucking sheep.

No, people don't throw them out because people are wolves. Each of them is all too happy to partake in the meal when shit happens to someone else; it's only when shit happens to yourself when the wolf howls a protest, and even then only until it's his turn to eat again.

A tyrant can keep armed populace under control just fine, just as long as he manages to spin it as an opportunity to feast on their neighbours - the American Dream, in other words. As long as each wolf things he can become the Alpha Wolf, he's only too happy to make sure the Alpha has godlike status and no checks on his power.

Re:thieves standing around

[Kwiik]

I choose vibrate

Re:thieves standing around

[davolfman]

Carry on. They can't have sticky fingers with everyone watching.

Re:thieves standing around

[Miseph]

Mmmm... iBrator.

Re:thieves standing around

[MSZ]

Opportunity makes the thief, as the old proverb goes.

This is a good example. Let minimum wage people open travellers' bags completely unsupervised and there will be one or two that will help themselves to the goods. The real point is, if there is a need at all to search checked bags, the safe way is to have the owner present the contents - like it happens with customs. The problem is not that particular thief, it's the TSA giving him ample opportunity to steal... by making these searches unwitnessed and unsupervised. And probably also by TSA making these people believe thay are above the law.

It is amazing that it's not happening more often. Or maybe it is?

Re:thieves standing around

[Fumus]

That's easy. You just have to have your head up there.

Re:thieves standing around

[allacds]

I'd say most appear satisfied with either one of the Two Parties given that 99% of them voted for one of the Two in 2004 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004 )

What I think you mean to say is that 99% of those that voted did so for one of the two major party candidates. Approx 120M voted in that election, per your source above. In 2004, there were more than 200M - probably more like 215-220M - adults in the US (I see there were 210M in 2000, but can't find better numbers than that for 2004 on census.gov).

So yes, 99% of the voting population voted for one of them, but what about the disenfranchised 40-50% of adults who did not vote?

Re:thieves standing around

[WormholeFiend]

Calm down, it's still only October.

But in Canada, Thanksgiving was last week!

Re:thieves standing around

[BarefootClown]

The summary is trying to make this about "un-witnessed searches," but this is about dishonest transport employees.

Close. It's about dishonest government employees. People with the power to arrest you (or have you arrested) if you insist upon watching the search.

Re:thieves standing around

[centuren]

That's a good point; who keeps their laptop in checked luggage? I'd never trust it to survive the handling safely, thievery aside.

Re:thieves standing around

[SL Baur]

Fixed that for you. Don't think that 0 attacks on the news is for the terrorists' lack of trying.

ALL of the attacks on airports, malls, etc. in my adopted home country (the Philippines) since 9/11/2001 would have succeeded in the US. And in the Philippines you must pass through security to even get inside any public building.

Some countries, like the Philippines, have a terrorist problem. Other countries like the US, do not.

And your point is?

Re:thieves standing around

[Brian Gordon]

How did it take 31 laptops for this guy to get caught? I know if my (one) laptop was stolen by security, I would NOT stop until I got it back. It's my only computer; how could I possibly let it go? I'm not just going to take a glossed over "we'll get back to you".. I'm going to the top

Re:thieves standing around

[erroneus]

I could have advised that... in fact, I believe I have. If all of my comments are available for your viewing (I think paid subscribers can see them all) you would know that I am an ex-TSA screener. I screened both baggage and passengers. And in the case of baggage, some screening is done in the presence of the passenger and some is not. (It depends on the air carrier and the airport.)

In any case, the opportunities are very obvious and I have no doubt that temptation plays out as a huge contributor to the problem. Sometimes things are accidentally left out of bags when re-packing them. I know I personally failed to repack a toiletry kit with prescription drugs inside. Unfortunately by the time I realized what I had done, the bag was already loaded onto the plane. I could have simply pushed it aside, but instead I insisted that I be allowed to bring the toiletry bag to the carrier and ultimately to the passenger with my apologies. (I felt it was necessary because I had no idea how critical those drugs may have been.) Also, there are regulations about other things such as compressed gas containers (like hair spray and butane) and even hard liquor above certain volumes. (These are FAA rules, not TSA.)

So it is not uncommon to not put everything back... and because of this, other things slip through. And while I was with TSA, there was no rule about reporting items removed at the time. (There may be now, but there wasn't several years ago.) And while the items removed were "seized" it is unclear, even to myself, what was done with them... big ole bottles of whiskey? I have no idea... I didn't have the balls to want to take any home with me personally, but I am sure some may have.

Now with all that said, these expensive items... well, damn. I feel really bad for the passengers and for the innocent TSA screeners who will now be watched more closely or simply viewed with suspicion. I hope the guy gets nailed to the wall with all sorts of charges and that this story is paraded all around the TSA as an example. But with this said, the problem has always existed. Baggage handlers have been known to steal all sorts of things and even moreso as they often have access to vehicles for carrying things off. (I recall a baggage handler who was busted with a pickup truck full of golf bags and laptop bags... and he had, as I was told, been doing it for YEARS.) Furthermore, in the case of baggage claims, it is quite common to see someone randomly come up to the carousel and pick up bags and walk away with them... treasure hunting. LOTS of stuff goes missing in that way especially.

The short of it? Yes, it is better (and often cheaper these days) to send things via UPS or FedEX! Checking into a hotel? Send it a day in advance and let your hotel know it's coming. Visiting friends or family? Same thing. But if you can't depend on that, there are other rules that allow you to carry extremely valuable things with you in spite of the carry-on limitations. So camera bags and laptops can also go with you even if it doesn't fit in with your carry-on luggage. Simply put: You insist that it is going with you and that it is too important or valuable to be put in with regular luggage.

Re:thieves standing around

[erroneus]

Don't confuse TSA with Customs. They are both under the DHS, (thanks GW!) but one can seize "anything" and the other cannot.

Re:thieves standing around

[cp.tar]

There have been 0 completed acts of terrorism in the US since 2001 Fixed that for you. Don't think that 0 attacks on the news is for the terrorists' lack of trying.

I should think that informing the public of a successfully prevented attack increases people's confidence in the new counter-terrorist measures, establishes their necessity, and makes people more willing to suffer additional losses of freedom to increase their perceived security.

No. If there had been any real attempts since 2001, the US and the world would have heard of it.

Re:thieves standing around

[Clever7Devil]

I don't think "disenfranchised" is the appropriate word here, as it connotes blame lying directly on the ones administering the vote. To lessen the flames here we can admit that a small percentage of people truly are disenfranchised by government processes. The large majority of those who didn't vote were just too lazy or uninterested. The only blame we can lay at the government's feet for those is in our backwards education system. But that's another story.

Re:thieves standing around

[erroneus]

The Revolutionary War was started by a VERY small number of people. It was far from being a massively organized revolt... at the beginning. But when the British essentially decided to punish EVERYONE in retaliation, everyone effectively had no choice but to join in... some people did try to remain loyal to England but had their homes burned and family killed anyway. The more people saw that, the more they realized they had no choice and that England was most certainly the enemy whether they wanted to fight or not.

So would that or could that happen here today? I don't know. But that's why there is such tight control over guns and such pressure to have identification and tracking for everyone. If the government can get the individuals responsible for starting a revolution, no revolution will ever occur... just terrorists being brought to justice.

Re:thieves standing around

[SkyDude]

The problem is: the Toiletry Seizing Agency does not make us safer at all, so any downside to the program (like this) is not offset by any upside at all. This is not a mixed bag, this is pure evil.

So what do you suggest - doing away with all searches and hope that only the best of humankind boards aircraft?

Seems to me that's where the US was on 9/10/01. Of course, if the bleeders in Congress hadn't banned pilots from carrying guns - indeed there should have been a requirement to carry - the hijackings probably wouldn't have occurred.

I'd be all in favor of having armed personnel on aircraft, but the problem is that doesn't help at 35,000 feet when Mohammed and his friends decide to make the trip to heaven to meet the 72 virgins and take a plane load of innocents with them.

It's a Federal crime to steal US mail but the Postal inspectors are always catching a few dishonest employees. The TSA needs to have better oversight of its staff and more severe penalties for inside crimes as described. But, searches are a part of life, or at least until everyone boarding an aircraft is singing "Kumbaya"

Re:thieves standing around

[toddestan]

There have been several completed acts of terrorism in the US since 2001.

Fixed that for you. The Anthrax mailings? The DC snipers? The smiley face bomber? How quickly you people forget.

Re:thieves standing around

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been 0 completed acts of terrorism in the US since 2001

Fixed that for you. Don't think that 0 attacks on the news is for the terrorists' lack of trying.

You're also missing the fact that there hasn't been a single fatality from a Unicorn stabbing or a Dragon breath weapon attack on a US citizen since W was elected. You need to give the man the credit he's due.

Re:thieves standing around

[anagama]

Airplane terrorism really isn't all that effective. In contrast, blow a series of holes in the Colonial Pipeline -- 5500 miles of target -- and the eastern seaboard is out of gas: http://kaznak.web.infoseek.co.jp/big/colonialpipeline.jpg

Realistically, 9/11 affected a small number of people and the stock market. If the terrorists had taken out a significant portion of the energy infrastructure, America would have simply withered. In other words, the "terrorists" are just media junkies -- it's plain they don't actually want to hurt America at all because if they did, their targets would NOT be airplanes.

Anyway, our response to the "attack" was to attack ourselves, our freedoms, and unrelated countries. We chose to do nothing to actually enhance security, but we have managed to spend ridiculous sums of money and create huge annoyances for ourselves.

Re:thieves standing around

[pxlmusic]

exactly. TIA and the military of today would make that damn near impossible. you might get some shots in, maybe take out a couple of dudes, but ultimately you would be shot in your bed or in the street.

"they" have such tight controls and have laid such groundwork as it, at this point, just not possible for us to depose the morons in power.

Re:thieves standing around

[pxlmusic]

furthermore, if you think the weapons the police have are dangerous, think about what the military has.

Re:thieves standing around

[TheRaven64]

Realistically, 9/11 affected a small number of people and the stock market...
Anyway, our response to the "attack" was to attack ourselves, our freedoms, and unrelated countries

Sounds to me like the attacks worked then...

Re:thieves standing around

[nfc_Death]

Its very shallow to assume people didnt vote because they were too lazy or uninterested. A large portion of those that dont vote, dont vote because they do not see the point. Its like from Southpark, if your choice was between a terd sandwich and a giant douche, I aint voting for either. What governments should allow for is a distinct vote telling them we are not happy with any choice. The democratic process has been horrendously stunted, special interest groups demand legislation regarding issues which most of us dont care about. My democratic choice is reduced to putting my hand on some guys shoulder and stating "Im with him no matter what he does stupid or not. And when he makes massive mistakes there are no consequences for him. So my needs will actually never be addressed because his attention will be occupied by screaming bleeding hearts." Its an unacceptable system with unacceptable choices that ahs stopped evolveing for the benefit of the common citizen.

Re:thieves standing around

[BluBrick]

They'll just be put back on, after the agent has "confiscated" for "your safety" what pleases him.

There, fixed that for you!

Re:thieves standing around

[couchslug]

"And you think that they won't start searching there?"

Thanks to the internet I know that it is quite feasible to conceal grenade-sized objects in the human colon and retrieve them afterwards.

Whether TSA is willing to invoke these examples in order to justify intrusive searches remains to be seen.

Re:thieves standing around

[FreakWent]

I don't agree at all. The USA bangs on a lot about individualism, individual rights, individual responsibilities, lots of movies about individual heroes.

Individuals can and often do make all the difference, from leaders like Alexander the great or Churchill, down through men like Rommel or Lawrence of Arabia and so on down the line all the way to Private Ryan.

A single military platoon is small, but can be used to great effect.

Saddam was a single man at the right place and time in a revolution. So where Castro and Che.

I just don't believe that government trumps community. Leaving aside the white wired middle class for a moment, every other group in the USA has their own internal efficient and informal systems of communication and trust. The Mexicans, Italians, Afro-Americans, Chinese and muslim communities all come to mind and with the possible exception of certain Italian groups, none hold great loyalty to the current system, at least a the street level.

The real problem is not communication or ispiration; the real problem will be countering governement attempts to sow dissent and disunity, thus divinding the groups.

Re:thieves standing around

[pxlmusic]

well, nowadays they'd brand a person like that a terrorist.

Re:thieves standing around

[BluBrick]

Airplane terrorism really isn't all that effective. In contrast, blow a series of holes in the Colonial Pipeline -- 5500 miles of target -- and the eastern seaboard is out of gas: http://kaznak.web.infoseek.co.jp/big/colonialpipeline.jpg

You really don't understand terrorism, do you? The true goal of terrorism is not the actual damage inflicted, its the subsequent threat of future damage (terror, if you prefer) instilled in the populace. That's why it's called terrorism.

Anyway, our response to the "attack" was to attack ourselves, our freedoms, and unrelated countries. We chose to do nothing to actually enhance security, but we have managed to spend ridiculous sums of money and create huge annoyances for ourselves.

All that because "Realistically, 9/11 affected a small number of people and the stock market"? Wow!

Many people already have a (probably irrational) fear of flying. Add a random, uncontrollable element, such as suicidal foreign extremists into the mix, and you can absolutely instill maximal fear for a comparitively small amount of initial damage. No, I'd say airplane terrorism is extremely effective!

Re:thieves standing around

[mikael]

The partridge and the pear tree were both confiscated after being detected by sniffer dogs patrols operated by the Department of Agriculture. They are now being cared for at the local zoo. At this time the DoA would like to remind all air travellers not to bring in non-native species to any location they are travelling to.

Re:thieves standing around

[Clever7Devil]

Wait, how are my options shallow? And how does your reason not fall under "uninterested"? There are many reasons why one would be uninterested in casting a ballot. It doesn't have to be that they don't care about politics. I myself may not cast a vote for the presidential election, but I'll still vote on propostions et al. I'd vote for a third party, but the candidate from the third party that represents my views has a poor track record doing so.

Re:thieves standing around

[anagama]

Yeah -- flying airplanes into a couple buildings was a tragic event for those affected.

40-50,000 people per year die on the highways. As a result, shall we allow warrantless wiretapping? To we start wars? Do we abandon habeas? It would be really easy to reduce the death rate in all kind of annoying ways. We could shutdown freeways. Mandate all cars have breath test. Require rigorous testing of drivers. Forbid teenage driving.

My point was that terrorists are not "at war" with us -- if they were, they wouldn't pick such useless targets. Our knee jerk response has been ridiculous compared to the actual threat. We have run to the government to build up a police state all around us. Look at any police state ever -- they're all corrupt from the top levels with their bailouts, to the bottom levels with their hands in the luggage or a hand out for a small bribe.

Re:thieves standing around

[kudokatz]

As long as American Idol is still playing, and Walmart is still selling clothes for cheap, the vast majority of the American people seem unwilling to risk their own comfortable lives over things like the contitution, their rights or more particularly, the rights of others.

Funny, all the arguments I get that support the war in Iraq focus on freeing the Iraqis from evil and terror. I think the main issue is they don't protect their own rights, but before that is addressed people have to know their rights and elect people that know what rights need protection.

Re:thieves standing around

[anagama]

It's our politicians who don't understand "terrorism". We have a "war on terrorism" which is counterproductive because terrorists are not at war with us. We can tell they are not at war with us because if they were, they would pick their targets differently. Terrorists are just media whores who win when we overreact.

Re:thieves standing around

[Fred_A]

You can see up your ass?

It's always good to have hindsight !

Re:thieves standing around

[MiniMike]

Doesn't the TSA offer to do that for you? Maybe I just asked them too many questions...

Re:thieves standing around

[Anonymous Coward]

we could, but we *won't*..we won't throw these fucking tyrants out because, because people are fucking sheep. individuals can't do it, because they'll be arrested and/or shot in the process. we would have to have the whole fucking populace just up and storm the capital buildings, oppressive police districts, etc. i mean, all at fucking once -- and that's never going to happen.

What a pathetic lot US citizens must be. "Oh our government are evil tyrants wiping their asses with our beloved Constitution, taking away our rights, and stealing our precious money. But we can't do anything, because we'd need everybody in the country to act at once. Waah waaaah waaaah I want to kill myself."

What if Osama bin Laden had such a pathetic, cowardly attitude? He never would have started Al Qaeda all by himself and built it into a world-class terrorist organization entirely through his own efforts. Well the other terrorists helped him a bit of course. But Osama bin Laden didn't sit around saying "Well I have to get the entire population of Iraq and Afghanistan to attack the USA at the same time, or it'll never work." No, he got 19 Iraqis and Afghanis and attacked the USA! All by himself! An individual named Osama bin Laden did it.

Sure, the USA got mad at Osama bin Laden for doing that dreadful attack. Sure, they declared war on him, and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to find him and bring him to justice. But have you noticed? They never caught him. The mighty USA, supposedly the most powerful country in the world, the country that spends more on its military than all the other countries in the world, can't catch Osama bin Laden. The US DOD is spending trillions of dollars every year, and their task is to catch Osama bin Laden and chuck him in Gitmo, but they can't do it.

But apparently you drank the Cherry Flavored Government Kool Aid, and you believe that the US Government is all-powerful and can do what it says it will do. Guess what? They can't. It's over seven years now, and they still can't find that one person they said was their top priority. And guess what? If a few individuals start the American Revolutionary War Part II : Rambo Returns, the government will try very hard to stop those people. But the government certainly isn't guaranteed success. They couldn't catch Osama bin Laden, after all. They couldn't turn Afghanistan or Iraq into peaceful democracies, like they said they would.

The situation is looking pretty grim in the USA at the moment. Many people are realizing they've been swindled. They've seen the bank collapses and the house foreclosures. They've seen that their taxes will go to bailing out the fraudsters who swindled them out of their money and their houses. Many people are losing their jobs. If somebody comes up with a New Declaration Of Independence, and it catches hold of people's imaginations, the Government will be in serious trouble. What happens if large numbers of people stop paying tax? The Government won't be able to afford to pay for all those soldiers, cops, bombers, guns, etc. Obviously the Government wants you to think they can't be beaten. But look at their best efforts. There are still regular suicide bombings in Iraq. There are still people blowing up and shooting US soldiers. Iraq only has 20 million people. If the US Government can't control that lot, how are they going to control 300 million people in the USA?

Simple answer, they can't control the US population with military force. They don't have enough soldiers. Instead they control the US population by causing the people to be afraid, lazy, greedy, and uncertain. And apparently, it's working.

Re:thieves standing around

[dummondwhu]

Glad I'm not the only one that shares this opinion (and your others above).

Yes, 9/11 was a terrible tragedy. But an even larger tragedy is what we've slowly started to give up since then. The PATRIOT Act and Gitmo and these kinds of things should scare the living shit out of people, but they're seemingly oblivious. The death rate for those killed by terrorism in the United States falls somewhere between suicide by ball peen hammer and death resulting from paper cuts.

Yet, because the single tragedy is so spectacular, we say, "OK, we can live with fewer rights, to protect us from horrible terrorists." Drive the highways in NJ and you'll stop worrying about dying in a terrorist attack.

I'd love for someone to point out to me all the terrorist attacks that have been thwarted by the TSA at airports in the United States since 9/11. Because you know if it happened, it would be all over the news. They'd be shouting, "Look what we did!" Seems like it's more frequent to see some college student getting caught with a gun because he just wanted to prove how crappy security is.

As a conservative, it makes me shudder to think how many fellow conservatives fall in lockstep with this kind of thinking. When the Constitution is sufficiently covered with shit stains, we will be in serious trouble my friends.

Re:thieves standing around

[Luthair]

You know, if he didn't erase those MP3 players he was stealing songs, wru RIAA?

Re:thieves standing around

[joe_frisch]

Would it be possible for a TSA agent to add something to the luggage, rather than remove it? If not, what protections are in place to prevent smuggling drugs - or adding explosives.

Re:thieves standing around

[erroneus]

Theoretically, yes, it would be possible. The screening that TSA screeners go through is the same as all other passengers. So screeners can more easily REMOVE things, but adding things would be a bit more challenging. Drugs could go in... explosives would be a little more challenging but also possible.

Re:thieves standing around

[mabhatter654]

that's not quite right. The TSA has the right to search anything in the airport. They allow minimum wage trailer trash to perform this without any oversight. Again, if these low-level grunts are capable of sneaking that much stolen stuff OUT of the airport without meeting security blocks, what the hell can they bring INTO the airport without inspection?
This person is a huge violation of trust and the airport and TSA management is equally to blame that this got so far.

Re:thieves standing around

[digitalchinky]

PH is my adopted home as well, though don't be so quick to make a mountain in the form of 'terrorism' when most (probably all) of what you see here is a response to corruption, theft, and frustration - i.e. Payback.

Mall bombings? What mall bombings? Glorietta was a methane explosion, a preventable accident. Ayala land, the owners, hired their own 'experts' who said it was C-4. (Probably for insurance reasons) Nobody else, including local and foreign experts, found any traces or indication of anything other than an accident due to sloppy ventilation.

I can't think of any other bombings post 2001 that were not targeted at key individuals, or just plain old personal vendetta.

The Philippines doesn't have a terrorist problem, it has corruption fleeced with opportunistic greed issues going on. Instances of 'bad things' are so rare that your odds of getting struck by lightning are far better.

Re:thieves standing around

[mabhatter654]

it's perfect "plausible denyability" for the thieves. By law they MUST open luggage to search it... they just add that little "we opened this" ticket and it's all good.. or they open and extra, swipe stuff and don't report it. Either way they have to open packages and the boss probably goes to meetings leaving them alone to do what they want.

Re:thieves standing around

[mabhatter654]

those were all Americans though... funny that all the extra stress causes the people IN the US to act out.

Re:thieves standing around

[Renraku]

**I'm not suggesting that shooting people is the appropriate response to luggage being stolen**

If no one will do anything about it, of course it is. I'd shoot someone if they tried to steal something from my house, and I'd shoot someone if they tried to steal something in my luggage if there were no other recourse or way to get it back.

Re:thieves standing around

[tautog]

Idiot. And who's watching?

Re:thieves standing around

[winwar]

The real question is can I mail myself? It might be more pleasant than flying...

Re:thieves standing around

[mr_matticus]

Oh shove it. They're not disenfranchised. They're lazy.

There is no excuse. As you point out, we're talking about roughly 40% of the adult population--more than enough to make a difference.

It is a serious error to believe that a significant number of that 40% didn't vote out of protest for the system. Mostly (1) apathetic (2) non-citizens and (3) current and former felons. In that order.

Re:thieves standing around

[SL Baur]

Mall bombings? What mall bombings? Glorietta was a methane explosion, a preventable accident.

I was referring to the Glorietta mall bombing and my wife is convinced it was foul play.

The Philippines doesn't have a terrorist problem, it has corruption fleeced with opportunistic greed issues going on.

I agree with the latter. The civil war going on in Mindanao right now, suggests that you are incorrect in the former.

How would you classify the kidnappings in Tagum in 2006? (When I lived in Mindanao, Tagum was the nearest city with an ATM so I've been there many, many times).

Considering all the times that the Davao City airport has been bombed in recent years (it was bombed the week I first arrived in Manila in March 2003), I stand by my statements.

Re:thieves standing around

[tompaulco]

I'm not suggesting that shooting people is the appropriate response to luggage being stolen
Well, then I will. The person who stole the $200k worth of stuff should be shot. Thank you, I'm here all week.

Re:thieves standing around

[eltaco]

..and a partridge in a pear tree..

Re:thieves standing around

[Foobar of Borg]

I'd love for someone to point out to me all the terrorist attacks that have been thwarted by the TSA at airports in the United States since 9/11. Because you know if it happened, it would be all over the news. They'd be shouting, "Look what we did!"

Very true. Look at what happenned when Richard Reid was stopped. Imagine how they would have trumpetted their effectiveness if they had caught him before he got on the plane.

Re:thieves standing around

[Atriqus]

So what do you suggest - doing away with all searches and hope that only the best of humankind boards aircraft?

I suggest we go back to how things were before 2001. Look, the only reason the plan worked was that it was understood if a plane is hijacked, as long as you didn't piss off the hijackers, you got to go home safely. Well Al Qaeda broke that understanding. Now if someone tried to hijack a plane, they'd be lucky to survive 5 minutes before the rest of the passengers beat them unconsious.

Re:thieves standing around

[mathmathrevolution]

Don't forget the Virginia Tech massacre.

Re:thieves standing around

[davewalthall]

I've never once gotten a satisfactory answer as to what will cause the people to rise up.

Apparently this level of corruption will do it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

Re:thieves standing around

[Landshark17]

And you'll get strip searched because it's suspicious to be travelling without luggage.

Re:thieves standing around

[Landshark17]

66 cameras, 31 laptop computers, 20 cell phones, 17 sets of electronic games, 13 pieces of jewelry, 12 GPS devices, 11 MP3 players, eight camera lenses, six video cameras two DVD players, also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw either, and two dozen amyls.

Re:thieves standing around

[TheLink]

Yes what about them?

They deserve the government they didn't vote in. Because they could have voted them OUT, you've done the math yourself.

I find it hard to believe that most of the 40-50% you mention are convicted felons[1]. So how are the 80+ million disenfranchised?

If 62 million vote for the Repubs, 59 million for Dems, and say 80+ million vote for Party X, you think it'll be business as usual for the R and Ds?

And even if the 80 million actually vote but don't vote for the same parties or they just "spoilt" their votes as protest, after the results come out even if the R or Ds win do you really think the Two Parties can't do math? I bet they'll start paying a bit more attention to the complaints of the people you call "disenfranchised". So would those 80 million votes be wasted votes?

As it is the 80+ million don't count (can they even count or do elementary math?) They don't even "rise up" to vote.

If they don't "rise up" to vote and think that gives them the right to "rise up" to shoot people just because they're pissed off with the elected government, they themselves should be shot.

So what about them? My sympathies go to the ex-felons who can't vote. But not to the millions who can.

[1] I disagree with the USA's common (per state?) policy of disenfranchising convicted felons. You should only take away the right to vote from say the treasonous people who subvert the election system for example the bunch in Diebold, and then only temporarily till they serve their time or somehow come alive after being executed for treason ;).

Re:thieves standing around

[XLR8DST8]

goatse, is that you??

Re:thieves standing around

[Antique Geekmeister]

Although the numbers of acts of terrorism, revolution, or whatever you want to call it have escalated incredibly. If you don't count them, you're ignoring more than 3000 US casualties, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. And that's not even counting Afghanistan, where the Taliban are back in force doing to us what they used to do to the Russians, and what their ancestors did to the British a hundred years ago.

The TSA, of course, does nothing or next to nothing about these fatalities.

Re:thieves standing around

[SL Baur]

You're also missing the fact that there hasn't been a single fatality from a Unicorn stabbing or a Dragon breath weapon attack on a US citizen since W was elected. You need to give the man the credit he's due.

Hmmm. Horde killing Alliance has dropped too, primarily through decreasing Horde numbers. Dang, maybe W has made the World (of Warcraft) a safer place ...

Re:thieves standing around

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

> Again, if these low-level grunts are capable of sneaking that much stolen stuff OUT of the airport without meeting security blocks, what the hell can they bring INTO the airport without inspection?

Repeated for emphasis. A big guy could get a ridulous number of laptops, GameBoys, iPods and whatnot out of the airport just by stuffing them into a coat, but a frigging $49,000 video camera? Do you know how much camera and gear that buys? This sumbitch probably rolled a road case out of a secure area that was big enough to hold three of Aerosmith's guitars, stuffed it in his van, and rolled right out the gate without a single question. This such a revolting abuse of the public trust that they should just drop his thieving ass (and his girlfriend, who was obviously in on it) down a well.

Re:thieves standing around

[XLR8DST8]

it's got nothing to do with locking baggage. my brother and his friend are both in the US military. they graduated from west point. a west point class ring can run anywhere from $2k to 10k. his friend's ring was worth about $8k.

anyways as he was putting his carry-on luggage through the scanners & stepped through the metal detector, he put his cell phone and his ring into the plastic bowl they hold it in.

anyways the TSA guy took it. told him it was lost & played dumb. brother's buddy wasn't about to let an $8k ring go like that, so he filed a complaint & later on they ended up catching the guy on video, grabbing it.

they immediately went after the guy. they got the ring back. it was all jacked up. he was trying to remove the stone from it.

good thing it was insured..

shit, it was a week before the guy actually graduated. had he actually graduated the TSA guy would have been accused of stealing from an officer in the military, which carries a MUCH steeper penalty than simply stealing from a soldier or a civilian.

anyways my point was that it wasn't in locked luggage nor something that you can blame the Bush administration or the consequences of the last 8 years upon. it could have happened and i'm sure it's happened years before to many other people, as long as there have been metal detectors in airports.

in fact, one could actually argue that the increased video surveillance was what actually caught the guy this time.

Re:thieves standing around

[Duradin]

Why exactly would they want to *actually* catch OBL?

He was the new Red Menace. The commie pinko bastard that hides in your closet waiting for you to go to sleep so he can rape your dog, kill your kids and steal your wife.

The New Russian Empire is still building up steam and isn't scary enough yet to have Joe 'The Plumber' Sixpack duck and covering.

Now Joe Schmoe Revolutionary, he's actually a threat to them. The full weight of the government will be thrown against him, without prejudice or restraint.

Re:thieves standing around

[Duradin]

Violence != Terrorism.

Aside from demonstrating sheeple's willingness to let others die so they might live there was no continuing agenda or even goals for the primary actor. VT didn't happen to strike terror or as asymmetric retribution for the government's actions against some group or country. Just your run of the mill psycho and people that let it happen.

Re:thieves standing around

[cyn1c77]

I'd say that in at LEAST 2/3rds of the conversations I've ever had with Americans about the 2nd amendment, they bring up the idea that a well armed populace will keep the government from doing illegal things, because the populace will call them to account.

You need to stop talking to people you meet in Walmart.

Most Americans don't buy guns to fight the government, they buy them to protect themselves and their family for the 10+ minutes it can take the government to respond to a life threatening situation. Or they buy them to go target shooting or hunting.

As long as American Idol is still playing, and Walmart is still selling clothes for cheap, the vast majority of the American people seem unwilling to risk their own comfortable lives over things like the contitution, their rights or more particularly, the rights of others.

I believe you need to review American history. It doesn't take a "vast majority" of people to be willing to risk their lives. It only requires an inspirational few to motivate and lead the crowds.

Re:thieves standing around

[bytesex]

Alexander the Great was the son of Phillipus of Macedonia, and destined to be a king; he didn't fight himself out of the gutter to greatness or something, even though admittedly, he could have just stayed at home. And the odds for Saddam and Che weren't good. By today's psychological standards, you'd probably call them suicidal. For them, hundreds of their peers with equal chances at barbaric fame died. But they didn't, and that's why we know their names. Which, when you look at it again, is a perfect illustration for the scenario you have in mind for your little American Revolution 2.0: your chances are minimal and if you don't succeed you'll be immediately forgotten, and if you do, because of the things you have to do to succeed, chances are history will remember you as a bloody tyrant anyway.

Re:thieves standing around

[nku]

I started flying in 2002 in India. As soon as I understood that they can open my checked in baggage without my permission, I haven't travelled with anything of value in checked in baggage; I have always kept it with my carry on bag, my laptop, my camera, my mp3 player, my jewelry etc . Call me paranoid, but I feel safer that way.

Re:thieves standing around

[kdart]

Exactly. The sad thing is, Osama and friends are laughing their butt off because they succeeded beyond thier wildest dreams in instilling terror in America. They have won, and this W administration has let them win. A real victory over terrorism would be to continue with our lives as normal, except for a counter-strike to the actual perpetrators.

Re:thieves standing around

[digitalchinky]

Glorietta: I'm inclined to believe numerous independent investigative bodies as opposed to anyone with a vested interest 'buying' their own outcome, or, and absolutely no offence to your good wife sir, gut feelings.

Davao had a bomb go off in a waiting shed away from the airport, sadly it killed 22 people. Hard to say if it was an act of terrorism or a targeted hit on someone waiting for an arrival.

I don't disagree that there are a handful of violent extremists in this country, resorting to terrorism at times, though what I do disagree with is portraying this country as a place rife with terrorism, it just isn't so. It's a peaceful country on the whole.

Kidnappings, the reason people do this is because 'it actually does pay off' - friends, family, governments, businesses, they are all inclined to pay the ransom, whatever that may be.

Now, all of that said, if I ever met you, I'd sit down for a beer and we could hash this out :-) I'm sure my 'vision' isn't entirely accurate, it's just based on what I read, how I travel, and trying to understand the culture. I've been at it near on 10 years I guess, and I'm still barely scratching the surface.

Re:thieves standing around

[Larryish]

because people are fucking sheep.

Speak for yourself, "nature-boy".

Re:thieves standing around

[lysergic.acid]

if you don't want to be criticized for the actions of your government, stop calling yourself a democracy. in a democracy, the people are responsible for their government's actions. we let things get this far. we re-elected bush. we let ourselves be lied to and manipulated again and again. and we stand by as corruption goes unchecked.

face it, political/social activism is unfashionable in our reactionary society. generally the more educated intellectual circles tend to be more progressive and are the ones who've been calling for reform. but our society has become dominated by anti-intellectualism. so the only people who are trying to stop the corruption and stand up for whats right are simultaneously alienated, ridiculed, and marginalized.

most conservative Americans are still crying about the right to bear arms thinking that they'll overthrow the government one day with their handguns and hunting rifles. meanwhile, the fight for democracy is already being waged through a war of words and ideas. as such, the media is arguably the most effective weapon in the fight for democracy, which has been consolidated by a handful of media conglomerates over the past decades. luckily the internet is changing that by decentralizing media distribution and changing people's media consumption habits.

the same technology responsible for the democratization of the media can also help us realize direct-democracy. the logistical problems previously preventing participatory democracy from being implemented in a country as large as the U.S. can be overcome by electronic voting. this means we could hold mass referendums to decide domestic policy and truly establish a direct democracy in the United States.

the bipartisan system and the political aristocracy have proven themselves corrupt and incapable or unwilling to represent the interests of the people. therefore it is up to us to make policy decisions that are direct repercussions on our daily lives. we don't need rich old men completely detached from the reality of the average working American to make dictate domestic policy--particularly when they don't even read the bills they vote on. it's easy for corporate industries to bribe a dozen congressmen, but it's much harder to bribe millions of Americans.

if there were a mass referendum on the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act or Aviation and Transportation Security Act, i think most Americans would immediately vote it down. that's because we're the ones who have our rights encroached on. we're the ones hassled at the airport. and if we're voting on actual legislation instead of politicians to represent us, then i think the public would be less caught up on mudslinging and immature personal attacks, and instead public discourse would focus on the actual issues at hand.

this ersatz democracy and bipartisan system simply creates the illusion of choice while rapidly causing our society to degenerate into a corporate plutocracy. but instead of absolving ourselves of any blame, it's time for us to take responsibility for our government, and regain control.

Re:thieves standing around

[atraintocry]

Like it or not, we have a representative system. Like it or not, one of those guys is getting in.

The current atmosphere is one of secrecy and government being above the law. At least part of this has to do with the fact that those elected *know* they're not under close scrutiny because half of the people in this country can't be bothered to vote.

So yes, I'm saying that a vote for a bad candidate is better than a non-vote. I think any rational person could come to this conclusion, and it pisses me off to see people justifying shrugging off their civic duty. Like they're too smart to vote or something. If they were smart, they'd see how stupid it is to send a such message to their leaders: that there's no incentive for governing effectively.

Rest assured, there are plenty of incentives for governing ineffectively. Bribes, for instance. In a different South Park, the whole town buries their head in sand. That applies here just as much as the school election one.

Re:thieves standing around

[atraintocry]

Another reason why it's not all felons is that for 20 states + DC, ex-felons *can* vote, once they've completed parole (at minimum...in some of these states you can vote as soon as you leave prison, in ME & VT you can even vote from prison).

The really depressing thing I think is that at the end of the day, as a country, we do get the government we deserve. There may not be any great injustice here. The people have spoken, and what they said was "quit bothering me with that political crap, faggot".

Re:thieves standing around

[atraintocry]

Violence != Terrorism.

9/11 changed everything, remember?

Re:thieves standing around

[wisty]

Another issue is that the TSA agent was able to move all that shit without getting detected. Good thing he was taking cameras out, not putting bombs in, because the security was obviously pretty lax on the inside.

Re:thieves standing around

[Anonymous Coward]

no, i just keep them in my person.

Fixed.

Re:thieves standing around

[delt0r]

Modern revolutions won't start with the populace's but from the army. If the army revolts, then we have "interesting times" to say the least.

Re:thieves standing around

[atraintocry]

What's the hangup about airport searches? He mentioned wiretapping. He mentioned habeas corpus. He mentioned that silly little mix-up where we implicated Iraq in the 9/11 plot. I think you're trying to make the OP fit into the context of the article, when it was more of an off-topic rant about how we've let isolated events, one very large and yes tragic one in particular, become the rationale for causing ourselves even more long-term harm.

It's sort of tangential but I'm reminded of a David Cross quote:

I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he 'hated our freedom'. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia.

You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said! Are we a nation of six-year-olds?

Re:thieves standing around

[laederkeps]

He's an Apple consumer? iPhones, iPods and MacBooks are comfortably devoid of sharp corners. Coincidence?

Re:thieves standing around

[laederkeps]

...because people are fucking sheep.

Let's hope they have OTHER hobbies as well...

Re:thieves standing around

[Rich0]

Yup - I've heard that even major corporations resort to smuggling stuff like laptops opportunistically via business travelers (the traveler just brings a "personal" laptop and leaves it there). The issue isn't the cost of tariffs but the red tape and delay. Sure, if they need to deploy 1000 laptops to employees they just buy them domestically and avoid the issue, but if they need to get some demo software deployed it is far easier to just smuggle it in.

China takes the practice to new heights - where bribery is often part of the equation as well. In the 1990s it wasn't uncommon for companies to unload entire container ships or supertankers and pay a huge bribe to whoever ran the shipyard (who distributed it appropriately). The Chinese regulations essentially encouraged the practice by putting cargo in limbo for weeks or longer with arcane customs regulations. None of this stuff was contraband, and I wouldn't be surprised if all the appropriate tariffs were still paid. The bribes basically amounted to paying government workers to not hold up the works.

No idea if the practice continues today, but China still has a reputation for corruption. When you basically encourage your customs inspectors to take money to look the other way when perfectly harmless material flows in, is it any surpise that they also take money to look the other way when somebody adds melamine to infant formula?

Re:thieves standing around

[Blimey85]

You are comparing what the US Gov can do inside and outside of the US. They have much more control here than they do in Iraq or anywhere else. They also have a lot more soldiers and police officers here than anywhere else. I'm not saying that they could actually keep down an uprising if it were to happen, but I'd be damn surprised it they couldn't. Compare the firepower of the two sides. How are ordinary citizens supposed to go up against tanks, planes, etc? It's a bit different today than when Americans were fighting some Nancy's from across the pond. It's not rifle vs rifle anymore. Even if you had a large cache of "assault" weapons, they aren't very effective against armor. Your farm, ranch, house, whatever, won't last long against a single blast from a tank. And how many ordinary citizens have access to anti-tank weapons or know the first thing about defending against bombers or attack choppers?

I think you would need a very large group of people and it would need to be pretty concerted to have any effect. Some of that shock and awe that the Gov is so proud of, turned on them. But then again, why can't we simply remove them from power and replace them with newly elected officials that actually give a damn about what the citizenry wants? Has the system truly failed at this point? I don't think so. I think we've failed the system.

Next month we have two choices for Prez and both are crap, IMO. We voted when we had more choices and this is what we've left ourselves with. Nothing is going to change over the next four years. Nothing significant. We need to elect officials that will stir things up and get us where we want to be, and that will never happen, or at least hasn't happened yet. But what do I know? I'm just one of the lemmings.

Re:thieves standing around

[Lumpy]

Yes and you should. Most of us in the USA have been telling you guys to mail it and keep it out of the hands of TSA.

Some of us get to meet and talk to TSA and DHS people on a regular basis. I wouldn't trust them with ANYTHING. The job positions are very underpaid so they get only scummy people to do the job.

If you are coming to the USA, fedex or DHL all your valuables to your destination to avoid being robbed or detained by our "freedom force".

Re:thieves standing around

[Mattsson]

Also, even if you managed to start an armed movement against your government, you'd probably be labeled "Terrorists" and dealt with accordingly.

Re:thieves standing around

[Lumpy]

because people are fucking sheep.

Eeeeeewww... I did not know that bestiality was rampant in the USA now.

No wonder all you people ignore what is going on, you to busy shagging sheep to notice.

Re:thieves standing around

[Lumpy]

Remember....

If they are against us, they are Insurgents and Terrorists.

If they are working for us they are Freedom fighters and heros.

The actions of both are identical , naming is simply relative to what side you are on.

If Afghanistan women were strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up enemy (to us) bases we all would be cheering on how they are so patriotic!

War in all it's forms is barbaric and evil. Anyone that denies that is also barbaric and evil.

Re:thieves standing around

[No-Cool-Nickname]

we could, but we *won't*..we won't throw these fucking tyrants out because, because people are fucking sheep.

The sheep asked for it.

Re:thieves standing around

[Mattsson]

In order to mount a revolution in a country with a modern army, you'd either have to get the army on your side first or manage to get another country with a modern army to support your revolution.

Re:thieves standing around

[pacinpm]

The simpliest solution is to not search at all. We have X-rays, this should be enough to catch bombs. After 11/9 people will handle terrorists on board by themselfs.

Re:thieves standing around

[ByOhTek]

I shake my head at articles like that. People are prone to greed. There's a reason I keep anything (except clothing, which tends to be non-extravagent and not worth stealing) over $10 in value on my carry-ons. If it's worth more than $10 and I don't have room on my carryons with other more important stuff, It stays behind.

Re:thieves standing around

[Sax Maniac]

What happens if large numbers of people stop paying tax?

Print money, use it to buy stuff anyway, and pass off the deflation the people who get the money last. Oh wait -- they do that, even we do pay our taxes.

Re:thieves standing around

[aadvancedGIR]

"individuals can't do it, because they'll be arrested and/or shot in the process"

You've got that point wrong. A dedicated individual has a real chance of succesfully using deadly force on any one, no matter how important he is, before being incapacited. Booth and Oswald are only two of many examples.
One man can bring down a tyrant, but he cannot bring down a tyrany.

Re:thieves standing around

[CrazedSanity]

Your farm, ranch, house, whatever, won't last long against a single blast from a tank. And how many ordinary citizens have access to anti-tank weapons or know the first thing about defending against bombers or attack choppers?

The problem isn't achieving the know-how to handle the armored might of the U.S. military. The problem isn't even with protecting your property against attacks from them. The problem is getting a large enough squad together to make an impact, and convincing the populace that we're fighting is for the greater good (so if a "freedom fighter" needs someplace to hide, they don't have to be afraid of their neighbors).

Guerrilla tactics aren't that hard to learn. Go on the Internet and ask Google. Homemade bombs aren't even that hard to make, provided one can get their hands on enough of the right fertilizer. But in a game of attrition, the U.S. military will win hands-down.

But let's say, just for the sake of saying it, that a large enough force has been built up to make an impact. An impact large enough for the Government, even the President, to pause. What now? Queue government-funded media spin on the "War on Terror". Now what? Storm the White House? Riiight...

The plain fact of the matter is that the Government would have to be completely overthrown in order to affect the necessary changes. And in doing so, we'd open the country up to invasion by any and all of its enemies.

Moral of the story? Subtlety doesn't work, and overthrowing the Government leaves us too open to outside attack/invasion.

Re:thieves standing around

[Shotgun]

Well said, ultranova.

The only thing I would add is that not a single gun needs to be touched to oust the current crop of Alpha Wolves. If the populace gave a damn about anything other than making sure that someone else pays for them to go to the doctor, all they have to do is pull lever C instead of A or B. They have to expend exactly ZERO energy beyond what they were already expending.

Sadly, most would rather waste their votes on A or B, deciding HOW all their rights and property will be taken, instead of whether or not it will be taken.

Re:thieves standing around

[timias1]

Those were acts of terrorism committed by citizens, I think the original poster was referring to acts committed by foreign nationals.

Re:thieves standing around

[aadvancedGIR]

"he got 19 Iraqis and Afghanis and attacked the USA"

I presume you mean that "fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon." (source Wikipedia)

Re:thieves standing around

[Hognoxious]

Why can't they do a search in the owner's presence, then lock it afterwards?

Re:thieves standing around

[Shotgun]

I had a conversation with my aunt this weekend. She seemed to be fairly knowledgeable and spoke at length about McCain's and Obama's platforms. She didn't know who Bob Barr was.

I believe she is typical.

Re:thieves standing around

[eth1]

You make an interesting point. In the USA, he who controls the media essentially controls the country. The initial stages of a revolution would be better spent taking over the media outlets rather than direct attacks on the government.

Re:thieves standing around

[Ihlosi]

Why can't they do a search in the owner's presence, then lock it afterwards?

Time, for one thing. This would take for-freakin'-ever.

Re:thieves standing around

[AnnoyaMooseCowherd]

The thing to recognise is that democracy is as much about voting someone out of office as it is about voting for someone.

The main difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that the people in office know that if they annoy enough of the electorate, they will lose their jobs, perks, etc.

Obviously, part of a voter's decision making process will include asking whether the challenger is likely to be worse than the incumbent, but even if they are as bad (not worse), and you have a problem with them, you should always vote against the incumbent.

What is currently missing is a way of registering with the winner the fact that what you were doing was voting against their opponent and not for them. This would ensure that they realise that their position is every bit as uncertain, and that they haven't been given a mandate to just do whatever they want.

Re:thieves standing around

[Sodade]

True, sad story:

My kids live in a foreign country and I get to see them once a year. In 2007, I visited and filled my camera's card with pics of them. When I was packing up, I made the dumbass decision to put the camera in my checked in bag to save weight on my carry on bag. I flew back in to Newark and caught my connecting flight from there. I come home, unpack and guess what's missing.

I call the airline and they say I have to fill out a form to get some money back from them. They asked me how much the camera was worth - oh, the camera was old and I didn't really care, but the pictures on it are worth about $1500 considering the airfare it took to go take the pictures. haha. As most probably do, I blew it off - Filling out forms and dicking around with customer service is rarely worth the pittance you get back from the effort.

And now I read this. That fucker stole my camera.

Re:thieves standing around

[Xcruciate]

RIP Hunter S. Thompson. Great reading.

Re:thieves standing around

[hador_nyc]

You make an interesting point, but you need to go back pretty far in American history to find it. The US had minor to major rebellions roughly every 10 years starting with the Whiskey rebellion during the term of our first president. The last significant one was the Civil War, but there have been others. Many union strikes were armed events that the union folks used guns to help protect their rights. The coal creek rebellion that occurred in Tennessee around 1895; i forget the exact year, was another. There was another one after WWI, in that same area; I saw a show on the History Channel a while back that talked about it, but I forget the details, but it was about unions and the coal industry. The US army was brought in to quell it. Many people died, but the laws did change.

In short, it takes an awful lot to piss us off to the point where we will risk our lives for something like that, but it does happen. The fact is, especially today, Americans live incredibly well. This TSA thing, which my GF's sister is a victim of losing a GPS, is not really that big of a deal. Sure it's annoying, but it doesn't involve loss of one's means to support themself or their family. That's what it takes, and that's why in the last 100 years or so, it's been mostly around unions.

Also, as an aside, what people often quote, about the "well armed populus" is from the writings of a famous; here anyway; American writer who lived in the 1800s. He, Henry David Thoreau, wrote a essay called Civil Disobedience, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Duty_of_Civil_Disobedience, about it. It's an interesting read, and one that most people that I know have had to read in high school.

Re:thieves standing around

[AdamThor]

individuals can't do it, because they'll be arrested and/or shot in the process. we would have to have the whole fucking populace just up and storm the capital buildings, oppressive police districts, etc.

i mean, all at fucking once -- and that's never going to happen.

It could happen. It happens all the time in Palestine. There, the oppressive force has taken enough from the people that they are sufficiently pissed off to take drastic action.

But over here, on average, we all still have it pretty good. Over here, votes and publicity are still better options for the average individual. But just because we exist in one region of the public happiness / public reaction - space don't think that we couldn't exist in others.

Someone stole some laptops? That's far too slight to drive anyone to rebellion. We shouldn't be disgusted that people are unwilling to rebel, rather we should be happy to have it so good that most don't need to. Not that we shouldn't aspire to an even higher state, but we have a long way to fall in the USA before popular armed revolt becomes the best option.

Re:thieves standing around

[AngrySpade]

President Skroob: Why didn't somebody tell me my ass was so big?

Re:thieves standing around

[hador_nyc]

anyone convicted of a felony in the US loses the right to vote.

Re:thieves standing around

[Tibor the Hun]

And to be honest, us Nebraskans ain't complainin' either.

Re:thieves standing around

[pxlmusic]

you hit the nail on the head.

getting enough people to organize without being marginalized or harassed by the LEA is difficult.

since i don't have the money to make myself heard, i do it through my music and through the message in that music.

we each have our own way.

Re:thieves standing around

[digitalsolo]

That's a lovely, long, drawn out diatribe you have there. Unfortunately you utterly fail to make any valid points whatsoever.

I'm not entirely in disagreement with your sentiment, but your manner of relating it is... lacking to say the least.

There is essentially no comparison between an organized revolt successfully overthrowing the US Government from inside the country, and then installing a new, populace supported government, and Bin Laden flying planes into a few buildings.

Re:thieves standing around

[lordmage]

I would say, cause I am saying, that Newark has been expecially bad for this. Internally, our guys have talked about Newark thieves for a while. Take all of our electronics and place it in carry-on. My Laptop case and carry-on get quite heavy at times because of Newark.

If the airlines insured the true amount of the stuff stolen, I bet this would be greatly reduced!

Re:thieves standing around

[zzsmirkzz]

You assume they are trying to catch Osama Bin Laden, which is a separate beast from what they are saying they are doing. I wouldn't agree but that does not invalidate your entire point.

As far as the illusion of control, you are correct, which is one of the reasons why I love that song from Gnarles Barkley, "You think you're really in control? Ha Ha Ha, Bless your soul..". But even in the worst case, it is not the people versus the government, it is the people versus the military and the military doesn't wield all of the power, only some of it. The question will be, is the power granted to the military worth more to them then their allegiance to their, families, friends, neighbors, and the love of what was once their great country. After all, our military should be trained to be Men of Honor above all else.

Re:thieves standing around

[halcyon1234]

And don't forget about the Boston Lite Brites. Goddamn, that incident scared the shit out of me.

Re:thieves standing around

[kabocox]

I'd say that in at LEAST 2/3rds of the conversations I've ever had with Americans about the 2nd amendment, they bring up the idea that a well armed populace will keep the government from doing illegal things, because the populace will call them to account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
It didn't work the one time that we really tried it. So the second amendment is there just so we can hunt and delude ourselves.

Re:thieves standing around

[kabocox]

we could, but we *won't*..we won't throw these fucking tyrants out because, because people are fucking sheep.

individuals can't do it, because they'll be arrested and/or shot in the process. we would have to have the whole fucking populace just up and storm the capital buildings, oppressive police districts, etc.

Well, if I recall my high school and college level American history... There wasn't that much popular support for the revolution. About 1/3 didn't care. 1/3 supported the British side and then 1/3 were those terrorists organizing to overthrow the government and make life difficult for the other 2/3 of the population.

You could say that the government wants to make sure that no new governments come along and have been taking the steps to make sure.

Re:thieves standing around

[sac13]

Of course they do. You, personally, might not have voted for the incomptents that are pushing for this sort of thing/not actively working to make it illegal... But many of your peers did.

I'd say that in at LEAST 2/3rds of the conversations I've ever had with Americans about the 2nd amendment, they bring up the idea that a well armed populace will keep the government from doing illegal things, because the populace will call them to account. I'm not suggesting that shooting people is the appropriate response to luggage being stolen, but I've never once gotten a satisfactory answer as to what will cause the people to rise up. It seems to me that the ability to own shitloads of guns hasn't been used very effectively over the history of the USA to enforce the constitution or the rights of human beings. It still might in the future, but I'm not optimistic. As long as American Idol is still playing, and Walmart is still selling clothes for cheap, the vast majority of the American people seem unwilling to risk their own comfortable lives over things like the contitution, their rights or more particularly, the rights of others.

The thing is, we don't have to start a bloody revolution to change things. The ENTIRE House of Representatives is up for election every two years. All budget bills must originate from the house. So, no money = no enforcement of whatever even if the Senate, Executive and Judicial branches disagree.

The problem is that everyone thinks all of congress is a bunch of criminals except for "their" guy. So, we keep sending the jerks back so we can keep watching American Idol...

Re:thieves standing around

[thermowax]

"Because you know if it happened, it would be all over the news. They'd be shouting, "Look what we did!""

Yeah, except that's wrong. Any revelation about our capabilities provides information to those attempting to subvert them. I'm not disputing your overall distaste for our reaction- but it's a prime element of the intelligence game that you don't reveal anything unless absolutely necessary. Yes, this would include telling the media we'd stopped a plot, unless it was REALLY huge.

Re:thieves standing around

[Bryansix]

Uhm, the Geneva conventions make a nice distinction which you can take home with you and put a bow on. The distinction is between combatants and non-combatants. The point being that non-combatants and civilians are off limits in warfare. You can't just bomb the shit out of them for no reason.

Freedom fighters are fine so long as they keep their fighting to attacks on military bases or government and make themselves known and don't hide in civilian populated areas. Terrorists just terrorize by attacking anyone and anything. If you are going to go out with a bang it would be much more honorable if you would restrain yourself from blowing up random civilians in a market place.

Other than that, your post is spot on.

Re:thieves standing around

[Miststlkr]

Which, I believe is the point here. A revolution against a modern government with a modern military where the revolutionaries didn't "hide among the population" would not last past the first night.

What is the alternative to "hiding among the population"? Declaring that the City of Freetown is for the revolution and anyone who doesn't agree needs to leave? Let's assume they all do leave. In come the jets and it's all over because the revolutionaries are in a convenient bombing pattern. It's suicide UNLESS you have the compassion and support of the population at large to the point that they wold rally behind the group and join the revolution. Either way, the group that initially declared has essentially committed suicide and become martyrs in order to start a revolution.

Otherwise, you live among the people, plot and strike as you can. Even doing so against only military targets, and assuming zero collateral damage and zero civilian lives lost, you are still considered a terrorist for striking the government, they just call you a "domestic terrorist." Which bring about the conversation of civilian contractors working on military bases... but I've gone on long enough and nobody is still reading this except Big Brother. Hi sigint guys!

Re:thieves standing around

[lavalamp70]

Mail ain't the answer either. Most US airlines haul the mail for the USPS, it's what keeps them going in the downturn years. That's how they started back in the day. For most airlines, contractors sort the mail (letters are pre-boxed at the Post Office, packages if small enough, go in mail bags (at the PO) and the over sized stuff goes as is. A few years ago, at the DFW airport, a credit card theft ring was busted. It was those same contractors doing the thievery. I've read other articles in which it was the actual airlines' employees stealing stuff, either in the mail sort facility, or down in the bag room (stolen golf clubs come to mind). If you fly, I'd keep my valuables in my carry on, or leave them at home.

Re:thieves standing around

[pxlmusic]

yup.

Re:thieves standing around

[Haeleth]

when the British essentially decided to punish EVERYONE in retaliation, everyone effectively had no choice but to join in... some people did try to remain loyal to England but had their homes burned and family killed anyway. The more people saw that, the more they realized they had no choice and that England was most certainly the enemy whether they wanted to fight or not.

You've been reading too much grade-school propaganda, or watching "The Patriot" too oftenn.

Actually, according to Wikipedia (which is generally reasonably accurate on history), less than half the colonists were anti-British throughout, while up to 20% supported the British throughout, and the rest were entirely neutral. And for those who supported it, the primary reasons were generally political and economic -- nothing to do with atrocities.

But I realise it makes a better story in your version. Don't forget the bit where George Washington single-handedly defeated ten thousand redcoats armed only with his famous "little hatchet".

Re:thieves standing around

[Bryansix]

You overthrow small governments and weak governments with revolutions. You overthrow modern governments and modern militarys from within over the course of decades. Bill Clinton got a good start on shutting down the military of the world's lone superpower but alas he didn't have anyone in line who could win the next election and carry on the legacy.

Yes, I'm being facetious but there is a little truth to my humor.

Re:thieves standing around

[Ant P.]

It is depressing, but remember you only need to have your camera stolen once to be free.

Re:thieves standing around

[dummondwhu]

And what gives you the idea that publicizing a win would in any way give away our capabilities? We catch a terrorist in line trying to board a flight and do harm. You think there's anything top secret about that? How about all the people standing around watching? Does the person get whisked away to Gitmo without raising an eyebrow?

Tune in to the show FutureWeapons to learn about the next generation in intelligent luggage screening. They don't say how it works, but they say that it can pick up guns, even broken down into parts, explosives, etc, (and they show it working).

It makes no sense to keep a lid on the fact that you just beat a terrorist at his own game. You just keep the important details out of it.

Re:thieves standing around

[the_arrow]

Well, some people apparently can: http://pileborg.org/arrow/ass.gif

Re:thieves standing around

[lgw]

None of the security added to airports after 9/11 has made us any safer at all. Yes, yes, I understand you're scared and you want someone to do something. But the things that were done are useless. They make stupid people feel safer, at the cost of annoying the fuck out of everyone else, and provide a very juicy new target for terrorism. The TSA has made air travel less safe. Why do you like this?

Re:thieves standing around

[SkyDude]

What factual information can you cite supporting your assertion? Your opinion is the measures taken are useless. Re-read the first sentence. If the measures haven't worked, then what do YOU suggest will?

I'm in no way defending stupidity in the TSA, and as an occasional traveler, don't like the searches either. But so far, all I've heard on /. is a couple of F-bombs and one pseudo-intellect mod my comments as "Flamebait". It seems when questioned, and an answer is not within easy reach, let's punish the person who asked the question.

Re:thieves standing around

[lgw]

Read Bruce Schneier's blog if you want a regular dose of how effective the TSA is. It's security theater, and nothing more. Hardening the cockpit door was the one security measure taken after 9/11 that actually helped. Walk-through metal detectors protect us from real threats (as much as anything at the airport can), but all of the additional measures protect us only against far-fetched "movie plot" threats. Any security professional can explain the difference.

You cannot effectively defend against terrorism by hardening potential targets, beyond making sure the simplest and most obvious defenses are in place (because some potential terrorists are simply idiots, and very inexpensive measures can defeat idiots). There are just too many targets for the defensive trade off to be worthwhile, and the downside is large. Photographers are now hassled and even detained for photographing public buildings. Local police are *regularly* called (which is fine) and mobilize task forces (which is dangerous and stupid) because of bird watchers.

You protect against terrorism by developing human intelligence about the operation of terrorist groups. That's not visibly "doing something", however, and the fightened public demands that the government "do something" - so we have blatantly unconstitutional programs that significantly infringes on our rights to provide a security blanket for frightened children.

Seriously, even if the TSA was actually doing something: how much are you willing to give up your rights to "protect against terrorism" on an airline trip, when the risk is already far less than the risk of driving to the airport?

Tis the season..

[cvd6262]

Among the items seized were 66 cameras, 31 laptop computers, 20 cell phones, 17 sets of electronic games, 13 pieces of jewelry, 12 GPS devices, 11 MP3 players, eight camera lenses, six video cameras and two DVD players, the affidavit said.

And a partridge in a pear... TREEEEEEEEE!

Re:Tis the season..

[DinDaddy]

I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.

Your post was funny.

Re:Tis the season..

[cvd6262]

I appreciate the correction. Not that a post to /. is a big deal, but I did actually check that such an obvious joke hadn't been posted before I submitted it.

flying sux

[pak9rabid]

And yet another reason why flying in the US sucks.

Re:flying sux

[ColdWetDog]

And yet another reason why flying in the US sucks.

But Ebay is great: A++++ seller, would buy from him again!

Re:flying sux

[Z00L00K]

Just curious - will they actually have the right to inspect your property (open your bags) without you being present if you look at it from the strict view of what the constitution says?

More specific the Fourth Amendment.

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.

Of course - X-raying wasn't on the list when that amendment was written, but that should be OK, but as soon as the property is to be opened I would like to first have a warrant and then also be able to contest that before any proceeding.

Has there ever been a court verdict saying that the fourth amendment isn't valid here?

Re:flying sux

[thewils]

Cheer up. At least you don't get tased to death.

Re:flying sux

[Bender0x7D1]

You waive your rights when you purchase your ticket.

Re:flying sux

[Beached]

But you forget. It is a voluntary search as you give them permission by boarding. They will say that you did not have to enter the boarding areas that are usually clearly marked.

Oops that still is the rule in Canada but in the US it is no longer the case http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/court-says-trav.html as you pretty much cannot enter the airport without automatically agreeing to be searched at any time.

Oh well, if you drive or take the bus or train you still have some rights that are upheld. But to get people to refuse to fly and hurt the airline industry in a way that makes them listen probably will not happen.

This still leaves private aircraft.

Re:flying sux

[Richard_at_work]

The key word of that sentence, and one open to interpretation, is 'unreasonable'...

Re:flying sux

[flooey]

Has there ever been a court verdict saying that the fourth amendment isn't valid here?

I believe so, under the grounds that you are voluntarily submitting to the search (by choosing to fly). You have the option of not flying, which wouldn't cause your stuff to be searched, so it's not a violation of the security of your effects.

It's like if a police officer came to your door and asked you to come inside. If you say that it's okay, and then they see something illegal inside your place, that's admissible in court, because you let them in voluntarily.

It's definitely the kind of thing that's borderline, since you do have travel options other than flying, but none of the other options are really equivalent in any way. I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the issue. I think the behind-the-scenes stupidity is ridiculous, of course, but I'm undecided about whether or not bag searches as a requirement to getting on a plane are ultimately a good or bad idea.

Re:flying sux

[LVSlushdat]

Its getting to be that if you want to fly somewhere, you FedEx your stuff to your destination, then report to the airport in your birthday suit...

Re:flying sux

[v1]

You cannot waive your constitutional rights (or ammendments therein)

Re:flying sux

[mollymoo]

Only A++++ and one exclamation mark? That's virtually a negative on eBay.

Re:flying sux

[jlowery]

What are you smoking? A Miranda warning spells out your rights, then asks if you wish to waive them. How much more expicit does it need to get?

Re:flying sux

[RLaager]

Of course you can. You can consent to searches.

Re:flying sux

[Gewalt]

An inalienable right is one that cannot be waived or forfeited, but somehow it was still lost. /sigh

Re:flying sux

[Registered Coward v2]

You cannot waive your constitutional rights (or ammendments therein)

You certainly can; the US government can't *waive* them for you, regardless of what GW believes.

People waive rights all the time - to jury trials, counsel, etc. The right to search (or more correctly consent for a search) is can be a condition for entry - most (if not all) US military bases have signs stating you consent to a search as a condition of being allowed on base.

If you want to travel by air; a condition of that travel is consenting to searches of person and baggage - your choice is to fly or go by other means.

Re:flying sux

[JesseMcDonald]

No, but you can consent to a search, in which case no warrant is required. Part of the agreement when purchasing a ticket is consenting to such searches.

Re:flying sux

[JesseMcDonald]

The root problem is that the government claims for itself the power to determine who can and cannot operate aircraft. Similar to taxes and other regulations, you aren't really agreeing to the terms voluntarily when some third party forces every airline to require consent for searches.

To look at this from a different perspective, let's say a law is enacted which requires every merchant to extract an agreement to invasive home inspections before trade can commence. You have the option of not engaging in trade, so the searches are voluntary, right? (Of course not.) Forcing two willing individuals not to trade except on your terms is just as involuntary as forcing someone to buy or sell against their will.

Re:flying sux

[MiKM]

If you speak after being given your Miranda rights, you do not permanently give up your rights under the fifth amendment. That is, even if you say something potentially incriminating, you can then decide to keep quiet and still be protected by the fifth amendment.

Re:flying sux

[SL Baur]

You cannot waive your constitutional rights (or ammendments therein)

<hat="Spelling and Grammar Nazi">That would be amendments.</hat>

You most certainly can. It's required when you receive a DOD security clearance.

Re:flying sux

[houghi]

You waived them by electing the governement. They just follow the orders of the people who bought^wvoted for them.

Re:flying sux

[SL Baur]

If you want to travel by air

That's imprecise. If you wish to go outside of the US, a US citizen's constitutional rights ends whereever they declare the border to be.

US Embassies are considered to be under US law, but anywhere else ...

Re:flying sux

[jlowery]

You're trying to finesse the point after the fact. The OP did not restrict his statement to the "permanent" waiving of rights.

Re:flying sux

[SL Baur]

in the US it is no longer the case http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/court-says-trav.html [wired.com] as you pretty much cannot enter the airport without automatically agreeing to be searched at any time.

I've never had or seen that happen outside of the checkpoint and I fly international a lot.

"Security" in the US is a joke. If they were serious, they would have a checkpoint at the entrance and scary men patrolling the inside with jack boots and automatic rifles as in Singapore and Beijing.

Re:flying sux

[drawfour]

You do not have a constitutional right to free speech. You have a constitutional right to not being censored by the GOVERNMENT:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Re:flying sux

[devman]

Not sure how that got modded interesting when it's incorrect, I don't really expect mods to fact-check but a little common sense would be nice!

You most certainly can waive constitutional rights. You can consent to searches, you can confess to crimes, you can waive your right to a jury trial, etc.

Re:flying sux

[Fjandr]

Minor nitpick: There are no Constitutionally-protected rights except through amendments, making the parenthetical a bit redundant. :)

You most certainly can waive protected rights. You can waive your 4th amendment rights by agreeing to a search of your house or car. You can waive your 5th amendment rights and incriminate yourself. You can waive your 6th and 7th amendment rights and choose to have a bench trial or request summary judgement. I believe you probably meant you cannot be forced to waive your protected rights, which has a bit more truth to it but is still not completely correct (in practice, since theory has never had any bearing on governmental action).

They can even forcibly strip you of rights, such as the right to bear arms and right to vote.

Then of course, there are the infinite rights protected under the 9th and 10th amendments, which are not only completely ignored by the government, but almost seem to be actively singled out for abuse at the very idea that there should be language in the Constitution that so thoroughly and completely limits the legitimate powers of government.

Re:flying sux

[Eli Gottlieb]

You do realize that, for most Americans, flying is the only way out of the country?

Re:flying sux

[penguinbrat]

From the way it was explained to me on this very topic - you are the one who chooses to fly, your not forced to. So when you choose this, your also choosing to put up with all the B.S. - your "rights" do not apply here.

Just like if you "chose" to continue dining out at your favorite restaurant when they decided to change the menu.

Your dealing with a private industry, not the government - regardless of any oversite. What they want you to do, you will do if you desire to continue using there services.

Disclaimer of sorts: I haven't flown since the airspace opened back up after 9/11/01 - best plain ride I've ever had, no one was on it!

Re:flying sux

[jjo]

Here's how it works: the TSA search is reasonable because you consented to it.
You consented to it because federal law (49 USC 44902) requires the airlines to refuse to carry you otherwise.
Don't want a TSA search? Simple: don't go to the airport.

Re:flying sux

[Naturalis Philosopho]

Miranda instructs you on how to preserve your right against self incrimination (shut up). It then warns you that if you decide to incriminate yourself (not shut up), or not seek further counsel on how not to self incriminate, then that's your problem. The constitution guarantees that you can't be forced to self incriminate. It leaves you the right to choose whether or not to do want to self incriminate. There's no prohibition in the constitution against self incrimination, only against the government forcing self incrimination. There's nothing about waiving your rights, temporarily or permanently, in Miranda, just that the gov't can't force you to talk (unless, of course, you're in GITMO and like to breath when you're hung upside down on a board).

Telling someone that they can still talk, and might incriminate themselves by doing so is as unrelated to the waiving of rights as choosing not to own a gun means that I waive my right to own one. I still have the right to own a gun, I do not (and will not) waive that right, but I chose not to exercise it.

I don't know what you're smoking, but it's not very interesting, and it hasn't helped your reading comprehension (of Miranda) either.

Re:flying sux

[erroneus]

More effectively, you essentially grant permission when you attempt to board your flight. If you KNOW what is likely to happen, and you have not otherwise expressed a denial of such permission, then by default, permission to perform such searches is presumed. (I am not saying this is good, right or correct! I am just saying!) Further, however, if you deny permission for such searches explicitly, the chances are pretty good that you will not be allowed to board your plane. So what do you do?

This stuff should all be fought in court before it is fought with guns... if it is fought with guns, we know who the winner is likely to be... the people with the guns.

Re:flying sux

[Registered Coward v2]

If you want to travel by air

That's imprecise. If you wish to go outside of the US, a US citizen's constitutional rights ends whereever they declare the border to be.

US Embassies are considered to be under US law, but anywhere else ...

I'm not sure what you consider imprecise - at any rate, a US citizen's rights, under the US constitution, extend worldwide and limit the US government's ability to act and provides a US citizen the same protections abroad as in the US from US government actions. However, if you leave US territory you are also subject to the laws of whatever country you are also subject to their laws; and US protections do not extend to you under their laws.

Re:flying sux

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Minor nitpick: There are no Constitutionally-protected rights except through amendments, making the parenthetical a bit redundant.

Bullshit. This is why the Founders were leery of promoting the Bill of Rights, on the grounds someone would argue that "It's not in the Constitution, therefore the people don't have the right".

This is the purpose behind the Ninth Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:flying sux

[cayenne8]

"No, but you can consent to a search, in which case no warrant is required. Part of the agreement when purchasing a ticket is consenting to such searches."

Funny, I don't recall seeing this statement that I was waiving my rights or consenting to searches when I bought said ticket. Can they show me the law that requires this?

Re:flying sux

[BluBrick]

Walking into certain facilities waving your Second Amendment rights will get you shot!

Re:flying sux

[Whiteox]

You can walk to Canada or Mexico.
Catch a submarine, row boat, yacht or ship
and if you hurry, you could walk across the ice bridges over to the continent. You may not get back though.

Re:flying sux

[Fjandr]

I believe I already mentioned the 9th amendment, as well as its intended effect. Well aware of what it says. Perhaps reading and understanding my entire comment would have helped obviate the need for you posting something that is not only hostile but also completely irrelevant.

Please point out the section of the Constitution that is not an amendment that is written explicitly to protect an individual right. Unless I'm forgetting something (it has been a couple years since I've read it through completely, so I admit it is entirely possible), no such passage exists, making your statement of "bullshit" well, exactly what your statement was.

My statement is completely true. The Constitution was never written to protect rights. It was written to delegate powers to the federal government and otherwise limit their power over non-delegated issues. Prior to the Bill of Rights, no right was explicitly protected by the Constitution.

Rights were implicitly understood to be anything that the federal government (ignoring delegation of powers to the States for simplicity) was not given explicit authority over. Implicit != explicit. Yes, I understand the issues and controversy surrounding the adoption of the first 10 amendments. It might have been better if there were no rights explicitly protected, though my gut feeling is it would have been much worse. None of that changes the fact that my statement was factually correct.

Re:flying sux

[netringer]

But you forget. It is a voluntary search as you give them permission by boarding. They will say that you did not have to enter the boarding areas that are usually clearly marked.

Oops that still is the rule in Canada but in the US it is no longer the case http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/court-says-trav.html as you pretty much cannot enter the airport without automatically agreeing to be searched at any time.

Oh well, if you drive or take the bus or train you still have some rights that are upheld. But to get people to refuse to fly and hurt the airline industry in a way that makes them listen probably will not happen.

This still leaves private aircraft.

The TSA is moving headlong into screwing around with private aircraft, too (pdf) .

You know. They don't want the guy/girl flying the plane to have weapons to overpower the pilot and take control of the plane. (Chicago actually searched planes and pilots for this reason until Mayor Daley finally took the shortcut and bulldozed Meigs Field to save it from terrorists.)

Re:flying sux

[dummondwhu]

You're not giving up any right. You're choosing to ignore the Fifth Amendment and talk of your own free will. They cannot compel you to say anything. The Fifth Amendment continues to protect you. The Miranda warning doesn't cause any right to be waived, it's just letting you know that if you say anything, then you're ignoring your own rights. That's why you can stop talking at any time, or choose to not say anything (the wise choice).

Once you've said something incriminating, you can't take it back and it will be used against you. That's the "waived" part. But your rights are wholly in tact.

Re:flying sux

[macwhiz]

The Constitution does not grant you any rights.

The Bill of Rights enumerates certain natural rights that you have which the U.S. Government is forbidden from taking away from you.

The Bill of Rights wasn't part of the Constitution from day one, because the Founding Fathers thought these "inalienable human rights" were so blindly obvious that it wasn't necessary to write them down. Read the Declaration of Independence--they broke away from England because the Crown had abridged these rights, and they said so. They felt that should be enough. Later, they reconsidered how stupid their descendants might be, and wrote the Bill of Rights.

You do not have a Constitutional right to free speech. You have a natural right to free speech, that the founders of this country considered a basic right of any human being regardless of their location or government. The United States Government is prohibited from abridging that right by the First Amendment, as you noted:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Read it closely: It assumes that you already have those rights.

Don't believe me? Go to your local library and look up Constitutional law.

Re:flying sux

[SL Baur]

a US citizen's rights, under the US constitution, extend worldwide

Nope. This is not the Empire of the USA. I suggest you read the sign prominently posted in your nearest US Embassy in the US citizens section explaining that you are no longer in the United States and what that means in legal terms.

Re:flying sux

[cphilo]

Cheer up. At least you don't get tased to death.

Yet.

Re:flying sux

[ibbey]

He's actually right. He's saying that the US governement can't treat a citizen any different just because you're in a different country. Of course how that country's government treats you is another matter entirely, and is only regulated by the various treaties that we have signed.

Re:flying sux

[ibbey]

You obviously didn't read the fine print of the ticket, did you?

Re:flying sux

[mabhatter654]

except when people choose not to fly the feds pumped money into the airlines so they wouldn't fail... and other companies wouldn't build out buses or trains.

Re:flying sux

[whoppo]

heh... if they have their way...

http://blog.aclu.org/2008/08/01/taser-bracelets-really/

Re:flying sux

[SL Baur]

Dangling reference there. Which "he" are you referring to?

What you wrote is more or less exactly what you read on the sign in the ACS section of your nearest friendly US Embassy.

Certainly 1st and 2nd amendment "rights" in the US are trumped by local laws. The current President has a very bad reputation for journalists who have criticized the government being caught up in accidents and getting killed. Whether she ordered the killing or not is a matter of some debate that I cannot get involved with.

Re:flying sux

[thejynxed]

I wouldn't call it reasonable, so much as an easy way for the Fed to circumvent the restrictions placed on them by the 4th Amendment. Explained in a time-honored /. manner:

Step 1. Setup quasi-government agency.

Step 2. Write a law that requires all passengers and luggage to be searched by quasi-government agency.

Step 3. ?

Step 4. Profit!

I had less trouble traveling in China and Russia than I do now in my own country, and nothing got stolen by any of their airport security screeners.

Re:flying sux

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

True, but only for appropriate values of "you".

Just ask Robert

Re:flying sux

[Antique Geekmeister]

Of course they can treat someone differently. Tax laws, for example, vary considerably. So do the standards for voting in national elections. They just can't evaporate the person's constitutional rights,

Re:flying sux

[Registered Coward v2]

a US citizen's rights, under the US constitution, extend worldwide

Nope. This is not the Empire of the USA. I suggest you read the sign prominently posted in your nearest US Embassy in the US citizens section explaining that you are no longer in the United States and what that means in legal terms.

The US embassy is informing citizens that they are subject to the laws of the country they are in; which is different than the constitutional guarantees a US citizen enjoys with respect to the US government's action. The constitution limits the US government's actions wrt to US citizens anywhere, even outside of US territorial limits. In short, a US citizen loses none of their constitutional protections from US governmental actions simply because they leave the US.

It (the US constitution), of course, imposes no limits on foreign government's actions wrt to US citizen's in their territory.

Re:flying sux

[SL Baur]

In short, a US citizen loses none of their constitutional protections from US governmental actions simply because they leave the US.

I'm not sure that makes any sense.

A US citizen is very much under local laws, and the US government is not obligated to do anything should said citizen run afoul of said local laws.

If I am in Harare and exercise my "constitutional right" to free speech and say "Mugabe is a thief" and get put in jail by governmental goons, the US government is *not* going to come to my rescue.

Re:flying sux

[jimicus]

More specific the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Bearing in mind that the fourth amendment was drafted in 1776 - air transport, electronic timers and modern, relatively clean explosives did not exist. I suspect the counter-argument would be that this search is perfectly reasonable.

IMO it'd be far more reasonable if the search was carried out in front of you and then your luggage sealed before going through the conveyor belt towards the hold, but that'd mean rebuilding most airports.

Re:flying sux

[rbanffy]

I wonder how long until it becomes "cheer up or be tased to death".

Re:flying sux

[Registered Coward v2]

In short, a US citizen loses none of their constitutional protections from US governmental actions simply because they leave the US.

not sure that makes any sense.

A US citizen is very much under local laws, and the US government is not obligated to do anything should said citizen run afoul of said local laws.

If I am in Harare and exercise my "constitutional right" to free speech and say "Mugabe is a thief" and get put in jail by governmental goons, the US government is *not* going to come to my rescue

You can't seem to understand the difference between US and foreign government actions. You certainly are subject, as I have repeatedly said, to foreign laws when in a foreign country. However, the US government is still restrained by the US Constititution when it comes to US citizens.

In short, in your example the Zimabwian government can do whatever they want; the US government could not exercise prior restraint on your rights under the US Constitution. It's not about you having the same rights in a foreign country as you would in the US; rather it's about limits placed on US government actions. no matter where you are.

Re:flying sux

[IndustrialComplex]

Nope. This is not the Empire of the USA. I suggest you read the sign prominently posted in your nearest US Embassy in the US citizens section explaining that you are no longer in the United States and what that means in legal terms.

Given that the rights enumerated in the US Constitution are viewed to be natural rights that are yours by simple virtue of you being born a human being. Nationality has nothing to do with it.

Re:flying sux

[Trailer Trash]

What are you smoking? A Miranda warning spells out your rights, then asks if you wish to waive them. How much more expicit does it need to get?

This has nothing to do with Miranda. You don't have to ride in an airplane. If you want to, you have to agree to certain conditions. Same if I enter the courthouse here, go through a metal detector and I can't take my pocketknife. Or a gun for that matter. And they may search my stuff. If I don't like it, I don't go inside.

What we need is competition. Honestly, if some airline ran their own unsecured part of the airport, didn't do screenings (or minimal screenings) and allowed the luggage to be locked, I would fly them every single time.

Re:flying sux

[rantingkitten]

No, a Miranda reading simply confirms that you understand your rights -- it doesn't ask you to waive them.

The clause of the Fifth states "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". The key word is "compelled" and that's what led to the Miranda ruling. It was decided that if you were unaware of your right to avoid self-incrimination, you might feel compelled to answer police questions, thinking you had no choice.

Once you're aware that you don't have to tell the police anything, if you still decide to talk to them, that's your problem, since no one forced you into it. But you cannot "waive" that right, either -- at any time, you can simply shut up, or answer all questions with gibberish, or otherwise refuse to tell anyone anything, and the police cannot force you to keep talking based on the fact that you were talking before. You always retain your right to silence.

Likewise, even if you begin speaking to police without an attorney, you may, at any time, simply say "I don't wish to say anything else without a lawyer present," or similar.

Re:flying sux

[SL Baur]

However, the US government is still restrained by the US Constititution when it comes to US citizens.

Eh? I guess I do not understand your point at all.

The Monroe Doctrine said stay of our backyard and we'll leave you alone. The Bush Doctrine says if I don't like what I think you're thinking, I'm going to kick the shit out of you. Foreign policy has never had a basis in the constitution other than setting up the broadest of guidelines for such.

And as all the recent attacks on the Bill of Rights demonstrates - gun grabbing, the "Patriot" act, civil forfeiture, warrantless spying, etc. the US Government rarely bothers to restrain itself to the constitution.

Do you have a point?

Re:flying sux

[Registered Coward v2]

However, the US government is still restrained by the US Constititution when it comes to US citizens.

Eh? I guess I do not understand your point at all.

It's simple - the US Constitution limits the US ability to restrict US citizen's rights, ,no matter where those citizen';s are located.

The Monroe Doctrine said stay of our backyard and we'll leave you alone. The Bush Doctrine says if I don't like what I think you're thinking, I'm going to kick the shit out of you. Foreign policy has never had a basis in the constitution other than setting up the broadest of guidelines for such.

This has nothing to do with foreign policy; it's about the fundemental rights of US citizens wrt actions by the US government.

And the US Constitution actually gives government some broad latitude for action as well as specifically calling out things it cannot do.

And as all the recent attacks on the Bill of Rights demonstrates - gun grabbing, the "Patriot" act, civil forfeiture, warrantless spying, etc. the US Government rarely bothers to restrain itself to the constitution.

The legality of such actions ultimately are up to the SCOTUS; and have recently demonstrated some spine such as their decision in the DC gun case.

Of course, there is a wide range of opinions on exactly how to interpret the US Constitution.

Do you have a point?

As I stated above. You seem to be confusing the extra-territoriality of the US Constitution wrt US citizens and limits placed by it upon their government with US foreign policy and foreign government's ability to take actions within their territory.

Of course, I could just be doing this just to get you to endlessly respond. Your choice.

All of the MacBook Airs are mine...

[Anonymous Coward]

As well as any loose cash. I'm missing several million, so it may not all be there.

Who watches

[starfishsystems]

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?"
(But who is to guard the guardians?)
Juvenal, Satires, circa 120 AD

Re:Who watches

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure that isn't "Who is guarding the custards?"

Re:Who watches

[QuantumHobbit]

Some glowing blue man and a guy who dresses up like Alexander the Great.

Re:Who watches

[Blimey85]

I think you meant "who watches the watchmen?"

Re:Who watches

[Hydrated Wombat]

"Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt"; or, translated: "When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults"

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Geoffrey.landis]

As always, the question comes down to, who will watch the watchers?

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[ral8158]

At this point, there are no watchers--just a mob of thieves extorting you for protection money.

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

And if nobody was supervising him to make sure he didn't steal things, what was to prevent him from introducing dangerous items into the luggage?

How hard would it be for someone with ill intent to get a TSA job?

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Ross D Anderson]

Batman

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Teun]

That person has to agree with a minimum wage and shitty hours, what self-respecting crook would?

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[NovaHorizon]

Where do you live that the minimum wage is $22/hour? Here it's $6.75

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Anonymous Coward]

The TSA has a clever scheme to keep out bad guys. First they give an IQ test and anyone smart enough to lie about being a terrorist is rejected. Then they ask, "Are you a terrorist?"

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[secretcurse]

Dammit, you had to point this out, didn't you? Now there will be screeners for the screeners, and the poor level one screeners will have all of their sweet loot stolen by the level two screeners. You better be prepared for full cavity searches every time you fly from here on out, buddy...

$200K

[Yetihehe]

Hmm, $200K? Fortune cookie right now on slashdot:

There's a little picture of ED MCMAHON doing BAD THINGS to JOAN RIVERS in a $200,000 MALIBU BEACH HOUSE!!

Re:$200K

[SL Baur]

(* /me hopes the mods are old enough to get that reference.)

You must be new here.

Re:$200K

[SL Baur]

The place has really gone downhill since the median age here dropped by half a couple years ago.

Not particularly. I've been off and on myself, but the popular perception of any online forum is one of which rose-colored glasses are involved. I do not see any substantial change in "quality" since when I started. Actually as I've refined my BS filter, the quality of today's Slashdot is pretty good.

I follow the Timothy May principle - if an online forum (or mailing list) does not have the quality you wish, contribute more.

(I do not get the reference either, but perhaps that's because I do not watch TV and I've been outside the US a long time).

And there you have it!

[AndGodSed]

You yanks are safe from terrorism!

Your own officers is a different matter though...

Told to F-O

[Nom du Keyboard]

After having my TSA-approved lock ripped off of my new suitcase on its very first trip and basically told to F-O about complaints over it (Oh, it might have gotten caught in the machinery, and btw, why are you locking it at all) this is vindication - but no better protection than yesterday - of what a lot of us have been saying for a very long time. Yes I want my flight to land as safely as it took off since I'm in it, but providing a secret open hunting ground for minimum wage employees doesn't cut it for me.

Re:Told to F-O

[ChromaticDragon]

Furthermore, I don't quite see why this is that terribly hard to handle properly. All the searches (yes ALL of them) should be videotaped and the videos held for a duration significantly long enough to permit any traveler to file a claim against any loss. This should be codified into law and rigorously enforced by independent oversight.

Why is this hard?

Yes, I realize the difficulties this would pose of documenting everything everyone is carrying. But this seems inevitable anyway given where we seem to be headed.

There needs to be a deep shift in perception away from the idea that the TSA polices us to the concept that they WORK FOR us. In the same vein, a transition is needed from the idea that we are all criminals to the idea that they are as well. Indeed, if the TSA has nothing to hide surely they wouldn't mind such oversight...

Re:Told to F-O

[SupremoMan]

This kind of level of thoughtfulness would require competence. But maybe if we make enough noise they will agree to this, if only as an excuse to raise their budgets.

Re:Told to F-O

[ProzacPatient]

Videotaping all that isn't a bad idea, kind of like the hudcams on police cars that have brought a lot of corrupt, or abusive, officers into light.

Re:Told to F-O

[electrosoccertux]

Furthermore, I don't quite see why this is that terribly hard to handle properly. All the searches (yes ALL of them) should be videotaped and the videos held for a duration significantly long enough to permit any traveler to file a claim against any loss.

That won't stop them, you'd have to hold the videos for at least a year. The way it works in the United Kingdom with police abuse of authority, you can file that claim, but for some odd reason, oops it took X+1 days to get to the review office from the day the incident occurred. (Archives are not kept longer than X days...30 IIRC.)

Re:Told to F-O

[amRadioHed]

Well, since we know the TSA won't be implementing cameras anytime soon someone needs to rig up a camera in their luggage that can record the searches.

Re:Told to F-O

[Lorien_the_first_one]

"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." Amendment X to the Constitution

Damn straight they work for us. Why and how do they forget this? Just what are they smoking?

Thank you for putting a finer point on it. I'd like to promote the idea of video taping searches.

Scott

Re:Told to F-O

[giorgist]

Next on Youtube ... look at the weird things joe the plumber caries in his luggage. Frilly underwear, rubber chickens, and this ... what is this ? ... click ... bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Re:Told to F-O

[Whiteox]

All the searches (yes ALL of them) should be videotaped and the videos held for a duration significantly long enough to permit any traveler to file a claim against any loss. This should be codified into law and rigorously enforced by independent oversight.

This has already happened in Australia. A baggage handler a few years ago stole a camel suit from a suitcase and paraded up and down the bowels of the airport. He was seen by the owner who reported it to security. The guy got sacked and from then on everything is now recorded.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,12850308-2702,00.html

Re:Told to F-O

[$pace6host]

I'd like to promote the idea of video taping searches.

"Sorry, the security camera wasn't working yesterday when you claim your laptop was stolen."

See, we pay the maintenance people even less than the security people...

Re:Told to F-O

[atraintocry]

Two years ago sections of Boston were closed to traffic over what amounted to a few lite-brite style ads. They *will* assume that it's a bomb, and you *will* end up with a gloved hand up your butt. You probably won't make your flight, either.

Re:Told to F-O

[Syberz]

Minimum wage?!?! HAHAHA! In what third World country do you live in? These underachievers are unionized AND work for the government, they probably make more than you do :P

Re:Told to F-O

[bdenton42]

Well, since we know the TSA won't be implementing cameras anytime soon someone needs to rig up a camera in their luggage that can record the searches.

IMO that is an exceedingly bad idea. They would probably frown upon someone covertly recording their internal security procedures and might be a quick way to end up on the "no-fly" list.

Re:Told to F-O

[Anomalyst]

Better yet, have the video of the inspections complete with current and next 9 in line claim tickets live in the lounges instead of CNN so you can actually observe YOUR bags in the process.

Re:Told to F-O

[amRadioHed]

Yeah, I know. I did say someone should do it, I didn't say I was about to do it.

Let me say this: I am shocken, truly SHOCKED, ...

[Ihlosi]

that there might be people who find this surprising.

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[ral8158]

You could just fedex it. Unless your time is worth less than like, $5 an hour.

This is a TSA response to the seizure problem

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you have a chance of getting your stolen stuff back from ebay.

Who says government doesn't work?

one arrest won't even dent this plague

[petes_PoV]

This tells us nothing we didn't know already: airport security is riddled with thieves. Whether they take stuff out of your checked luggage, or take it off you blatantly at the security gates - there are no safeguards, oversights or checks to stop these people acting with impunity.

These are the modern day (government approved) highwaymen and the only solution I can think of is to label them socially ("you work in airport security? oh dear - is that the time already ...") as the pariahs they really are.

Re:one arrest won't even dent this plague

[Bryan Ischo]

That's a really dumb overdramatization. If this were a significant, pervasive problem, you can bet there would be lots and lots of public outcry. I and literally MILLIONS of people have flown tens of millions of flights without issues like this. I think the whole way that TSA handles flight security is pretty brain dead, and I curse them under my breath every time I have to take my shoes off to go through the security check, but it doesn't even show up on the radar of important things in my life.

I think the true pariahs are those who cloud the discussion with overreactions like yours. I'd love to continue discussing this issue with you, but - Oh dear - is that the time already ...

Re:one arrest won't even dent this plague

[plasmacutter]

The constitution was designed to protect MINORITIES.

These people are being disenfranchised. Their representative numbers are considerable, even if the activity is not "pervasive" (rather arbitrary designation).

I hope this happens to you, and your bags show up divested of all valuables. Of course, you don't care about tyranny until they come for you.

Re:one arrest won't even dent this plague

[bar-agent]

If this were a significant, pervasive problem, you can bet there would be lots and lots of public outcry.

Public outcry? Everyone knows someone who knows someone who had stuff stolen from their luggage. What more are you looking for? Media coverage?

What I suspect happens is many, many people fill out missing item complaints. But the airports aren't able to do anything about it, perhaps because inadequate security measures, useless security tapes, or some wrinkle in airport/TSA relations. So the people whose things were stolen go on with their life and treat it like any other petty theft, i.e. they reported it, they don't expect a resolution, they replace the item and say "sucks to be me."

Re:one arrest won't even dent this plague

[Kirth]

airport security is riddled with thieves

Of course. Anti-terror provisions ALWAYS benefit normal crime in the first place. More search and seizure means more theft, more databases with personal information means more fraud, and so on.

How deep does the rabbit hole go?

[Bob-o-Matic!]

According to TFA, Brown has been employed as a screener since 2002. How much has he already sold?

Are there more sophisticated screeners in organized crime?

I'm so disgusted we pay people to waste our time, harass us, and steal from us. I'm looking at you, dept. of homeland security and TSA. Go out and get productive jobs, you leaches.

Stealing is a standard procedure in Argentina

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is Argentina ALL "TSA equivalent" employees, steal from travelers. If you came to Argentina, don't you ever put something valuable in luggage, carry it with you!.

I don't understand...

[mishehu]

...why the TSA is allowed to open up packages without the presence of the owner of said packages. If they were forced to page the owner to come back and observe the TSA performing a screening on the contents, that would cut down a lot on the opportunity for this type of theft to occur. If the owner doesn't respond to the page from the TSA, then the package simply is not allowed onboard is a fair policy I think. Also, make sure that the TSA personnel are required to fill out paperwork for every package they page the owners for will cut down on abuse of powers as well.

Re:I don't understand...

[pak9rabid]

...why the TSA is allowed to open up packages without the presence of the owner of said packages. If they were forced to page the owner to come back and observe the TSA performing a screening on the contents, that would cut down a lot on the opportunity for this type of theft to occur. If the owner doesn't respond to the page from the TSA, then the package simply is not allowed onboard is a fair policy I think. Also, make sure that the TSA personnel are required to fill out paperwork for every package they page the owners for will cut down on abuse of powers as well.

That's some good thinkin you got there....almost a little too good. You're a witc...er terrorist!

Re:I don't understand...

[WTF Chuck]

Yes, the no good thieves in the TSA will make sure that the bags they inspect will have owners called in to witness, etc... It's the bags that they "don't inspect" that all the stuff will disappear from. What's needed is 100% video surveilence of the checked baggage area, and a mandatory 2 person policy, where no one can be alone with the baggage, and the people are rotated so that they don't always have the same partner.

Re:I don't understand...

[mollymoo]

Why not just do the searches in front of you when you check your luggage? You could then lock the bag with the TSA watching so you don't sneak anything in.

Re:I don't understand...

[UnderCoverPenguin]

...why the TSA is allowed to open up packages without the presence of the owner of said packages.

Once an item is seized, it becomes property of the government. The TSA agent is an agent of the government, therefore, an agent of the owner.

Re:I don't understand...

[jcrousedotcom]

Take it a step further - open the 'suspect' packages at check-in. You're *already* standing there and once the package is open and checked, it should be secured (lock or taped with owner's signature over the tape) in the presence of the owner. At that point, if the package is tampered with, and it was properly secured, it should be obvious at the time of package pick up and blame should be pretty easy to assess.

Re:I don't understand...

[mishehu]

I guess I must be a terrist, because I don't float on water...

Re:I don't understand...

[mabhatter654]

and if you did float on water, you'd be different than the rest of us so we'd burn you for being a witch/terrorist.

Re:I don't understand...

[qc_dk]

I worked at CERN for a while. One time when I was flying out of Geneva Airport, I was bringing some electronics and a huge rechargeable battery in my suitcase. Obviously this got the interest of the security screeners. I was paged and taken to a room together with the security screener and also a police officer to observe. The screener then asked me to open my suitcase and remove the items they were interested in and demonstrate the equipment and that all batteries were disconnected and secure from short-circuits. I was asked to tape over the power connectors on the electronics. Then i repacked my bag, and was wished a pleasat journey.

They never touched the contents of my suitcase. They never asked or tried to see anything that was not related to the items they were interested in.

I guess the airport people are a bit more relaxed because they are used to people flying to and from Geneva with all sorts of weird stuff for CERN. But still, they handled it very courteously and discrete.

So I guess if you want your American constitutional rights you have to go to Switzerland.

Re:I don't understand...

[Blimey85]

Won't work. I'm friends with Bill. We have a system worked out so whenever he rotates in, we swipe stuff. Then when I rotate out I smuggle it down the employee corridor to the break room where I have my backpack in my locker. Easy breezy. If he rotates out first he does the same. Consider we're talking about pilfering from baggage. Items must be small to fit into the baggage and if something is too large, you just leave it and move on. Cameras are small. Take off the lens and still just the body. Then next time, take just a lens. Nikon is famous for lenses that fit lots of cameras. And the bonus is you'd be just like Johnny Cash stealing it once piece at a time!

Re:I don't understand...

[TheRaven64]

This is pretty much my experience when my luggage was searched by customs entering the USA. I had to open the suitcase and lift things up so that they could see inside, but they guard didn't touch anything (he did repeatedly ask the same questions in different ways, presumably hoping that I'd contradict myself). Perhaps the TSA should take lessons from customs.

Re:I don't understand...

[Ihlosi]

(he did repeatedly ask the same questions in different ways, presumably hoping that I'd contradict myself).

They're not primarily looking for contradictions. Only amateurs would contradict themselves. Semi-professionals would, however, answer the same questions (asked in different ways) with pretty much exactly the same wording every time (since they're expecting the question and have memorized a "plausible" answer).

The guy did a great job of keeping our kids safe

[Dude McDude]

Imagine all the photographs of naked children that could be taken with 66 cameras.
Imagine all the child porn that could be download/stored/viewed using 31 laptop computers.
Imagine all the phone calls paedophiles could make with 20 cell phones.
Imagine all the children that could be lured into a paedophiles house with 17 sets of electronic games, and 13 pieces of jewellery.
Imagine all the children that could be tracked with 12 GPS devices.
Imagine all the children that could be deafened by paedophiles letting children use 11 MP3 players at high volume.
Imagine the sick movies made and viewed using six video cameras and two DVD players.
And the eight camera lenses......dear God the eight camera lenses!!!

Tip of the iceberg?

[symbolic]

I remember reading a statistic recently citing that over 100,000 laptops were "lost or stolen" within the realm of airline travel. Now I wonder how many of these occurrences are inside jobs.

Re:Tip of the iceberg?

[jlowery]

I have never, ever trusted TSA enough to put a laptop in my checked baggage when on a business trip.

In some cities, TSA has gotten so rude. Just went through Denver and organization was a mess, helpful signage was sparse to none, and yet somehow they expected passengers to go through security like little inerring automatons. At one point, I had to try to juggle two bins carring my laptop and briefcase (along with a jacket) so that the TSA worker there could replace the stack of bins underneath with a fresh stack of bins. As the passenger next to me said, "Was that really necessary?" Well, who cares? Inconveniencing the flying public is at the heart of their job.

As bad as Denver was, Philly is the worst. The contempt for passengers is thick in the air. I half expect cattle prods to make their appearance there within the next two years.

Re:Tip of the iceberg?

[Gewalt]

Why is there any doubt in your mind that the value is less than 100%?

Re:Tip of the iceberg?

[Macrat]

I remember reading a statistic recently citing that over 100,000 laptops were "lost or stolen" within the realm of airline travel. Now I wonder how many of these occurrences are inside jobs.

All of them?

Re:Tip of the iceberg?

[Teun]

Yeah but that claim was part of the introduction for some new security features on Dell(?) laptops. When asked they differentiated 'lost' by claiming they were lost out of sight, even if it were for seconds only.

Re:Tip of the iceberg?

[Mordac]

I've experienced the horrors that we all have, but that's why a travel incident stands out to much so much, from last January.

Austin Texas. The TSA agents were courteous, helpful and even working at making people smile or laugh. I've never seen anything like it, I enjoyed my time in that airport, didn't feel rushed, or treated like the enemy.

To me, it was like seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. I know that they can fix this, they can undo the damage of the last decade. That they could making air travel something people don't dread (and to think just a year ago, we only dreaded the airport, now we dislike the flight as we're nickle and dimed in the air.)

Re:Tip of the iceberg?

[mattwarden]

I've actually never had a problem at Philly, at least through the CO gates (D?). Are you talking about US Air gates? Perhaps the TSA there are more cranky due to volume?

Wow

[__aagctu1952]

I guess TSA Gangstaz (NSFW!) was actually a documentary then...

I buy cheap luggage

[LM741N]

Then epoxy it together. When I get to my location, I tear it apart and buy more cheap luggage. Problem solved. I suppose now someone will see this and make epoxy illegal.

Re:I buy cheap luggage

[Richard_at_work]

A friend of mine Fedex's his from location to location - no need to check stuff in, pick it up after the flight, no hassles and all of the hotels he stays in are willing to cooperate when he explains what hes doing. He carries an overnight kit in his carry-on, just in case. Costs him a little more, but not so much that hes considering stopping.

Re:I buy cheap luggage

[WTF Chuck]

With all the new baggage fees and such that the airlines are starting to charge, this is likely to become cheaper than checking your baggage anyway.

Re:I buy cheap luggage

[AaronW]

I sometimes have to travel with a couple large plastic cases to O'Hare. To make sure it doesn't come apart I tape the lid on with lots of duct tape. It has never been opened, I think in part because it's a real pain in the ass to cut or remove all the duct tape.

Re:I buy cheap luggage

[Luthair]

On one episode of TWiT, Kevin Mitnick had done the same but the government decided they needed to check for cocaine, by drilling open a hard drive...

A perfectly good argument...

[laxlavishsoft.com]

... for traveling light. Avoid checking any luggage at all, carry on only! Not only do you save time by not having to wait around for your luggage (which may never arrive) at the belt, but you can also stay within view of your gear.

Re:A perfectly good argument...

[DutchSter]

... for traveling light. Avoid checking any luggage at all, carry on only! Not only do you save time by not having to wait around for your luggage (which may never arrive) at the belt, but you can also stay within view of your gear.

This works fine for me when I go on short personal trips, but most of the time I find it's not just not practical. I'm always carrying something prohibited. The carry-on restrictions with regards to liquids finally pushed me over the edge. I wear contacts, use hair gel, like deodorant, prefer to brush my teeth and actually shave. This pushes me beyond the one small clear bag that I can hold up while some goon pretends to be able to tell if it's potentially explosive.

Then there's the problem that when I travel for work, I'm usually carrying a firearm. Even if I'm not, being from southern Ohio I never go anywhere without my trusty pocket knife (which has to be checked).

Believe it or not I was once told by a TSA supervisor that by having a gun in my luggage I'm probably least likely to be ripped off. Since it's in a locked case in my suitcase, presumably the thief would think it's valuable and try to bust it open. Upon finding it's a gun if he's smart he'll close it up and run away. If I get to my destination and find my gun is missing, unlike say a stolen iPod, both airports will likely go on lockdown until it can be accounted for. Even a $7.00 hour grunt realizes that everybody down there will be searched and all the video tape will be immediately reviewed. As an added bonus, TSA hand screens my checked luggage in front of me when I check in. They then seal it up with the "Passed TSA Security" sticker while I stand there. Theoretically it then goes straight to the airline and bypasses the other checked luggage that has to be screened by some unknown down below.

Re:A perfectly good argument...

[Neoprofin]

Unless I'm bringing something that I can't legally carry on board (usually tools) I don't remember the last time I had checked baggage. You can buy toothpaste when you get there, hotels have shampoo, etc.

You can have two carry-ons at this point, unless you're traveling for more than a week I don't understand how most people can't get away with what they can keep with them.

Re:A perfectly good argument...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try flying into Australia with no luggage - Customs staff suddenly get very interested in you when they realise, and only being in town for the day does not seem to satisfy their concerns.

Re:A perfectly good argument...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

FWIW, you can carry arbitrary sized bottles labeled saline solution for your contacts.
Note that they need only be labeled as saline solution, you can put whatever you want in them.

See this story where the guy brought two big bottles labeled saline solution and when the TSA gangsta asked him, "why two?" he said "one for each eye" and the gangsta let him pass.

Re:A perfectly good argument...

[HairyCanary]

TSA hand screens my checked luggage in front of me when I check in. They then seal it up with the "Passed TSA Security" sticker while I stand there. Theoretically it then goes straight to the airline and bypasses the other checked luggage that has to be screened by some unknown down below.

And right there I think you've hit upon a potential solution. All decisions on whether or not to open a piece of luggage should occur at the moment the luggage leaves the hand of the customer and enters the custody of the airline.

Re:A perfectly good argument...

[Achromatic1978]

Why wouldn't they? The nearest flight is from Auckland, some five hours away. Unless you're there for business, how many people take a 10 hour round trip flight (plus a minimum of another 8 hours in the airport) for a day trip to Australia? Let alone from Asia, or beyond.

If you're there for business, carry a business card or two, an email about your meeting with a client, or whatever.

Being pissed off about TSA goons is one thing, but getting annoyed at Customs for taking an interest in you for an "international day trip" (except in Europe, etc) is reaching a bit.

Re:A perfectly good argument...

[zippthorne]

Ok, but don't bring an entire suitcase and claim it's a carry-on because it juuuust squeezes through the alloted space.

I like my leg-room, and if I have to stow my jacket at my feet (where it will get trampled and take up part of the already scant foot-space) because some jackass with "early boarding" decided to bring his entire wardrobe as a "carry-on," I'm very put out. Don't be a dick.

Re:A perfectly good argument...

[Dun Malg]

All decisions on whether or not to open a piece of luggage should occur at the moment the luggage leaves the hand of the customer and enters the custody of the airline.

I liked the way they do luggage at Pensacola. The big fancy TSA full color x-ray machines are right there in the middle of the lobby, roped off. You check in, then take your luggage to the TSA goons, which scan it and tag it while you watch. I suspect the scanners are only out in the open because the airport is so small they don't have room for them elsewhere, but I think it ought to be like that EVERYWHERE.

Re:A perfectly good argument...

[Spatial]

Even a $7.00 hour grunt realizes that everybody down there will be searched and all the video tape will be immediately reviewed.

Do they seriously get paid that badly?

Re:A perfectly good argument...

[Whiteox]

If you really want to annoy Australian customs, then get a cheap suitcase and fill the voids with talcum powder in those zip seal plastic bags. If you're lucky, then maybe you'll get on the reality TV show 'Border Security'.
Oh, by the way - be prepared for a cavity search....

Re:A perfectly good argument...

[quacking duck]

I suspect the scanners are only out in the open because the airport is so small they don't have room for them elsewhere, but I think it ought to be like that EVERYWHERE.

How well do these new X-rays render objects?

I pity the people who pack their "personal toys" in their checked luggage to escape potential embarrassment of a screener taking it out and inspecting it... only to have it displayed in high-def for everyone in the lobby to see.

Re:A perfectly good argument...

[LearnToSpell]

$7.00/hour is more than federal minimum wage, as well as most states'.

Re:A perfectly good argument...

[Rich0]

Yeah - but make sure you print out the website and bring it with you. After reading the site I went ahead and brought a bottle of nearly full solution with me (figure $6 value). The first goon in the line said that he didn't think it was allowed, and I politely explained about the website. He decided to defer to a supervisor later in line, who didn't question it so it went through.

Then, on the way home the first goon told me I had to toss it, and no amount of pleading availed (I wasn't about to make a big scene and get detained or anything). At least that was on the return trip so I was only out the money and didn't have to try to get more on a business trip.

Bottom line - it isn't the rules that matter - it is what the big guy with the gun says that matters.

This increases safety and security by ... ?

[Brad Eleven]

I remember clearly the latter half of September 2001. Of course there were the plastic flags flying from almost every motor vehicle, but what stands out for me is the memory of how I kept scanning the horizon for explosions when I was driving.

I didn't feel safe. Not that I'd ever been safe, but my perception had always been so.

The thing that still puzzles me, though, is how we in the US have tolerated such a rapid erosion of civil liberty. It's not that our documented rights and freedoms haven't been violated all along, but now there are legal provisions--and already some legal precedent--to protect and justify such violations.

Sure, sure, human psychology, thinking with the fear centers of our brains, even the Milgram Experiment--these and more describe how we react to a perceived threat. And fear is known to reduce the blood supply to the brain.

I find it sad to consider that this particular finding will have no effect on the encroachment on human rights in these United States. I suppose this man is just one "bad apple." Like the cases of the prosecuted torturers at Abu Ghraib (and other locations), the years-later finding that the illegal and shocking techniques were known and even encouraged by the entire organization will have no effect on the policies which shall remain in place.

Re:This increases safety and security by ... ?

[gilgongo]

... the memory of how I kept scanning the horizon for explosions when I was driving.

Interesting. I'm British, and born when the "Troubles" started in Northern Ireland. I lived through a number of mainland bombings during that time, one of which I was very nearly injured by (the Bishopsgate bombing on 24 April 1993). The sound of the blast temporarily deafened me and a couple of people I knew were hospitalised. No 9/11 to be sure - but look at that photo.

After the bombing, I don't recall feeling unsafe in London. The English political reaction to the IRA was markedly different to the way the Americans reacted to 9/11 though. There was no security theatre - if anything rather the opposite. The mood was basically that if the bombings changed the way we lived, the IRA would be winning. So we just put up some road blocks in London and deployed armed police around sensitive areas. I would say that made ordinary English people feel pretty good about their safety. Politicians didn't talk about the IRA very much, and we all just lived our lives as normal.

You guys have had it tough I think. Not by the hands of terrorists as much as by the hands of your politicians.

Re:This increases safety and security by ... ?

[dglp]

Every humiliated traveller and every bit of TSA malfeasance is a win for Bin Laden et al. Even the continued existence to the Patriot Act and Homeland Security is a win for them and their statist allies, because there've been no nascent plots uncovered, no convictions. All of those resources squandered... for what? TSA, HS and PA are very expensive, useless, and undemocratic projects, reminders of unfreedom.

Re:This increases safety and security by ... ?

[FreakWent]

Actually you were always pretty safe, and still are, the only thing that changed was your perception went from accurate to inaccurate.

Statistically, you'd have been better off scanning the roads for other drunk or sleeping drivers. Explosions on the horizon won't hurt you.

Re:This increases safety and security by ... ?

[tiananmen tank man]

This guy that got caught was not just ONE bad apple. The article quotes TSA Spokesperson Lara Uselding saying there has only been under 300 TSA employees that have been _caught_ for theft and terminated. Thats about 6 TSA theives per State on average.

Re:This increases safety and security by ... ?

[bendodge]

The mood was basically that if the bombings changed the way we lived, the IRA would be winning.

Hmmm, sounds like 'ol Winston. We could use someone like him about now.

Re:This increases safety and security by ... ?

[StevisF]

Wow, did you even read the wikipedia article you linked? Riiiight, you were too busy being a British elitist ass to concern yourself with reality!

The wikipedia article states this incident started the massive CCTV surveillance project which now permeates the UK. If 4.2 million cameras (most with vehicle tracking and some with facial recognition) isn't a reaction, I'm not sure what qualifies.

Re:This increases safety and security by ... ?

[BlockedThreads]

I have also directly experienced an IRA attack when my office was destroyed in the 1996 South Quay bombing. Fortunately I was in the pub at the base of the office block at the time. The windows blew in but we were sheltered from the direct blast. The attack happened in a single moment. Then there was half an hour when everyone was running on pure adrenaline. Then there were the days and weeks of discussing the moment and its aftermath in minute detail. I don't know anyone who experienced it who felt fear at the time or afterwards.

In contrast, the aftermath of the 7/7 attack, which I did not experience directly, was far more stressful for me. Over the next week I was very stressed when using the tube. There would actually be beads of sweat on my face.

I found the difference in my response rather surprising. There could be a number of reasons:

• I was ten years older - and more aware of my mortality.
• The 'war-on-terror' (TM) had influenced the way the events were reported by the media.
• I had directly experienced the first event and not the second.
• Explosions in tunnels scare me more than explosions above ground.

Personally I think that terrorism is far more frightening for the detached observer. For those involved it is really no different to any other kind of tragedy such as a serious car accident - something that happens to people all the time. Suddenly something bad happens. Hopefully you get through it and then you get on with your life.

Re:This increases safety and security by ... ?

[DeanFox]

...is the memory of how I kept scanning the horizon for explosions when I was driving. ...how we in the US have tolerated such a rapid erosion of civil liberty.

Tolerated it? Judging by your fear my guess is, you voted for it. If you didn't, others did.

2,100,000 have died since then from cholesterol and I suspect like the rest of us you're probably a little over weight. 5,000 teenagers died that year because we gave them drivers licenses. 150,000 died that year from medical malpractice. And you turned to Jello over 3,000.

Not to minimize the tragic loss of 3,000 innocent lives. But in the grand scheme of things... I'd just say be cognoscente of where we take this country November.

-[d]-

Re:This increases safety and security by ... ?

[rbanffy]

"I didn't feel safe. Not that I'd ever been safe, but my perception had always been so."

You were, and still are, pretty safe. There was not much an improvement in your personal safety against terrorists since 2001.

911 was a single, spectacular, event but I seriously doubt anyone would pull that off today even if there were no change in security procedures. They were able to take the planes because, at that time, the basic orientation was to cooperate with highjackers in order to safeguard the security of the crew, passengers and aircraft. Highjacked planes were used to negociate, not as guided bombs. 911 changed those rules. Nobody will ever again be able to highjack a plane that easily.

As for other terrorist attacks... Well... Let's just say your chances of dying very old have always been very good.

Re:This increases safety and security by ... ?

[gilgongo]

WIf 4.2 million cameras (most with vehicle tracking and some with facial recognition) isn't a reaction, I'm not sure what qualifies.

I've no doubt it was the start of that. But that's not relevant to my point, which was that I didn't feel unsafe after the bombings, and neither did very many other British people. The political (and media) reaction was very different, and I think it was a better one for me (if not society) than the current American one.

Riiiight, you were too busy being a British elitist ass to concern yourself with reality!

Ah, rudeness: the weak man's imitation of power.

Re:This increases safety and security by ... ?

[gilgongo]

Personally, I wasn't too bothered by 7/7, mainly because I'd pretty much convinced myself that the whole "terrorist" thing was (and mostly probably still is) a complete storm in a teacup. Nut jobs blow things up from time to time - 7/7 was just one of those times (remember the Soho bombings a few years before?)

It sounds clichéd, but much of my immunity to the fear of terrorism stemmed from talking to my dad (who read modern history at Oxford). He made the obvious point that during the Blitz, upwards of 40,000 people died in the UK at the hands of extremely efficient and fanatical Nazis who bombed the crap out of Britain every night for eight months solid. He was baffled as to why we should be expected to even give the time of day to a bunch of clowns like Al Qaeda.

Re:This increases safety and security by ... ?

[StevisF]

gilgongo, "The English political reaction to the IRA was markedly different to the way the Americans reacted to 9/11 though. There was no security theatre - if anything rather the opposite. [...] So we just put up some road blocks in London and deployed armed police around sensitive areas."

That just doesn't represent the facts of the situation. The political reaction was this massive government intrusion into privacy which persists and expands 15 years later. I'd say the rhetoric used is a lot less relevant than the actions taken and their lasting effects. The US government and media present themselves to their constituents in wildly different ways than their respective UK counterparts, so I would say it's ill-advised to use it as a basis of comparison.

I have numerous friends and family who live and work in NYC. None of them are or were scared and no one they know are or were scared. I've never been scared for them.

You claim you experienced the Bishopgate bombings firsthand and I'll take you at your word. You did not experience the WTC attacks firsthand and you're not an American. You're comparing two different events from two completely different frames of reference. It's ethnocentric, it's elitist, and it's rude.

Re:This increases safety and security by ... ?

[gilgongo]

That just doesn't represent the facts of the situation. The political reaction was this massive government intrusion into privacy which persists and expands 15 years later.

As I have said - I do not deny this to be the case. What I am saying is that my *perception* of what politicians were doing and the perception of others was what it was. That contrasts with what has happened in the US. I am glad you are not scared. I only wish your president did not keep referring to "wars on terror" and "grave threats to our liberty and way of life" when in fact the threat is no such thing.

And by the way - my original post did not say I was comparing 9/11 with 7/7, in fact the opposite - I said it did not compare. Such "comparisons" are in very poor taste, and you have reduced us all by dragging up the issue here.

NOTES TO SELF...

[burtosis]

1) If want to continue high priced imbezzeling job, don't steal unique tracable items worth over 10k.

2) Pee on more luggage.

3) If there is nothing worth stealing, swap with other bags or just F**K it up a bit. That will show em'

Now, there's an interesting statistic...

[Anonymous Coward]

"She [Unselding] also said that his crimes were rare and that less than 300 TSA employees have been terminated for theft.

"The actions of a few individuals in no way reflect on the outstanding job our more than 43,000 security officers do every day to ensure the security of the traveling public," she said. "

What an interesting statistic. 300/43000 = 0.7%. So, catching 0.7% of their employees stealing isn't significant? And those are only the ones caught. And yet we hear all the time on /. about the next expensive and probably worthless scheme to screen terrorists is okay even if it yields a percent or two of false positives along the way??

It's pretty pathetic if they can't even trust their own staff to the tune of 0.7%. Maybe they should improve their security.

Re:Now, there's an interesting statistic...

[hedwards]

Because that would cost money. If they had to pay their employees a reasonable salary they'd have to pass the cost on to somebody. So rather than every passenger paying a couple dollars more a flight, they just lose stuff out of random bags.

It's a lottery style payment scheme.

Re:Now, there's an interesting statistic...

[u38cg]

That's pretty normal. Financial services companies dismiss roughly 1% of their staff every year for dishonesty of one sort or another, and compared to TSA employees, they will face broadly similar levels of scrutiny in employment checking. The sad fact is that human nature is pretty predictable.

Re:Now, there's an interesting statistic...

[Minix]

Statistics: useful for what they hide as much as what they show.

300 caught / 43,000 "security officers" = 0.7%

But how many of the "security officers" have access to baggage? All, half, 600? We're not told.

How many airports in the US? 1000? Are there 430 baggage searchers per airport? Are there really 43K people in a position to steal from baggage? Really?

Re:Now, there's an interesting statistic...

[winwar]

"They could become more efficient."

Why? No large agency seriously cares about efficiency (government or private). Greater headcount, greater perceived value.

"How about re-deploying military personnel, whose salaries are already budgeted?"

Because they have other things to do? And because they won't be any more honest?

TSA screeners are well paid for the job they do: rent-a-cop work. Any reasonably intelligent person would go stark raving mad doing the mindless work. Imagine working in a call center without the ability to hang up on callers....

Answers age old question...

[fahrbot-bot]

Who watches the watchers?

With the help of local police and the USPS...

I guess it's the Post Office :-)

Re:Answers age old question...

[Neoprofin]

Great, because they haven't lost\stolen hundreds of dollars worth of my stuff.

There's a reason I don't let anyone send me anything I actually want to receive unless it has a tracking number attached to it.

Customs = thieves

[Arthur B.]

How is that different from a tariff ?

Hey! That's my MacBook

[microcars]

in the AP Photo!

but I am comforted to learn from the article that:

"...less than 300 TSA employees have been terminated for theft."

I read that as
"CLOSE TO THREE HUNDRED EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN TERMINATED FOR THEFT!"

Re:Hey! That's my MacBook

[Anonymous Coward]

"CLOSE TO THREE HUNDRED EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN TERMINATED FOR THEFT!"

Agreed, especially when you consider these employees supposedly passed security and background checks themselves before they were hired. Just shows the screens of the screeners are ineffective, not to mention, it seems to clearly indicate (or not, since after all, if you get caught and are punished, the point is not to do it again) good backgrounds don't show anything about future criminal activity.

Government types frequently like to say that for every X criminal, X*Y where Y > 1 by a good margin is NOT caught, or is doing some other crime. Take their word for it--how many other things are going on that aren't caught?

Police or police types acting like criminals to watch and protect the citizenry--what a standard, typical thing to read about these days.

Re:Hey! That's my MacBook

[capnkr]

According to the same nj.com article, there are over 43,000 TSA "security officers". That means that the percentage of thieves is less than 0.00697674. Of course, 0.0% would be better, but there are *always* a few bad apples...
 
But somehow I suspect that a headline which read "Study Shows Less Than 0.00697674% Of TSA Employees Are Thieves" would gather much less attention.
 
And it is the job of mass media in this country to keep you alarmed and in fear so that you will stay in line with the rest of the sheeple, toeing one of the 2 party lines, and dependent on The System...
 
There are lots of thieves out there. The worst ones are the ones stealing the money we make before we even see it, and "redistributing" it to others "who need it more". Only after, of course, they have taken a major part of it for themselves and/or their agendas. Give me a fscking break.

Re:Hey! That's my MacBook

[noidentity]

I read that as "We will admit to no more than 300 TSA employees allowing themselves to be found out so far."

Re:Hey! That's my MacBook

[Teun]

Hmm, I read: "Less than three hundred thieves have been caught".

Re:Hey! That's my MacBook

[naoursla]

A post above comments that "over 100,000 laptops were "lost or stolen" within the realm of airline travel".

If only 300 people have been caught stealing then on average it takes 33 laptops to be caught or there are a lot more thieves who haven't been caught.

Using a simple bias from the article that the average thief steals 31 laptops, then that number might not be too far off.

But if this is a particularly egregious instance then there are still a lot of thieves in the TSA's employment.

Re:Hey! That's my MacBook

[tiananmen tank man]

"CLOSE TO THREE HUNDRED EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN _CAUGHT_ FOR THEFT!"

There, I fixed that for you. .... Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING

Re:Hey! That's my MacBook

[winwar]

Which is impressive considering they are federal civil service....

Re:Hey! That's my MacBook

[thbb]

One could add:

Knowing that, on average, only 1 theft out of 10 gets caught (average resolution rate for reported petty crimes), that might make around 3000 people, or 8% of the workforce who commit occasional theft...

Re:Hey! That's my MacBook

[TheRaven64]

How many major airports are there in the USA? Less than six per state? If so, that means that there is close to a 100% chance that your luggage will be accessible to two thieves while travelling by air.

Re:Hey! That's my MacBook

[scot4875]

There are lots of thieves out there. The worst ones are the ones stealing the money we make before we even see it, and "redistributing" it to others "who need it more". Only after, of course, they have taken a major part of it for themselves and/or their agendas. Give me a fscking break.

Good job not toeing a line with alarmist rhetoric, there.

--Jeremy

The best part...

[Shados]

The best part of the article is near the end. Something along the line of "Don't worrie, crimes like these are REALLY rare. Only about 300 TSA employees have ever been fired for theft".

300 employees fired for theft. If you read the article (i know, i know...) the only reason this guy got caught was because he's a retard (putting his return address on the stuff he sells, always using the same name on ebay, etc). So if 300 were caught, there's probably several times that many. Then you add that the TSA has like 40-45 thousand employees... and that adds up to 2/3rd of a percent of their total workforce (of course, the 300 figure is over time, but its still interesting to put the numbers in perspective).

Thats just insane. It takes only one person to steal enough to really ruins some people's days. And here you have -hundreds- (just the ones that were caught!!!). I'll suffer through GreyHound busses, thank you.

Re:The best part...

[TheLink]

To me it's more a sign of the bosses at the top not bothering.

Because if you get complaints about missing stuff, you look at the video tapes. If you don't want the luggage owners to watch your staff (there might be good reasons for that - logistics, speed etc), you can always have video cameras watch your staff, the honest ones might actually want to be watched while opening bags so that they can prove they didn't steal stuff. And if you get blown to pieces whilst opening a bag, it'll be good for others to know whose bag it was, and other details.

If the cameras don't catch the culprit (they're not everywhere in the path), you rotate your staff and if the stats change, you can start to narrow down who might be crooked. Of course the crooks could realize you're getting close and steal less (or totally stop), that of course does reduce the problem.

Same goes for finding out who has been taking bribes or doing naughty stuff.

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[Archon-X]

I previously read on /. a method of shipping your camera gear safely.

A reader had said he'd purchased a larger aluminum suitcase / roadcase, with foam cutouts for his camera gear, and a flare gun.

Upon arriving at the airport, he'd declare he had a weapon, and check the suitcase as a weapon. It got stored, handled and inspected differently, and he never had any loses.

Seems to make sense to me...

Re:The guy did a great job of keeping our kids saf

[Idiomatick]

Imagine all the terrorist activities that could be planned with 31 laptops.

Imagine all the terrorist planning and setup that could be done with 20 cell phones.

Imagine all the terrorist messages and beheadings that could be filmed with 66 cameras...........
  I bet someone could write a list for the RIAA too.

Good thing this is the good ol USA, where victims

[electrogeist]

where victims of theft get 600-26000 times the actual damages these days. Right?

Oh wait, this is real hard property...

She also said that his crimes were rare and that less than 300 TSA employees have been terminated for theft.

That is not exactly an encouraging number.

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[Neoprofin]

Those usually have to be securely locked shut during flight too(at least for firearms I think), and not the little luggage locks people put between two zippers.

Slashdot..say it ain't so

[Atrox666]

How dare you criticize anything the administration does during any of the wars they fraudulently start.
If you criticize anything you're with the terrorists.
It's all being stolen for your security.
Most of that equipment could be used to access or record information that could undermine the current administration with stuff like facts.

Re:Slashdot..say it ain't so

[oddaddresstrap]

And, if you really need it that badly, you can get it back via eBay, probably for less than you paid for it in the first place!

UPS is your friend

[FranTaylor]

Swing by UPS on your way to the airport and just ship your stuff to yourself. You don't have to deal with security and it will be delivered straight to your hotel room. It might even be cheaper than checking it.

Re:UPS is your friend

[green1]

of course if you pick express overnight guaranteed by 10:30am the next day, it might arrive 2 weeks later... or it might not arrive at all...

Despite airlines knack for loosing luggage, their record is still much better for me than UPS (or DHL for that matter)

Re:UPS is your friend

[FranTaylor]

If you pick express overnight guaranteed and it does not show up, get your money back. I've done it. If it does not show up at all, file a claim. I've done that, too. I have shipped hundreds of packages over the years. The success rate is over 99%. I have NEVER lost a penny shipping stuff. CYA. I HAVE has computer equipment damaged and destroyed (never stolen) in checked baggage.

UPS might drop your package 3 feet (they specify this explicitly), but the airline might drop your bag out of the plane onto the tarmac. Ouch.

Re:UPS is your friend

[green1]

2 weeks ago I had a car part "overnighted" friday night from nanaimo bc to ottawa ontario (both places in Canada) they "guaranteed" noon on monday, tuesday they told me it was "on time" for delivery that day (a day late) wednesday they said they "might" have lots the package, but that it would take 8 days to check...
Thursday, desperate for the part as I was stranded at the other end of the country until it arrived I had a replacement sent, this time guaranteed by 10:30am friday (but UPS insisted I had to pay again) both parts arrived on friday at 10:28am.

UPS charged full price both times and refuses to reimburse even the shipping cost on either part (let alone my hotel bills and other expenses) because both arrived, even if it took 7 days for their "next day early morning" service.

Their guarantee is essentially meaningless.

Re:UPS is your friend

[FranTaylor]

They have a dispute resolution process, I'd suggest you get on it.

I have never had a problem getting reimbursed for late UPS shipments. All I've ever had to do is present the receipts and they've put the money back on my credit card on the spot.

Re:UPS is your friend

[T-Bucket]

... but the airline might drop your bag out of the plane onto the tarmac. Ouch.

MIGHT? I hate to tell you, but at Washington Dulles, that's how they unload the planes at the RJ gates. They boost one of the non-english-speaking rampers up into the cargo bin and summarily chuck all the luggage out onto the pavement. (This is, of course, because they're too dumb to figure out how to connect a belt-loader most of the time).

Is this news?

[Goaty66]

I've always just assumed that anything I checked would be up for grabs. Has anyone been outside recently? This is the world we live in. It's only going to get worse. Next they'll just be randomly shooting passengers in the head, purely as a preventative measure.

Re:Is this news?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Britain - always one step ahead of the curve!

Homeland security....

[3seas]

... sorry but this shit just ain't acceptable.

Its another of a long and growing list of government abuses that are easily amounting to be worse than the terrorism its supposed to be protecting us from.

"Those who sacrifice freedom in exchange for security, will have neither."

who said that?

Re:Homeland security....

[spiffmastercow]

... sorry but this shit just ain't acceptable.

Its another of a long and growing list of government abuses that are easily amounting to be worse than the terrorism its supposed to be protecting us from.

"Those who sacrifice freedom in exchange for security, will have neither."

who said that?

From wikiquotes:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

• The first variant was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly. See Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin. [1]
• The second variant was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) This book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts.[2]
• A variant by Franklin: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." (Poor Richard's Almanack, 1738)
• This saying has appeared in many paraphrases:
  • "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
    "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
    "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
    "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
    "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
    "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."
    "Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither."

Re:Homeland security....

[danzona]

who said that?

The following is attributed to Ben Franklin:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Your question may have been rhetorical, but I wanted to put the real quote in because while your paraphrasing (which is very common) correctly says that trading freedom (essential liberty) for security (temporary safety) doesn't work, it leaves out the part about people who try to trade freedom for security don't deserve the freedom or security they've been given. Which I think is the more powerful half of the quote.

This is what happens

[kilodelta]

When you pay people roughly minimum wage to run security.

You don't exactly get the best people and you get the opportunity for theft.

That said, my electronics NEVER get checked. They go through the x-ray machine where I can keep a fairly good eye on them.

Re:This is what happens

[dbcad7]

I think it's closer to $15 per hour.. not the best, but not a terrible wage...

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=United_States_Transportation_Security_Administration_(TSA)/Salary

Re:This is what happens

[zippthorne]

Except, they're not being paid minimum.

The problem is actually quite similar to the education problem: we don't seem to be able to improve their efficiency through the use of machines very much. Possibly gains we do make are being eaten up by mission creep.

But anyway, that's the real problem: we "need" a lot of them, an significant portion of the working population, just to poke people's bags. If you had t ask me to pick a cause of our current economic difficulties, I'd put some serious thought into "giant govenment agency that doesn't actually produce a single bit of wealth" over "people who work hard, but payed too much for a house."

mod parent insightful

[unity100]

you know it is.

Any word on it being returned?

[sethstorm]

That would certainly make for a lot of cases of adverse possession

He may not be the only one going to prison if the buyers aren't returning it.

Look at the numbers!

[JambisJubilee]

From TFA:

465 transportation security officers have been terminated for theft since May 1, 2003

Does anyone find this a little extreme? That's a little over one firing for theft every 4 days!

Makes one wonder...

Re:Look at the numbers!

[Racemaniac]

frankly, a number like 465 tells nothing
465 out of how many employees?
i want to se a percentage, that tells a LOT more

Re:Look at the numbers!

[WTF Chuck]

Not the total number of employees, but the number of employees that have access to checked baggage. I don't care about adding the office/admin types to the tally to make the problem seem less than it actually is. Another interesting number would be how many airports have had TSA goons fired for theft.

Who still CHECKS valuables?

[phillymjs]

I have never trusted baggage handlers. The only stuff that has ever gone in my checked bag is clothes and toiletries, and I still put a TSA lock on it (and a zip tie, so I'll know at a glance if it's been opened).

Anything of any value at all gets carried on with me, especially small electronic items. I just don't understand these people who will put valuables in checked bags-- especially items small enough to be carried on.

~Philly

I'm applying for a job at the TSA!

[MillionthMonkey]

I'm going to specifically ask during the interview if I can be put in charge of the "un-witnessed searches".

Hey has anyone...

[solweil]

asked "who watches the watchers" yet?

Re:Hey has anyone...

[Henneshoe]

More like "Whose watches do the watchers get?"

Get back in line, citizen

[gelfling]

Unless you'd like a room at the Hotel Gitmo.

Re:Let me say this: I am shocken, truly SHOCKED, .

[flipperdo]

I'm surprised that you're shocked that there might be people who find this surprising. People are often surprised by things which, if they just stood back and looked at the bigger picture, shouldn't be surprising at all.

But if anyone's shocked that I'm surprised, I wouldn't find that surprising --- I'd be astonished!

Can't say I'm surprised...

[EaglemanBSA]

I was traveling through Cincinnati Int'l, where you have to go through security to get out of the airport (which is dumb as hell) - I speak french, and had just arrived from Paris. I witnessed firsthand a TSA employee trying to wrongfully take something from a person who clearly didn't speak English, and the employee was taking advantage of this - it wasn't until I intervened and demanded a supervisor come before the agent let up.

What the fuck is up with this?? If this is SOP for Security Theater, the sooner the TSA and DHS fall apart, the better.

Re:Can't say I'm surprised...

[IndustrialComplex]

It won't fall apart because it "can't" be allowed to fall apart. Granted I would love to see it fixed, but I doubt that will happen. Your elected leaders will explain how more funding is necessary because what they have going now just isn't working. So throw more money at it till it does work, or until no more terrorists are flying because no one is flying.

Either or.

But falling apart? That's just wishful thinking.

BOINC

[Inquisitor911]

He should've at least used the stolen laptops to run BOINC projects, that insensitive clod!

TSA

[Registered Coward v2]

Taking Stuff from Airtravelers

I feel so safe!

[SL Baur]

Thank God we have the TSA watching over us to keep us safe!

(I've had stuff stolen out of my bags by TSA, sigh)

Oh the irony

[xRelisH]

Quoting the TSA:
The actions of a few individuals in no way reflect on the outstanding job our more than 43,000 security officers do every day to ensure the security of the traveling public," she said.

I'm of South Asian ethnicity and have a few Middle Eastern friends. We're all used to getting the secondary protocol at the airport due to our last names. Funny how they say a few bad TSA employees shouldn't reflect upon the other employees, yet they treat anyone with a brown shade of skin as a criminal.

Re:Oh the irony

[bendodge]

Hmm, that's funny. I have a friend who was born in Pakistan, and he said he always breezes through security with no problems. (If they were to bother him they would be profiling.)

Re:Oh the irony

[gabrieltss]

We are ALL Suspected Terrorists. The color of your skin or last name doesn't matter one bit! Everyone no matter your color of skin are all treated like terrorists. I refuse to fly anymore because of that kind of treatment and my skin is WHITE and I'm a U.S. Military Vetern. F@#$ the TSA, F@#$ Homeland Security, F@#$ the airlines!

what's even better is...

[Khyber]

One of those cameras belonged to CNN. I dare them to defend the TSA after that shit.

Receiving Stolen Goods

[Somegeek]

His ebay account is still visible, and there are hundreds of sales listed over the last year. I assume that it all gets confiscated from the buyers? Do they face criminal charges for receiving stolen goods or are they just out the money they paid?

Re:Receiving Stolen Goods

[xant]

They'll only get criminal charges if there was intent to buy stolen goods. In other words, they would have to know it was stolen before they bought it, or not report it if they found out after they bought it.

Very hard to prove, even if they are criminal types, which they most likely are not. But yeah, they have to give that shit back.

Re:Receiving Stolen Goods

[Anonymous Cowpat]

I've never understood this - why should they be out the money that they paid? Isn't he on the hook to refund it as a matter of course?

Re:Receiving Stolen Goods

[Somegeek]

Well, in theory I would guess they could get their money back, but in practice, what are the chances that he hasn't spent it?

The real moral of the story

[ilsa]

But this summer, Brown got too ambitious for his own good, allegedly stealing a $47,900 camera from an HBO crew and a camcorder from a CNN employee, authorities said.

Steal from Joe Sixpack and Lizzy Hockeymom all you want. But don't screw with corporate media!

Re:The real moral of the story

[Leebert]

Steal from Joe Sixpack

That's Joe the Plumber. Try to keep up. :)

Re:The real moral of the story

[RubberChainsaw]

Yeah, I read it the same way as you did, at first. No investigations until big business got hurt. But then I realized why that makes sense. Most personal users don't record the serial number of their devices, the way businesses do. Businesses will also hold their employees personally liable for the loss, so there is added incentive to show that it really was a TSA agent who swiped the camera.

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[Ghubi]

How appropriate. Cameras ARE weapons. The pen being mightier than the sword and the picture worth 1000 words.

Cameras in the inspection area

[John Jorsett]

If I were in charge of things, there'd be security cameras recording the inspectors. Also, each inspector who opened a bag would be required to stamp his/her identity number on a tag affixed to the bag. If anything was reported missing, those inspectors would be the first ones looked at, particularly if their id number shows up on a lot of bags with missing items.

Re:Cameras in the inspection area

[Detritus]

One solution is to do all inspections in a quarantine zone, where you aren't allowed to take anything in or out, besides your uniform and a security badge. Issue them coveralls with no pockets.

Re:Cameras in the inspection area

[John Jorsett]

I doubt the inspectors would stamp the bags they stole from. I know they're stupid, but not many can be that stupid.

You'd do complete or spot checks on bags as they're leaving the inspection area. If a bag shows up that has no stamp, time to go to the videotape to see who handled it.

Re:Cameras in the inspection area

[photomonkey]

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

You put WAYYY too much thought into that. This is a gub'ment operation. Nothing could be THAT well deployed.

Re:Cameras in the inspection area

[mdielmann]

One solution is to do all inspections in a quarantine zone, where you aren't allowed to take anything in or out, besides your uniform and a security badge. Issue them coveralls with no pockets.

And make the coveralls orange. We need these people clearly identified.

Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[BenEnglishAtHome]

We weren't prevented from locking our baggage until a few years ago.

You're not prevented from locking your luggage. The TSA doesn't want you to lock your luggage because they're searching it after you check it. Therefore, locking it makes it difficult for them. However, if you lock it, they'll deal with it. You might not like the way they deal with it, but they'll deal with it and you've broken no law by locking your luggage. TSA does offer a compromise; you can use one of those locks they have keys to. It's not foolproof; there have been lots of reports of those locks being destroyed. However, it's worth a shot.

Some of us have been forced to learn the ins and outs of this crap in more detail than we wish. If, like me, you travel with firearms, you'll learn that the FAA is statutorily in charge of what can and can't be checked and the TSA can't order me to do anything that violates FAA regs. FAA regs mandate that luggage with firearms must be locked. Period.

There are some tips and tricks for dealing with this situation but they're beyond the scope of this discussion. My point is simply that it's incorrect to say that we're "prevented" from locking our baggage. We most assuredly are not.

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[drawfour]

So you can lock your luggage. They will either:

1. Cut the lock off
2. Open the lock because they have a key

In both cases, the result is the luggage is now open and they can steal any property they wish.

Previously, when we could lock the luggage and it would REMAIN locked, we could be assured our stuff would not be stolen. We no longer have that assurance, whether we lock our luggage or not. That's the point the GPP was making...

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[booyabazooka]

TSA does offer a compromise; you can use one of those locks they have keys to.

You realize this is a discussion about theft by TSA personnel, right?

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[Blackjack Joe]

I use a TSA openable lock on one of my bags, but pretty much limit what is in that bag to clothing and other stuff of low interest to anyone looking to steal something. My computer, cameras, and phone are in my carryon bags when I travel. My flying since all this started has seriously decreased. I have a trip coming up next month from the San Francisco area to Anaheim, and years ago I probably would have flown instead of what I'm going to do, drive.

The only flight I'm making this year is from the SF area to Orlando, FL.

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[dontmakemethink]

Some of us have been forced to learn the ins and outs of this crap in more detail than we wish. If, like me, you travel with firearms, you'll learn that the FAA is statutorily in charge of what can and can't be checked and the TSA can't order me to do anything that violates FAA regs. FAA regs mandate that luggage with firearms must be locked. Period.

So the best way to sneak a bomb onto an airplane is to check it and declare that it's a firearm? Does anyone think about these rules before they're instituted?

And I protest every post advocating firearms. Traveling with them is even more unreasonable. Traveling by plane is bad enough without gun-toting pinheads wandering airports (apart from the TSA pinheads).

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[i.r.id10t]

Well, no they can't at least when traveling with a firearm. You get to have real locks, the bag(s) are inspected in front of you, and you lock 'em. They also can't label it as having a firearm in it, in plain English or in a code/symbol/special tag, other than the bag has been cleared.

And any firearm will do. For under $100, you can get the action (serial numbered part, the part BATFE says is the gun) for a single shot shotgun - you don't need to keep the stock, barrel, etc. attached. You can put it in a camera sized case, locked, and put that in your regular luggage, also locked with a proper lock. Check in, tell them you need to declare a firearm (helps to have your airlines policies printed out, as well as the FAA and BATFE regs), get it checked, adn life is good.

Best part is getting to watch the look on the luggage guys face if your stuff doesn't show up or has been opened. Amazing what the phrase "Will you call the BATFE, or do I need to?" will do.

Of course, this doesn't help with international travel, but for domestic it works like a champ.

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[nedlohs]

That "Best part" bit king of indicates it doesn't work so well after all.

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[sleigher]

Vote yes on 1A and maybe you can take the train next time......

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[Blackjack Joe]

Although from what I've read about train service on the East Coast, getting on the train might end up being as much a hassle with its version of TSA as flying.

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[analogueblue]

Not true. At least not everywhere.

I flew with a .45 a few months ago. I locked the gun-case with MY lock, but was told I HAD to use a TSA lock for my suitcase.

Since they don't mark the luggage as containing a firearm, any non-TSA lock on it, is just as likely to be cut off by the TSA as any other piece of luggage.

You could store your valuables inside the gun case itself I suppose....

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[kd5zex]

And I protest every post advocating firearms. Traveling with them is even more unreasonable. Traveling by plane is bad enough without gun-toting pinheads wandering airports (apart from the TSA pinheads).

Oh please, get off it. I travel with firearms regularly and the only time this gun-toting pinhead wanders about the airport with a firearm is during the time before checking baggage. It would be great if I were allowed to carry my pistol behind security and on board, you know, to even the odds a bit. It irks me to no end how people believe a normal person who takes a few classes, shoots a marginal qualification score and obtains a badge or other law enforcement commission is somehow different from a "ordinary" person and is superior or more qualified to carry a weapon.

For the record my firearms have not killed any random people and they have not attempted to maim or kill me. But you never know, I do own assault weapons and high capacity magazines. :o

I protest every post protesting the advocating of firearms. If you don't like firearms more power to you, but your irrational fears should not dictate my life.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"
Sigmund Freud

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[dondelelcaro]

You're not prevented from locking your luggage.

If you want to lock your luggage, the way to do it is to purchase yourself a starter pistol. By all (or at least most?) state's gun control laws, a starter pistol doesn't require registration, but TSA requires it to be locked in a hard case in the presence of the luggage's owner, and they don't use the stupid "special key openable locks."

Otherwise, don't bother to put anything in your luggage that you don't want to disappear.

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[jonwil]

The way around that is to buy a large hard sided metal case (big enough for all your crap) thats strong enough to legally count as a gun case for TSA/goverment purposes and put everything in there.

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[NtroP]

And I protest every post advocating firearms. Traveling with them is even more unreasonable. Traveling by plane is bad enough without gun-toting pinheads wandering airports (apart from the TSA pinheads).

Oh please, get off it. I travel with firearms regularly and the only time this gun-toting pinhead wanders about the airport with a firearm is during the time before checking baggage. It would be great if I were allowed to carry my pistol behind security and on board, you know, to even the odds a bit. It irks me to no end how people believe a normal person who takes a few classes, shoots a marginal qualification score and obtains a badge or other law enforcement commission is somehow different from a "ordinary" person and is superior or more qualified to carry a weapon. For the record my firearms have not killed any random people and they have not attempted to maim or kill me. But you never know, I do own assault weapons and high capacity magazines. :o I protest every post protesting the advocating of firearms. If you don't like firearms more power to you, but your irrational fears should not dictate my life. "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" Sigmund Freud

Amen brother!!!

As a former police officer all I can say is I agree with you 100%. I pack to exercise my rights as much as to protect myself and my family. It is incumbent on the *citizens* of this great country to ensure that the government understands, in no uncertain terms, that it serves *US*, not the other way around.

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[atraintocry]

I've only ever taken the Metro-North but in my limited experience, there's no such thing as a "train TSA". Smaller stations don't even have people working at them.

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[TheRaven64]

So, what were you doing with your gun when the government was taking away your other rights?

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[Blimey85]

A couple weeks ago I drove from San Fran to Orlando and it was a really great trip. Only lasted a week so it was much too short, but all of my trips seem to be like that. I drove not because I hate air travel, although it's going in that direction for me, but because I was moving here and needed to get my car here. That said, some of my family did fly and it wasn't without it's problems. My sister was shot several years back and has pellets in her neck. These set off the detector and she, my mom, and my daughter were all patted down because of it. My sister explained why it was going off, you can see a couple of the pellets right below the skin, the wand only went off in that area, yet they were still detained? And why my mom and daughter? They didn't set off the detector.

No matter what they do, they'll never be able to ensure 100% safety on flights. Every so often you hear about some test of the system where bombs or guns or whatever were brought onto a plane. The system does not work the way it is and any attempts to fix it will ultimately fail. So why can't we just go back to a quick screening and get on the damn plane? I think a bigger threat to our safety is the economy. Companies are going to cut corners on maintaining the planes and there rate of incidence is going to go up. The current state of things is pretty silly. It's like how we can't put anything heavy in the mail box because one guy, a guy they captured, sent bombs through the mail. I'm sure if you really wanted to you could make a powerful bomb that is under the current weight limit. All this regulation does is make sending mail harder for the rest of us, or at least those routinely sending items that weight more than however many ounces the limit is.

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[j-beda]

That's pretty nifty. I wonder if that is the minimal piece of hardware that falls under this regulation? Do you need a license to carry it in various states and cities?

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[NtroP]

So, what were you doing with your gun when the government was taking away your other rights?

1. Moving Box
2. Soap Box
3. Ballot Box
4. Jury Box
5. Ammo Box

In that order. I'm between of Ballot Box and Jury Box now. We'll see where it leads from there...

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[Blackjack Joe]

I've only ever taken the Metro-North but in my limited experience, there's no such thing as a "train TSA". Smaller stations don't even have people working at them

I believe what I had read about was at Amtrack Stations, and might not have been everyone of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if we had some sort of security checkpoints before boarding the high-speed train to/from Northern and Southern California.

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[i.r.id10t]

As far as BATFE is concerned, the serial numbered receiver is the gun. As bad as laws are in some states/counties/cities, I don't believe any of them have any restrictions on a single shot shotgun/rifle, especially if it is in non-functioning condition (no barrel, etc. Take just the action)

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[dontmakemethink]

Oh please, get off it. I travel with firearms regularly and the only time this gun-toting pinhead wanders about the airport with a firearm is during the time before checking baggage.

Well duh, I didn't expect you tried to sneak it past security. Believe me I resent the TSA gun-toting pinheads as much as unqualified "ordinary" people such as yourself.

I protest every post protesting the advocating of firearms. If you don't like firearms more power to you, but your irrational fears should not dictate my life. "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" -Sigmund Freud

Who said anything about fear? It's the arguments for guns are completely paranoid, i.e. "I'm gonna get mugged if I don't carry a gun!" or "If we can't have guns the government will enslave us!" These issues are least prevalent where there are the least number of guns on the street.

Meanwhile the argument against guns is very logical and statistical. There are several insurance structures that effectively hold law enforcement accountable for the violent crime within their jurisdiction, so the criminal justice system can focus on criminals, and not "ordinary" gun-toting pinheads shooting would-be muggers.

Specifically, you strike me as the sort that would rather shoot someone just because you have the legal right to self-defense, even if it means a lengthy manslaughter trial, rather than just cough up your wallet to a mugger and cancel/replace your plastic. That is an unreasonable bloodlust that I'm sure Sigmund would have an unflattering phallic anecdote for too.

Now I bet you're thinking if you and I were in an alley, you'd rather be the guy with the gun. Well in my neck of the woods you'd get two years in provincial jail, with all the bitch-talking hacks as well as hard-asses awaiting federal sentences, just for bringing the gun to the alley. I'd rather take a bullet than do that time.

That's part of how a gun-free system can work and save 10,000 deaths from gunfire annually in the US alone. Remember that, a vote for guns is a vote for 10,000 deaths. That's more than 3x 9/11 every year. Maybe once one of them is a loved one you'll wisen up.

Mod me flaimbait all you want, the numbers speak for themselves.

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[dontmakemethink]

So, what were you doing with your gun when the government was taking away your other rights?

1. Moving Box
2. Soap Box
3. Ballot Box
4. Jury Box
5. Ammo Box

In that order. I'm between of Ballot Box and Jury Box now. We'll see where it leads from there...

So why do you "pack" for steps 1 through 4? Isn't the whole point of those to make sure you don't have to resort to 5?

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[kd5zex]

Well duh, I didn't expect you tried to sneak it past security. Believe me I resent the TSA gun-toting pinheads as much as unqualified "ordinary" people such as yourself.

Good, glad to hear it.

Who said anything about fear? It's the arguments for guns are completely paranoid, i.e. "I'm gonna get mugged if I don't carry a gun!" or "If we can't have guns the government will enslave us!" These issues are least prevalent where there are the least number of guns on the street.

It is more like, "If I get mugged I would like to be in a position to protect myself and / or my family. Or, "If I am disarmed then I am less capable of defending myself against an enemy, foreign or domestic." Call it paranoia if you must, I learned it in the Boy Scouts. Be Prepared.

Oh, for heavens sake what am I talking about? It's not like anyone has ever been killed over a little cash or a tyrannical government has systematically killed its constituents.

Meanwhile the argument against guns is very logical and statistical. There are several insurance structures that effectively hold law enforcement accountable for the violent crime within their jurisdiction, so the criminal justice system can focus on criminals, and not "ordinary" gun-toting pinheads shooting would-be muggers.

I am not completely sure of your point here, the cases of self defense are usually clear cut and have short, if any, trials. How is law enforcement held accountable? Quotas? Bonuses? Higher insurance premiums? What happens if you happen to be a victim of violence, do they pay your family? Not sure about you but my family would rather have me around than any sum of money.

Specifically, you strike me as the sort that would rather shoot someone just because you have the legal right to self-defense, even if it means a lengthy manslaughter trial, rather than just cough up your wallet to a mugger and cancel/replace your plastic. That is an unreasonable bloodlust that I'm sure Sigmund would have an unflattering phallic anecdote for too.

Perhaps you should get to know someone a little better before passing judgment. I do not want to shoot anyone, and I truly do hope nobody ever puts me in that position. We are talking about the preservation of life, not possessions. You mistake bloodlust for the will to stay alive. How someone loses that instinct is beyond me.

Now I bet you're thinking if you and I were in an alley, you'd rather be the guy with the gun. Well in my neck of the woods you'd get two years in provincial jail, with all the bitch-talking hacks as well as hard-asses awaiting federal sentences, just for bringing the gun to the alley. I'd rather take a bullet than do that time.

I am sorry you feel that way, I for one enjoy my rights and want to stay alive to see my children grow up. Let me know where your neck of the woods is so I can be sure never to go there.

That's part of how a gun-free system can work and save 10,000 deaths from gunfire annually in the US alone. Remember that, a vote for guns is a vote for 10,000 deaths. That's more than 3x 9/11 every year.

You seem to be very concerned about saving lives, what about mine? What about my children? Think of the children. ;) I prefer to be mostly self-sufficient, the police are not around to protect me and could not do so even if they were. I enjoy shooting as recreation and have been doing so for most of my life. The irresponsibility of some punk should not dictate my activities.

You know, lots of people are killed in car accidents daily, perhaps we should ban them. Or limit cars to 35 miles per hour, that would save a bunch of lives. While we are at it, ban alcohol too, that stuff is bad and we shouldn't be trusted with such dangerous items.

Mayb

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[NtroP]

So, what were you doing with your gun when the government was taking away your other rights?

1. Moving Box
2. Soap Box
3. Ballot Box
4. Jury Box
5. Ammo Box

In that order. I'm between of Ballot Box and Jury Box now. We'll see where it leads from there...

So why do you "pack" for steps 1 through 4? Isn't the whole point of those to make sure you don't have to resort to 5?

If I don't exercise my right to pack for 1-4, I won't have it when it becomes time for 5.

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[dontmakemethink]

It is more like, "If I get mugged I would like to be in a position to protect myself and / or my family. Or, "If I am disarmed then I am less capable of defending myself against an enemy, foreign or domestic." Call it paranoia if you must, I learned it in the Boy Scouts. Be Prepared.

That's like saying you should wear a fireman's suit all the time in case the building you're in catches fire. Packing iron is just as extreme. My interpretation of someone carrying a gun is that they want to live unreasonably and be "prepared" when life catches up with them.

How is law enforcement held accountable? Quotas? Bonuses? Higher insurance premiums?

Insurance holds law enforcement accountable by higher premiums to their municipal government (city/town/county etc). If crime gets out of hand, the municipality is faced with a prohibitively high rate increase, and must either shape up or pack up. State and federal governments share in the responsibility and lend their support as needed. If law enforcement becomes ineffective, the economic pressure sorts things out.

What happens if you happen to be a victim of violence, do they pay your family? Not sure about you but my family would rather have me around than any sum of money.

There are services available to victims of crime, more than just financial support, obviously no replacement for not having been victimized in the first place. But more importantly you should know it's your children that are more likely to be victims of gun-related violence. The age at which murderers are most likely to use a gun is 17. Guess what age group they're shooting at. Are you then going to send your kids to school packing? Of course not. You shouldn't carry a gun either FOR THE EXACT SAME REASONS.

Perhaps you should get to know someone a little better before passing judgment. I do not want to shoot anyone, and I truly do hope nobody ever puts me in that position. We are talking about the preservation of life, not possessions.

I don't buy it. A reasonable reaction for when someone believes their way of life could lead them into mortal danger is to change their way of life to avoid such a situation. By arming yourself, you knowingly accept the risk and in fact add to it by doing so. Your family comes along for the ride, and are more likely to be victims that you.

You mistake bloodlust for the will to stay alive. How someone loses that instinct is beyond me.

You're going to have to speak up, the families of the 30 people who were killed in the US by guns since my last post didn't quite hear you.

You seem to be very concerned about saving lives, what about mine? What about my children? Think of the children. ;) I prefer to be mostly self-sufficient, the police are not around to protect me and could not do so even if they were. I enjoy shooting as recreation and have been doing so for most of my life. The irresponsibility of some punk should not dictate my activities.

As I wrote above, I think mostly of the children. Your life is in far less danger than theirs, mostly because you're raising them to embrace this gun-dependent lifestyle.

You know, lots of people are killed in car accidents daily, perhaps we should ban them. Or limit cars to 35 miles per hour, that would save a bunch of lives. While we are at it, ban alcohol too, that stuff is bad and we shouldn't be trusted with such dangerous items.

Now we see the wealth of rationale behind your other arguments. Virtually all car-related deaths are accidental. Just a minor distinction...

But that being said, I don't react to the risks of driving by buying the safest car and driving irrationally, I drive responsibly and avoid risky situations. There are a few highways I don't even use because of the reckless drivers that frequent them. That

Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage.

[kd5zex]

We should get one thing straight before going any further as it will nullify most of your arguments. You seem to be convinced that I am a drug user / dealer, burglar, bank robber, gang member or similar. I can assure you this is not the case. My day typically consists of work, home, the drive between the two and an occasional trip to the grocery store. About once a month I travel for work for a week or two at a time and I occasionally have a beer or two. Pretty wild, eh? Not sure what could be considered unreasonable or risky but everyone is different.

That's like saying you should wear a fireman's suit all the time in case the building you're in catches fire. Packing iron is just as extreme. My interpretation of someone carrying a gun is that they want to live unreasonably and be "prepared" when life catches up with them.

It's more like wearing a seat belt whilst driving. Most buildings must meet fire codes and they generally have fire extinguishers, alarms and escape routes. Life does not come with an alarm system and escape is not always an option when someone wants to take your life.

It is obvious you have not consumed as much Mountain Dew as I have because we have wildly different ideas of extreme.

See above. Your interpretation is a fallacy and you should do further research.

Insurance holds law enforcement accountable by higher premiums to their municipal government (city/town/county etc). If crime gets out of hand, the municipality is faced with a prohibitively high rate increase, and must either shape up or pack up. State and federal governments share in the responsibility and lend their support as needed. If law enforcement becomes ineffective, the economic pressure sorts things out.

So take money from a municipality and give it some insurance company? Sounds great. Where do they pack up to? Does the town becomes a ghost town? Please provide a citation for this program that seems to be working so well for Canada opposed to the gun ridden streets of the United States.

There are services available to victims of crime, more than just financial support, obviously no replacement for not having been victimized in the first place. But more importantly you should know it's your children that are more likely to be victims of gun-related violence. The age at which murderers are most likely to use a gun is 17. Guess what age group they're shooting at. Are you then going to send your kids to school packing? Of course not. You shouldn't carry a gun either FOR THE EXACT SAME REASONS.

Actually, there is a school district which allows concealed handgun permit holders to carry their firearms on school grounds. There is also legislation being introduced next session to allow concealed carry on college campus If my children decide to obtain their permits when they become of age I will support them 100% and I am encouraging my school district to adopt similar policy.

There are distinct differences between myself and my children. I am an adult. I am capable of making rational decisions under duress and I have a much better dispostion than most children. Therefore, the reasons that my children should not carry a firearm to kindergarten do not apply to me. Also, you have to be 21 to obtain your permit in Texas.

I don't buy it. A reasonable reaction for when someone believes their way of life could lead them into mortal danger is to change their way of life to avoid such a situation. By arming yourself, you knowingly accept the risk and in fact add to it by doing so. Your family comes along for the ride, and are more likely to b

TSA Stolen Item Database to Identify Theft Pattern

[Somegeek]

It seems like the TSA should setup a database for all of the theft reports. It would seem like it should be fairly easy to identify time/location patterns and cross reference those with staff schedules.

That combined with some judicious ebay/craigslist surfing for missing items might stem this a lot.

That should be on top of more obvious steps such as putting some kind of tamper proof seal on the luggage at dropoff. If the TSA wants to inspect the luggage then they are only allowed to break the seal while under camera and supervision. The luggage would then need to have a new tamper proof seal applied. If a passenger receives their luggage with a broken seal then it will be obvious that theft has occurred.

Court ruling

[SlashDev]

I think this guy will get a stiff sentence, maybe not 10 years but I bet 5+. This enough should deter other TSA employees from stealing. They should put posters of this criminal at all airports to deter TSA employees.

Re:Court ruling

[Bentov]

Yea, because life sentences have stopped all murders in the US.

Re:Court ruling

[SlashDev]

Murder is a completely different crime and has no socio-economic connection, muderers can be rich, middle class or poor, murder is driven by passion, revenge, insanity and sometimes theft. On the other hand, theft 99% of the time is linked to a socio-economic class, the poor. Most TSA screners are low middle-class or just plain poor, they see all this expensive equipment that they are authorized to confiscate and can't help themselves, you don't see them sell a bottle of acne medicine on Ebay do you? When they see this poster, they will be reminded that being poor is better than being in jail, just my opinion.

Are we surprised?

[hackus]

I hope not.

The best advice you can give someone, if they are going to be encountering certain parts of our empire, that no longer have a constitutional basis, is to leave your stuff at home, or ship it to yourself.

Otherwise your valuables will be confiscated in the name of the Empire of the USA.

Do not bring stuff on board with you, or through checkout. Ship it separate.

This is nothing but a scheme to get free stuff by government employees or contractors.

It has nothing to do with keeping you safe.

-Hack

Re:Are we surprised?

[/dev/trash]

You've never shipped anything before have you? UPS and Fedex are worse.

A story....

[wickerprints]

So I have a good friend who is on the rather kinky side. Last year, he went on a trip to a certain event that involved bringing various "toys." So he packed various items into checked luggage, and went through the security screening. When he arrived at his destination and opened his luggage to unpack, he discovered a slip of paper that indicated that his suitcase had been opened by a TSA screener.

What he found remarkable was not the paper itself, but where it had been located. It was very neatly and securely wrapped around a large black rubber dildo.

The first thing that came to mind when he told me this was to ask whether he had put it in some kind of ziploc bag. (I am a big fan of storage bags.) He replied, "Why would I do that?" I then pointed out that perhaps the person who put that paper there would have chosen to "handle things differently" (gloves notwithstanding) had they given some thought as to where this object has been.

The moral of the story, my friends, is don't put anything worth stealing in your checked luggage. For example, I would never put computers or electronic equipment in checked luggage. That is like putting a giant bulls-eye on your stuff, saying, "STEAL ME." And sometimes, putting something a little...distasteful might even help prevent stealing. I imagine the TSA screener wasn't about to abscond with an already-used (though clean, my friend claimed) sex toy.

Re:A story....

[/dev/trash]

Was this at the 31 flavors?

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[KingKiki217]

Because it isn't as scary as a real gun, I would guess. It may also be cheaper.

No man may buy or sell ...

[CustomDesigned]

Rev 13:16-17 He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

Why do we keep voting for the lizards? There are two small subtle things to push:

1) Restore the US house of representatives to 1 per 40000 or so citizens - as was the case until 1910, when they fixed the number at 435, which is 1 per 700000 or so at present.

2) Push for approval voting (vote for up to N) at the local level (already in place in many places) and ultimately for the election of electors, senators, and representatives. Plurality voting locks in a two party system and keeps the lizards in power. We've lost sight of the fact that the people in Washington are supposed to be *state* politicians whose job is to represent the state in Washington.

Yeah, well that's a problem, isn't it?

[PingXao]

I maintain that for every initiative where the police or the government want to increase their powers of surveillance of the people, the people should put DOUBLE the amount of surveillance right back on the government. IMO webcams should be installed in every TSA location where bags are inspected and searched, and those webcams should be available for view on the public internet. The owners of the luggage remain anonymous while the names of the inspectors on duty should be in plain view and updated in real time as the shifts change.

Re:Yeah, well that's a problem, isn't it?

[/dev/trash]

Yeah good luck with that one.

It's much simpler than that...

[Joce640k]

Why is any TSA employee allowed to leave the baggage area with a laptop under his arm?

Search the employees on the way out, problem solved.

Re:It's much simpler than that...

[mabhatter654]

whoa there partner!!!!

Our security folk are irreproachable heroes.. why should we put more stress on them doing such patriotic work?

Re:It's much simpler than that...

[zobier]

They could re-pack shit into their accomplice's baggage.

Re:It's much simpler than that...

[Hokie06]

My thoughts exactly. When I worked for UPS in high school loading trucks we had to go through security entering and exiting. Any bag you brought in or out was searched.

Why can't they do something like that or at least have video cameras in the search area?

But that is why the only electronic items I put in my suitcase in an electric razor and occasionally my cell phone charger.

Re:It's much simpler than that...

[Fred_A]

He'll just say that he came with his laptop for a little WoW during his break (never mind that the laptop runs Linux which he's never seen before). It'll work like a charm.

Re:It's much simpler than that...

[mxs]

And who searches the TSA-searching searchers ?

Re:It's much simpler than that...

[Blimey85]

Wouldn't work. People tend to make friends at work. Friends tend to help each other. "Hey, I'm going to snag a pair of laptops this weekend and you can have whichever one you like if you'll let me through the checkpoint" Or in this situation you could even take orders from your coworkers. Ask them what kind of laptop they want or camera or whatever. Personally, I'd like a shiny new top-of-the-line Nikon but I wouldn't take one from work. Would I turn a blind eye for someone else? Most likely because in this economy I wouldn't want to lose my job and if more than one person is in on it, even if they all got fired I'd be known as the guy who got them fired and it would be a crap place to work from then on. So I wouldn't partake, but I wouldn't do anything about it either. Thankfully I'm self-employed so it doesn't matter, but my point remains. Simply instituting searches on the way out won't work. Not even if you have cameras because nearly anything you put in place can be avoided or circumvented.

In this case the guy had $200,000 worth of merchandise. That's sufficient motivation to put some time and effort into circumventing your searches, videotapings, or whatever else you come up with.

On the other hand, what if we used prison labor and they weren't allowed to leave after the shift? I could see them maybe swiping something and taking it back to their cell, but routine sweeps of the cells would help curtail that. I hear politicians talking about how we need more prisons, here's our chance. lol

Re:It's much simpler than that...

[halcyon1234]

Why is any TSA employee allowed to leave the baggage area with a laptop under his arm?

He isn't leaving with a laptop. He's leaving with a laptop and a digital camera. He gives the digital camera to the "supervisor" doing the searches, and then leaves the Search Area with a laptop under his arm.

And if you put someone in charge of watching the watchers, the first employee will be leaving the baggage area with a laptop, a digital camera, and an mp3 player...

Re:It's much simpler than that...

[krkoch]

But who will search the searchers?

Enough is enough...

[advocate_one]

when are you lot gonna do something about this crap??? It's about time you all got uppity and refused to travel... a few days without revenue should soon get the airlines banging on congress's door to get the TSA reigned in...

Re:Enough is enough...

[/dev/trash]

Nov. 4th. I'm voting for the answer to all of this. Bob Barr '08.

I feel so much safer the TSA is on the job

[Dan667]

To bad you cannot take an airline that does not need to use the TSA and just risk it. Regular airlines would go out of business in a week if you could.

Smugly Pointing This Out On Your Next Flight

[Greyfox]

Will likely get you a free body cavity search. Such agencies don't like you pointing out their corruption, have unlimited power to do anything to you and pretty much no oversight. Sure a small player might get caught every once in a while, but it's not going to stop the abuses. Even Congressmen have run afoul of the TSA and even they seem powerless to change the status quo.

Loss Prevention

[duplo1]

TSA should be forced to implement a loss prevention program at each airport. Screeners would only be permitted to inspect checked luggage in a highly monitored area. Companies like SAIC could then sell them a centralized video monitoring service to oversee the inspections and report suspicious behavior. Corporate taxes should foot the bill and then make some money back on the service.

Re:Loss Prevention

[/dev/trash]

Um. You do know what the TSA is tasked with preventing right?

Re:Loss Prevention

[mabhatter654]

what happens when disgruntled air travelers start threatening the staff that's stealing stuff? Shouldn't we prevent that NOW by not allowing them to steal stuff?

From personal experience

[angrytuna]

I had an Airport Express go missing from a bag checked at the Airport. I was flying Alaska at the time, but I'm doubtful that they were the ones that actually took it, especially based on this article. Nevertheless, I don't absolve them of responsibility - when I complained, they sent the report up to corporate so they could avoid any law hassles, and then sent me a rebate in the order of 50 bucks on the next flight, about half of what the item was worth. The justification was they have an extensive list of items that they absolve themselves of responsibility for.

Lesson learned. I don't fly anymore if I can help it, and when I can't help it, nothing but carry on for me. I hate to be the guy that takes up the overhead space, but I need to be able to arrive without some TSA employee taking his cut of my stuff. Worst case, I'm not leaving it up to them anymore to decide if the police are informed.

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[toddestan]

I wouldn't consider that unusual at all. If I can get to somewhere by car in 8 hours, I'm not even going to consider flying. I'm not going to save any time or money by flying, and the amount of hassle and stress is far lower.

No, but...

[raehl]

You cannot waive your constitutional rights (or ammendments therein)

There is no constitutional right to protection from search and, in some cases, seizure of items checked on airlines.

Drive don't fly

[thejuggler]

This is just one more reason why my wife and I prefer to drive instead of flying. We have traveled large portions of the country by car and motorcycle. It's more fun and we get to see more of the country.



Also, remember that it was Democrats that clamored to Federalize baggage screeners after 9-11. They said it was their fault the terrorists got on board with box cutters. (Even though at the time box cutters were not banned from carry on.) They wanted to make the "Professional" screeners by making the Federal employees. Then do you remember how many of them turned out to be illegal aliens? And all the screaming the Unions did when we tried to keep the illegals from having TSA jobs? And now we have proof that these TSA Professionals are allowed to dig through your luggage without supervision and steal whatever they want. How many others have not been caught yet? Maybe they should search the homes of every TSA employee with an eBay seller account.

Anything run by the Feds is bound to be screwed up.

But He's an Asset to eBay

[dubner]

According to TFA, the TSA scumbag (Pythias Brown, eBay ID 'alirla') has been placed on administrative leave and will soon be fired. On top of that, his eBay registration has been canceled. :-) Pity (for eBay) because he has 100% positive feedback.

Re:But He's an Asset to eBay

[base3]

Convenient that eBay has pulled all the completed listings so it's harder for we mere taxpayers to see what this guy had fenced through eBay.

Re:But He's an Asset to eBay

[splatter]

some of his stuff:
CANON 70-200MM F2.8 IS USM CAMERA LENS (#330273445930) US $1,377.00 View Item
SONY CYBER-SHOT DSC-H2 6.0 MEGAPIXEL DIGITAL CAMERA (#330266370672) US $187.50
2POCKETWIZARD PLUS II AUTO-SENSING WIRELESS TRANSCEIVER (#330270282144) US $290.00
NIKON NIKKOR 70-200MM F/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR LENS (#330268673893) US $1,400.00
APPLE MACBOOK PRO 15" 2.4 GHZ, 2GB, 200GB, LEOPARD (#330268578840) US $1,600.00
CANON EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT WITH 18-55 & 28-210MM LENS (#330268925938) US $405.00 View Item
SONY DCR-DVD710 DVD HANDYCAM CAMCORDER (#330265931216) US $227.50
OLYMPUS EVOLT E-500 8 MP SLR W/14-45 & 40-150MM LENS SONY DCR-PC115 MiNiDV HANDYCAM CAMCORDER see again www.croccandy.com Seller:

No doesn't sound like someone who is stealing from bags...

What about Ramp Rats?

[JohnnyGTO]

guy I knew working in a certain airport in a certain southern California valley airport seemed to always have new skis, complete sets of Ping clubs, and great luggage. Rumor has it they were all... STOLEN!!! The airline didn't care, it was too hard to deal with the union.

Anyone really surprised?

[purduephotog]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Only when the TSA requires every bag to be ticketed with the screener's information and timestamp every inspection, including a key fob to keep track, and require every employee to be a two man team, will thefts cease.

I've had probably close to 2000$ worth of merchandise, DVDs, and company equipment stolen. I once had government owned assets stolen out of a travel case.

I now dupe all my DVDs before taking them out on the road and I pack notices in each bag of company equipment: Government Owned Asset. The serial is recorded and registered with the manufacturer. Value is over 1500$ and will be prosecuted as felony theft: The government has an infinite numbers of lawyers looking to nail your ass to the wall- why steal this sort of trouble?

Oddly enough I've only had one bag 'misplaced' since I started the warning notices and then it was returned, a week later, from Vegas.

Re:Anyone really surprised?

[ktoepke]

Nope. I used to lock my luggage (you know, the hard-sided stuff that you could actually lock) until 9/11. Then, the first time I flew after that, they broke the latches on the suitcase (it wasn't locked!) so they could search it! Ever since "they" came out with the TSA approved locks (you know, the ones that TSA has the master key for!?!), I've said "Those @$$ H013s are the ones I want to secure my luggage FROM. Started carrying anything of value in my carry-on. Once I weighed my carry-on at 62 lbs!

Oh, yea. MOST flights since 9/11 I've had a 2.5" knife (carbide steel) with me. On the plane. Never on purpose -- its for my job and usually forget to remove it before traveling. However, its never been found.

I am from Germany

[Britz]

And I don't get it. I have been to New York (US) three times. Once before and two times after 9/11. The first time just a couple month after it. I never, ever felt threatended by terrorists. The only thing I felt threatened of was the leftist extremists that went wild after we took student government from them.

But even if islam terrorists attacked our city I couldn't imagine feeling threatened. Because they don't target me. They target at random. There are more than 80 million people in Germany.
I don't play the lottery. Why would I feel threatened?

Why are all you people afraid?

Re:The Saudi solution

[ReedYoung]

On a serious note, confiscate not only what he stole, but all his income as a corrupt government employee. Seriously. Government power is too great not to punish such blatant abuse of it more harshly than the same crime, committed by a private citizen. Similarly, for Sarah Palin, Alberto Gonzales, and the NSA goof-offs listening to soldiers' private romantic conversations from foreign countries to spouses in the United States. Treason!

and my friends...

[Roskolnikov]

thought I was nuts for checking my clothes and carrying my computer gear on business trips, many hard drives, two computers, some media, a PS2 slim, basically everything of small size and high value goes in my carryon luggage, the security check is a b*tch but its their job and I've (knock on wood) yet to lose anything; I have however learned not to use the bags that I use for shooting my rifles, the nut jobs actually picked up powder/residue of a foreign nature and flagged me to secondary search.....

Re:Told to F-O - NOT THAT HARD AT ALL

[Nom du Keyboard]

Yes, I realize the difficulties this would pose of documenting everything everyone is carrying. But this seems inevitable anyway given where we seem to be headed.

Actually documenting your luggage isn't hard at all. A few snaps with your digital camera that stays with you in your carry-on luggage should do the job quite nicely in just a few seconds. If it's in the picture then you can make a pretty strong claim that you had it at that time. Did exactly that with a bottle of fine wine once that I couldn't carry-on any longer.

Don't check bags. Ever.

[ukyoCE]

I never flew until a couple years ago, and since then have taken several trips. Japan, Seattle, LA, Vegas, all from the east coast of the US. Since my first flight, I've never checked a bag again.

It was bad enough when all you had to worry about was your bag not making it onto the right plane, and things getting broken when the bag was thrown around. Now they're required to be unlocked, and are searched "in secret" by anonymous and untraceable employees.

Bring only what you absolutely need. Wash the clothes you bring if it's a trip longer than a week (or however long you can last with clothes that fit in 2 carry-on bags). If you have to buy or bring liquids or anything else that can't be carried on, either mail it, or put it in a bag/box by itself and check it. At least then you're risking as little as possible.

Red tape to the rescue!

[Anonymous Cowpat]

The obvious solution here is for every bag to be checked and a compulsory* list drawn up of all the contents - one copy for the traveller, one copy for the bag, one copy for the TSA and one copy in an electronic system so it can be retrieved at the far end.
If, during a subsequent search, anything is siezed, this must be documented, one copy for the TSA, one copy in the bag, one electronic copy, and one copy to be given to the traveller at their destination.

Then, if anything is missing when the bag is retrieved the TSA is assumed to be repsonsible for the loss unless it can prove that it legitimately siezed whatever is missing. (not just 'we seized it', but 'we seized it because...' - the TSA would also not have the final word on wether this was a valid reason.)

*Compulsory list to stop TSA goons pressuring people into not having a list drawn up. If a bag gets through undocumented; someone gets fired.

Re:I submit this article, it was clipped a little.

[Iamthecheese]

Would you mind a quick Turing test?

Now you understand why...

[NotQuiteReal]

Now you understand the popularity of ever smaller devices!

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[loraksus]

The problem is that fedex package sorting is... somewhat rough.
I applied for a job there many years ago and they did a tour of the sorting center - in under 15 minutes, I heard glass breaking 2-3 times, including a CRT popping. All this stuff was just thrown back onto the conveyor belt / back onto the truck. The contents were clearly broken, but the process was to just deliver and let insurance deal with it later.

And while, sure, it might be covered by insurance, you'll still be waiting 2 weeks for a check, even assuming they cover everything and don't fight you on it.
Meanwhile, you arrive at your shoot with only your dick in your hand.
Don't get me started on "delivery exceptions" and trying to take possession of a package which might be on a truck, might be in the depot, etc.

The appeal to drive it yourself is obvious.

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[loraksus]

Always, and you can use real locks. The action (part with the serial number) from a firearm also works, but you might have trouble with law enforcement in some of the states that have weird gun laws.

Whole luggage system sucks!

[failedlogic]

There's a lot of problems with the entire airport luggage system which should really be fixed ASAP. Problems being:

1) Handlers can stealing stuff while checking luggage.
2) Handlers *could* add drugs or guns to your luggage while checking. Nice easy way to transport since there doesn't seem to be any security behind the doors.
3) Missing luggage. Was it really missing or did the handler choose to take the whole suitcase?
4) On arrival, the luggage drop-off point is a non-secure open to the public area. Perfect for stealing something that isn't yours. Secruity doesn't know if its your bag or not and probably don't care. It would be much better if ticket + ID and lineup at counter would be only way of getting luggage after flight.

I'd like to know what the procedure actually *is* if they find a bomb or whatever in the luggage. Are there police in the luggage checking rooms. If so, why can't better supervision of handlers. I'd guess there's more potential problems as a % with the handlers than having a terrorist/hijacker on a given flight. Both should be given serious oversight.

The system sucks. I like the flying part, the time-saving part of it all. But I haven't once taken a trip w/o worry of losing my hard earned stuff.

Who's surprised? TSA are low-paid gov't stffs.

[swb]

I think the original plan with TSA was to make it more of a police-type organization, to provide a more law enforcement feel to airport security.

What we ended up with was just a replacement for the shopping mall security that individual airports had used before -- a dead end, low-wage job, poorly performed by a statistically over-represented number of minorities, now featuring uniform attire from airport to airport, a more surly attitude and all the personnel efficiencies of government bureaucracy, unionization and hiring mandates like affirmative action.

Yuck. Every airport I've been they've always been total losers: surly, slow, uncooperative and sometimes uninformed of TSA procedures.

I wonder what impact the use of those big scanners on the ticketing concourse has on stealing. I think bags that pass those scanners get shunted directly to airport baggage handlers, where theft from luggage may be procedurally more difficult. If the scanning takes place once ticketing has taken your bag, especially if its done in a separate area, I think you're at much greater risk, since they can open bags largely at will.

Not to start a gigantic, horrible thread, but...

[magnamous]

It seems to me that the ability to own shitloads of guns hasn't been used very effectively over the history of the USA to enforce the constitution or the rights of human beings. It still might in the future, but I'm not optimistic. [emphasis added]

Uh...the Revolutionary War, for starters? The one in which the citizenry was literally and very directly the militia? Or perhaps, if you want to pretend that the history of the USA started as a discrete event when the Constitution was ratified, the Civil War?

I don't mean to start an oft-repeated discussion, but come on. At least try a little bit first.

Everybody join in...

[rocketman768]

...and a PartridgeInAPearTree ;)

So now I have to checkin 6 hours before flight?

[JSBiff]

Yeah, this compulsory list sounds great in theory, but think how much time, per customer, it would add to checkins. You can already easily be stuck in a line for 20 minutes or longer at most airports, just to check in and check one bag *without* having to go through the contents item-by-item with the airline personel. If you had to go through everyone's stuff, it would take 20+ minutes per customer, meaning that if you have 10 people in line ahead of you, you're waiting for 200+ minutes.

-1 Impractical

America: great country, awful air travel

[Cimexus]

And I thought I couldn't hate the TSA any more than I already do... :(

I'm Australian. But I have an American wife and we regularly travel back to the US for Christmas and other family occasions. Unlike most non-Americans that post on Slashdot, I don't have the whole 'OMG the US sucks' mentality ... actually I love the US more than probably a lot of Americans do. It's a great country.

But I absolutely detest travelling by air to or within the US! Every time we fly back there, I dread the whole 'take off your shoes', the scary border dudes with sub-machine guns, the 'are you being honest about the purpose of your visit' (even though I'm with my US-citizen wife and have a record on their screen of over 50 previous US entries), the lovely little TSA notes in my luggage (we inspected your bags, we may have taken something ... or not! who knows...) and your bottom-of-the-barrel airlines (seriously, the US is the only country where you don't get food on the plane unless you buy it).

So yeah, now I have another thing to add to that list: "some TSA dude might have taken your camera". Hooray!

This is...

[whoppo]

... just one of the MANY reasons I DRIVE when ever possible. If my destination is in the continental US, I schedule sufficient time and saddle my fat ass into my nice comfy truck, where I can carry ANY of my transportable possessions without having to squeeze my liquids into a ziploc baggie.

Inconvenient? Perhaps... but at least I'm not patronizing the overly restrictive, power mad TSA and the airlines that allow them to terrorize their customers.

Yes ladies and gents... the terrorists have won.

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[mabhatter654]

that's why a previous poster mentioned using a simply shotgun action. Those are legal everywhere with no special rules...as it's a "disabled" weapon. gotta love the NRA.

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[mabhatter654]

that makes a camera a WMD... F*ing liberal media terrorists.

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[ZorbaTHut]

Because legally, it's not a gun, but the TSA considers it to be one. This means you don't have to worry about gun laws in whatever state you're traveling to (or from, or through) but you still get the full TSA protection designed for people carrying shotguns around.

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[Thornae]

Not in the US myself, but I have also heard that a starter pistol works.

Re:His MySpace page

[kd5zex]

Sounds to me like the pot is calling the kettle black.

I see what you were implying there. Racist bastard. ;)

The original Nazi's stole art these ones steal too

[The Real Tachyon]

Like their fascist idols, the stormtroopers of this regime steal from their citizens too.

If the TSA or DHS ever offers you a shower, politely decline....

Carry anything valuable as carryon

[Krellan]

Whenever I have to fly on an airplane, I carry anything valuable as a carryon.

The few times I've ever used a checked bag, it was for clothes and other bulky items. If TSA wants to steal my dirty underwear, they're welcome to it!

Three obvious things:

1) If a rogue TSA employee can take things from your luggage at will, then they can also ADD things to your luggage. Big security risk there.

2) TSA employees are already scanned as they enter. They should also be scanned as they leave! It's common practice in casinos, department stores, and other places that have loose valuables and untrustworthy employees.

3) At a minimum, cameras should be covering every location within the baggage system. This would create a video trail, starting with the timestamp that is created when the luggage is first submitted to the airline. Then, upon report of theft, the video could be watched.

It's a sad day when the TSA is more worrisome than the terrorists.

Wouldn't it be great if airplanes were like trains, in that you personally carry all baggage with you, and that your baggage never leaves your possession?

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[dr_dank]

IIRC, it was a starters pistol, not a flare gun.

Re:Oops, nevermind. :)

[capnkr]

...and a further Mod down - for correcting myself? Hahahahaha... lol Fuskinng slashbash.... geesh.

Re:The guy did a great job of keeping our kids saf

[StevisF]

There's some truth to this ... check out the last graph. Since Clinton FBI prosecutions have changed in a big way: child pornography prosecutions doubled, white collar crime prosecutions halved, organized crime prosecutions halved ...

Thwarted terrorist attacks.

[Repossessed]

There was the shoebomber, though touch anti terrorism laws did jack shit to stop him the people on the plane did that.

TSA blog....

[thrill12]

here reports on this too. Just to get a bit of perspective ? I am glad my suitcase wasn't raided by that person when I was at EWR, but I guess chances are pretty small that such a thing would happen.

TSA stealing personal belongings

[austinhook]

It all starts with that fancy Swiss knife that they confiscate. Those get given to their friends and sold on eBay, so why not steal the rest of your belongings, given the morality that that engenders.

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[packeteer]

They are cheaper to buy than a real gun if you don't already own one.

Ebay Feedback

[Unique2]

"Excellent and honest Ebayer!"

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Not sheep

[Shivetya]

Simply paid off. The majority lives off the minority who pays the bulk of the taxes. Income redistribution makes for some very lazy and apathetic people. There is nothing about fairness in a progressive tax, it is all about control.

Tyler Derden

[infonography]

Airlines have this policy
about vibrating luggage.

- Was it ticking?
- Throwers know modern bombs don't tick.

- Sorry, throwers?
- Baggage handlers.

But when a suitcase vibrates,

the throwers have got to call the police.

- My suitcase was vibrating?
- Nine times out of ten

it's an electric razor.

But... every once in a while

it's a dildo.

It's company policy never to imply
ownership in the event of a dildo.

We have to use the indefinite article,

a dildo, never

your dildo.

I don't own...

I had everything in that suitcase.

My CK shirts.
My DKNYshoes. My AX ties.

Never mind.

Use Gun Travel to UR Advantage, No Gun Needed

[Mana Mana]

The below is from http://blogs.lexar.com/mattbrandon/2006/08/tighter_securit.html . No longer online unfortunately.

In essence: guns must be checked into a special routine (a la registered mail), put under lock and key. IOW, handed over, inspected, locked into a case under lock and key, taken away from you, returned to you upon arrival. As it is a gun tracking system routine the utmost importance is placed on accountability. Stolen guns are unacceptable to the TSA system. The tricks are, a starter's pistol qualifies as a gun and a license is not needed in the USA for one, and two the case containing the gun can be large enough to hold your laptop, or camera, etc. too! :-) Read one of the 2006 0r 2007 cryptograms by Bruce Schneier for the original tip.

##################
[ QUOTE ]

One note on using TSA rules to your advantage.

Weapons that travel MUST be in a hard case, must be declared upon check-in, and MUST BE LOCKED by a TSA official.

A "weapons" is defined as a rifle, shotgun, pistol, airgun, and STARTER PISTOL. Yes, starter pistols - those little guns that fire blanks at track and swim meets - are considered weapons...and do NOT have to be registered in any state in the United States.

I have a starter pistol for all my cases. All I have to do upon check-in is tell the airline ticket agent that I have a weapon to declare...I'm given a little card to sign, the card is put in the case, the case is given to a TSA official who takes my key and locks the case, and gives my key back to me.

That's the procedure. The case is extra-tracked...TSA does not want to lose a weapons case. This reduces the chance of the case being lost to virtually zero.

It's a great way to travel with camera gear...I've been doing this since Dec 2001 and have had no problems whatsoever.

Hope it works for you...

John

Posted by: John Arnold | August 16, 2006 at 08:52 PM

[ END QUOTE ]

##################

I was in NYC,

[Chmcginn]

and some of my relatives & friends were killed.

Fuck you for using them to push your police-state agenda.

Re:I was in NYC,

[SkyDude]

and another basement dweller speaks up.

Re:I was in NYC,

[jeephistorian]

...and I know people who've lost their families in useless wars. Bless you for using your relatives and friends to push your empire building agenda....

Re:I was in NYC,

[Chmcginn]

So... because I dislike the police state that some want to turn the US into, I'm in favor of declaring war on everyone?

Your mastery of logic astounds me.

World travel with a gun

[BenEnglishAtHome]

...how...do you fly into Europe or Japan with a gun...?

Air marshalls do it. They carry a stack of paperwork with them. It's tough for a foreigner to get a concealed-carry permit in most countries but it can be done. Where it can't, air marshalls don't fly.

Anyone on a diplomatic passport can do it. (Note that in some countries, this is frowned on and if carrying a gun isn't part of your job, you don't pull this crap with complete impunity.)

Head-of-state protective details do it. (They are also covered under the previous point.)

Hunters do it. Anywhere there's big game to be hunted and money to be made from rich Europeans or Americans who will spend multiple thousands of dollars to fly to your country and shoot your exotic animals, there will be some exceptions built into the law to allow the temporary importation of firearms.

Target shooters do it. Olympic rifle, pistol, and shotgun teams travel pretty much unimpeded (yes, there's paperwork and approvals to be completed long beforehand) to any place holding a competition. I have friends who travel to Brazil to compete every couple of years, each time carrying a pile of pistols. The world benchrest championships will see teams from all over the world going to whatever venue is selected. It happens *all* the time.

No, Europe and Japan are unlike the U.S. in that you don't throw a gun in your bags routinely just to get better luggage treatment. However, if you have a legit reason, you can take your guns with you to most countries. I'm retiring soon and the list of places I want to go to compete, carrying a couple of pistols with me, is too long for me to be able to afford them all. However, over the next few years I expect to take my guns to some subset of: Finland, France, Czech Republic, Spain, Russia, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and Brazil.

please explain

[hesaigo999ca]

Please explain to me, how these surches seized "un-allowed" items on the planes, since when am I not allowed to bring on my jewelry or pda, or even cd player on a plane???

This can't happen

[stpatrickjr]

This couldn't have happened. They told me so. I remember hearing them say this on the news talk shows. Next you'll be telling me they are listening in on American Citizens and recording and distributing their pillow talk conversations. Unheard of!

Re:What about "consumables"?

[CrazyTalk]

Dude, you are lucky that you (sorry, your "friend") are not currently spending time in a Turkish prison.

The Penalty?

[photomonkey]

Hang him by his fucking balls.

He is cheap, and nothing more than a common thief.

"TSA" stands for...

[Tetsujin]

"Those Stupid Asshats". You may update your story tags accordingly...

How much before you are caught? $200,000?!

[egarland]

This guy stole $200,000 worth of stuff before he was caught. What about the guy who stole $100,000 worth of stuff? The guy who stole a few cameras? The guy who just snagged one laptop for his kid? If it takes stealing $200,000 worth of equipment before they will catch you then why not steal?

The outrage shouldn't be over how much bad this guy did, but how broken the system is if he could steal that much before being caught.

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[mdielmann]

I previously read on /. a method of shipping your camera gear safely.

A reader had said he'd purchased a larger aluminum suitcase / roadcase, with foam cutouts for his camera gear, and a flare gun.

Upon arriving at the airport, he'd declare he had a weapon, and check the suitcase as a weapon. It got stored, handled and inspected differently, and he never had any loses.

Seems to make sense to me...

Finally! A case where the current administration is actually promoting the constitution!

Latecomer comment

[FrameRotBlues]

Actually, only 56.7% were satisfied with choosing any candidate.

The table in your provided Wikipedia link shows 122,267,553 votes for a host of candidates. Admittedly the majority of those were for two candidates. However, in 2004 there were an estimated 215.6 million registered voters in the US. See the table halfway down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

Re:Latecomer comment

[TheLink]

If 90 million just wrote on the ballot "none of the above", I bet the Two Parties would notice.

90 million is a lot larger than 60 million.

90 million "not bothering to vote" is a very different statement.

So in practice they don't count as voters ( except for the ones who were going to vote but had a car accident or something).

The ruling parties are safe from them.

To me it would be good if the voting system allowed people to say "No" and that counts as -1 points, whereas a Yes counts as +1 points. From the psychological point of view this is superior to the "range voting" since it gives a lot more satisfaction if the wrong candidate wins but wins with a net negative total. Plus the media and comedians can make fun of that candidate a lot more ;).

That sort of thing might make people get out and vote in comparison to getting out there and "spoiling their vote as a protest"

But since they aren't going to change the system that's what you got.

Re:Government sanctioned theft.

[Ghubi]

Close, actually the network that broadcasts the pictures to millions of people is the "WMD".