Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

150 of 655 comments (clear)

  1. thieves standing around by pxlmusic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    jesus christ.

    i'm mailing my shit next time.

    --
    "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    1. Re:thieves standing around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:thieves standing around by johndmartiniii · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      If you don't know what you're doing, you can't make mistakes.
    3. Re:thieves standing around by pxlmusic · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    4. Re:thieves standing around by SterlingSylver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:thieves standing around by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    6. Re:thieves standing around by Neoprofin · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    7. Re:thieves standing around by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    8. Re:thieves standing around by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    9. Re:thieves standing around by tacocat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:thieves standing around by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    11. Re:thieves standing around by AngryLlama · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can see up your ass?

    12. Re:thieves standing around by pxlmusic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    13. Re:thieves standing around by BillGod · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      MISSING - Sig file. 2 years old black and white and very funny. If found please email me.
    14. Re:thieves standing around by sdturf · · Score: 5, Funny

      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?

    15. Re:thieves standing around by SL+Baur · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?

    16. Re:thieves standing around by Kandenshi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    17. Re:thieves standing around by TheLink · · Score: 4, Funny

      Calm down, it's still only October.

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

      --
    18. Re:thieves standing around by pxlmusic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    19. Re:thieves standing around by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
    20. Re:thieves standing around by riceboy50 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
    21. Re:thieves standing around by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    22. Re:thieves standing around by Kwiik · · Score: 5, Funny

      I choose vibrate

      --
      Vehicle Stars used car search is my current project
    23. Re:thieves standing around by Fumus · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    24. Re:thieves standing around by allacds · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

    25. Re:thieves standing around by SL+Baur · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    26. Re:thieves standing around by erroneus · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    27. Re:thieves standing around by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    28. Re:thieves standing around by erroneus · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    29. Re:thieves standing around by toddestan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    30. Re:thieves standing around by anagama · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    31. Re:thieves standing around by pxlmusic · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    32. Re:thieves standing around by mikael · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    33. Re:thieves standing around by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    34. Re:thieves standing around by Fred_A · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can see up your ass?

      It's always good to have hindsight !

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    35. Re:thieves standing around by MiniMike · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    36. Re:thieves standing around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    37. Re:thieves standing around by dummondwhu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    38. Re:thieves standing around by Luthair · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    39. Re:thieves standing around by joe_frisch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    40. Re:thieves standing around by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    41. Re:thieves standing around by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't forget the Virginia Tech massacre.

    42. Re:thieves standing around by davewalthall · · Score: 2, Informative

      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)

    43. Re:thieves standing around by Landshark17 · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      This sig is false.
    44. Re:thieves standing around by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    45. Re:thieves standing around by Duradin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    46. Re:thieves standing around by bytesex · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    47. Re:thieves standing around by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    48. Re:thieves standing around by atraintocry · · Score: 2, Funny

      Violence != Terrorism.

      9/11 changed everything, remember?

    49. Re:thieves standing around by wisty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    50. Re:thieves standing around by atraintocry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

    51. Re:thieves standing around by laederkeps · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...because people are fucking sheep.

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

    52. Re:thieves standing around by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    53. Re:thieves standing around by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    54. Re:thieves standing around by No-Cool-Nickname · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

    55. Re:thieves standing around by Shotgun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    56. Re:thieves standing around by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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)

    57. Re:thieves standing around by hador_nyc · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    58. Re:thieves standing around by halcyon1234 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  2. Tis the season.. by cvd6262 · · Score: 2, Funny

    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!

    --

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

    1. Re:Tis the season.. by DinDaddy · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      Your post was funny.

  3. flying sux by pak9rabid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And yet another reason why flying in the US sucks.

    1. Re:flying sux by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      And yet another reason why flying in the US sucks.

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

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:flying sux by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:flying sux by thewils · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    4. Re:flying sux by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You waive your rights when you purchase your ticket.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    5. Re:flying sux by Beached · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
    6. Re:flying sux by LVSlushdat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    7. Re:flying sux by v1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You cannot waive your constitutional rights (or ammendments therein)

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    8. Re:flying sux by mollymoo · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    9. Re:flying sux by jlowery · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      If you post it, they will read.
    10. Re:flying sux by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    11. Re:flying sux by MiKM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:flying sux by drawfour · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    13. Re:flying sux by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    14. Re:flying sux by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    15. Re:flying sux by dummondwhu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  4. Who watches by starfishsystems · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    --
    Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
    1. Re:Who watches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    2. Re:Who watches by QuantumHobbit · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  5. And there you have it! by AndGodSed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You yanks are safe from terrorism!

    Your own officers is a different matter though...

  6. Told to F-O by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Told to F-O by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

    2. Re:Told to F-O by SupremoMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Told to F-O by Whiteox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  7. Let me say this: I am shocken, truly SHOCKED, ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Funny

    that there might be people who find this surprising.

  8. Re:Government sanctioned theft. by ral8158 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  9. one arrest won't even dent this plague by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  10. How deep does the rabbit hole go? by Bob-o-Matic! · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  11. I don't understand... by mishehu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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.

    1. Re:I don't understand... by pak9rabid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...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!

    2. Re:I don't understand... by WTF+Chuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
  12. The guy did a great job of keeping our kids safe by Dude+McDude · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!!!

  13. Tip of the iceberg? by symbolic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Tip of the iceberg? by jlowery · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      If you post it, they will read.
    2. Re:Tip of the iceberg? by Gewalt · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
  14. Wow by __aagctu1952 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  15. I buy cheap luggage by LM741N · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:I buy cheap luggage by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:I buy cheap luggage by WTF+Chuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
  16. This increases safety and security by ... ? by Brad+Eleven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Press to test."
    (click)
    "Release to detonate."
    1. Re:This increases safety and security by ... ? by gilgongo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... 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.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    2. Re:This increases safety and security by ... ? by StevisF · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:This increases safety and security by ... ? by BlockedThreads · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  17. Now, there's an interesting statistic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:Now, there's an interesting statistic... by hedwards · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

  18. Hey! That's my MacBook by microcars · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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!"

    --
    I like microcars
  19. The best part... by Shados · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  20. Re:Government sanctioned theft. by Archon-X · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

  21. Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  22. Re:A perfectly good argument... by DutchSter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... 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.

  23. Good thing this is the good ol USA, where victims by electrogeist · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

  24. Slashdot..say it ain't so by Atrox666 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  25. Homeland security.... by 3seas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... 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?

  26. This is what happens by kilodelta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This is what happens by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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."

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  27. Look at the numbers! by JambisJubilee · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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...

    1. Re:Look at the numbers! by WTF+Chuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
  28. Can't say I'm surprised... by EaglemanBSA · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
  29. BOINC by Inquisitor911 · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  30. TSA by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Taking Stuff from Airtravelers

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  31. Oh the irony by xRelisH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  32. The real moral of the story by ilsa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    --
    -- I Am Not A Terrorist.
  33. Re:Government sanctioned theft. by Ghubi · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

  34. Cameras in the inspection area by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Cameras in the inspection area by Detritus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  35. Yes, you can lock your luggage. by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage. by drawfour · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

    2. Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage. by Blackjack+Joe · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage. by i.r.id10t · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    4. Re:Yes, you can lock your luggage. by NtroP · · Score: 2, Informative

      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...

      --
      "terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
  36. Re:A perfectly good argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  37. Re:A perfectly good argument... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  38. A story.... by wickerprints · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  39. Re:UPS is your friend by FranTaylor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  40. Re:Hey has anyone... by Henneshoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    More like "Whose watches do the watchers get?"

  41. Re:$200K by SL+Baur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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).

  42. Re:UPS is your friend by green1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  43. It's much simpler than that... by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    No sig today...
  44. Re:A perfectly good argument... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  45. Re:Government sanctioned theft. by toddestan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  46. Anyone really surprised? by purduephotog · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  47. and my friends... by Roskolnikov · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.....

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  48. Who's surprised? TSA are low-paid gov't stffs. by swb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  49. Not to start a gigantic, horrible thread, but... by magnamous · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  50. Re:But He's an Asset to eBay by splatter · · Score: 2, Informative

    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...

    --
    "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
  51. Not sheep by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  52. I was in NYC, by Chmcginn · · Score: 3, Insightful
    and some of my relatives & friends were killed.

    Fuck you for using them to push your police-state agenda.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  53. World travel with a gun by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...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.

  54. Re:What about "consumables"? by CrazyTalk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Dude, you are lucky that you (sorry, your "friend") are not currently spending time in a Turkish prison.