Slashdot Mirror


TSA To Make Pat-Downs More Embarrassing To Encourage Scanner Use

Jeffrey Goldberg writes for the Atlantic about his recent experiences with opting out of the back-scatter full-body scanners now being used to screen airport travelers. Passengers can choose to submit to a pat-down instead of going through the scanners, but according to one of the TSA employees Goldberg talked to, the rules for those are soon changing to make things more uncomfortable for opt-outs, while not doing much for actual security. He writes, 'The pat-down, while more effective than previous pat-downs, will not stop dedicated and clever terrorists from smuggling on board small weapons or explosives. When I served as a military policeman in an Israeli army prison, many of the prisoners 'bangled' contraband up their a**es. I know this not because I checked, but because eventually they told me this when I asked. ... the effectiveness of pat-downs does not matter very much, because the obvious goal of the TSA is to make the pat-down embarrassing enough for the average passenger that the vast majority of people will choose high-tech humiliation over the low-tech ball check."

642 comments

  1. first pat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    first pat

    1. Re:first pat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a big scam! Terrorists were employed by the NWO market these scanners to the public. Welcome to the new world.

  2. Wanna check my balls? by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go ahead.

    You might want to have a think about who's really being humiliated in this situation though. I don't think it's me.

    1. Re:Wanna check my balls? by garcia · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm lactose intolerant. I'll be sure to drink a glass of milk with my garlic eggs in the morning and make the experience a real unpleasant one for them. "Oops, sorry, when you hit the 'resistance' it caused me to jump and I let some gas out."

      Believe me, the TSA employees will revolt against upper management if enough people fart in their face all fucking day long. You want to play fucking games, we'll play them right back.

    2. Re:Wanna check my balls? by amanicdroid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Oh yeah, that's good. Keep going, keep going, OH YES! You've done this before haven't you. *wink*"

      That should accompany every search.

    3. Re:Wanna check my balls? by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Those who would give up essential liberty for a little ball rubbing action, deserve neither.

    4. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      I'd like you to think that you said that to yourself in the Frank Langella "Nixon" voice.

    5. Re:Wanna check my balls? by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1

      Go ahead.

      You might want to have a think about who's really being humiliated in this situation though. I don't think it's me.

      I wonder would happen if I imagine having sex with Jenna Jameson right before my pat down - and maybe a little pocket pool before hand - how fast do you think the pat down will go then?

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    6. Re:Wanna check my balls? by rrossman2 · · Score: 1

      I beat they may change their mind about this if enough travels had the "balls" to opt-out of the backscatter, get the pat down, and pretend they really enjoyed it when the agent got to "the resistance"

    7. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      I've only flown a few times, but the last time it was a really cute guard who did a pat-down on me. I actually enjoyed it :D

    8. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Fred+IV · · Score: 1

      The passenger has plenty of opportunity to make it worse for the TSA goon since the pat down happens in front of all of the other passengers unless a request is made to go to a private area. I can't wait to see the first news stories start rolling in about situations where the TSA agent blows their cool and attacks a passenger after being publicly humiliated and laughed at by a line full of travelers.

      "Over already? Do you always finish first when you do this sort of thing at home too?"

    9. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That doesn't work on people with IQs below 80 (ie. the people who'll be doing it to you)

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we allowed to request that a female TSA agent administer the pat-down? Better yet, that she use her tongue for the pat-down, as the tongue is far more sensitive to texture than the fingers?

    11. Re:Wanna check my balls? by amanicdroid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've found it's quite the opposite. The lower IQ people are more adverse to "that gay shit". If you get a beatdown make a federal case out of it.

    12. Re:Wanna check my balls? by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Funny

      My replacement hips always set off the alarm, but I tell them I have stainless steel balls.

    13. Re:Wanna check my balls? by c · · Score: 4, Funny

      No doubt there's some secret law saying you're not allowed to enjoy your ball check.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    14. Re:Wanna check my balls? by twistedsymphony · · Score: 5, Funny

      obligatory: http://xkcd.com/779/

    15. Re:Wanna check my balls? by amanicdroid · · Score: 5, Funny

      Outlawing turning a bug into a feature?
      That's un-Amurican.

    16. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wouldn't it be:
      "Those who would give up essential liberty for a little genital comfort, deserve neither."?

    17. Re:Wanna check my balls? by baegucb · · Score: 1

      Pics or it didn't happen ;)

    18. Re:Wanna check my balls? by tverbeek · · Score: 1, Funny

      mod parent "+! Fabulous"

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    19. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best thing to do is, select the pat down, then start with a small grin while never breaking eye contact with the person patting you down. Then start moaning when they make it to your crotch.

    20. Re:Wanna check my balls? by webminer · · Score: 1

      What if that female TSA agent turns out to be Rosie O'Donnell? You really want to take that chance?

    21. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anarki2004 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you then proceed to tell them that you're "all out of gum"?

      --
      The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
    22. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    23. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm lactose intolerant. I'll be sure to drink a glass of milk with my garlic eggs in the morning and make the experience a real unpleasant one for them. "Oops, sorry, when you hit the 'resistance' it caused me to jump and I let some gas out."

      Believe me, the TSA employees will revolt against upper management if enough people fart in their face all fucking day long. You want to play fucking games, we'll play them right back.

      And then you'll be charged with battery.

    24. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 1

      "Oh yeah, that's good. Keep going, keep going, OH YES! You've done this before haven't you. *wink*"

      With this being the case...I'm going to request the biggest/hairiest rent-a-cop they have to do a full fisting without a glove in front of everyone...after not wiping for several days after eating beans. At the same time...they better not stop till I say when! Now...let's see who flinches!

      --
      Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
    25. Re:Wanna check my balls? by jhoegl · · Score: 1, Troll

      LOL, Faux News was linked as proof that a story is real.

      National Enquirer gets more stories right than Faux News do.

    26. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What if that female TSA agent turns out to be Rosie O'Donnell? You really want to take that chance?

      This is /. As long as she isn't the woman living upstairs, she's a keeper.

    27. Re:Wanna check my balls? by postbigbang · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I pity their inspectors. Let's let them know how much sexual gratification we're getting from all of this. If this doesn't revile them, then we're we're making them an accessory.

      There is a ceiling to how much is enough. I think they've reached it.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    28. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was covered by several mainstream media sources, tard.

    29. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 3, Informative

      I had a dispute with some GB airport security (actually with Group 4 staff, a company the govt ofter outsources essential state duties to, like guarding prisoners, and at which G4 have got a pretty poor record of actually succeeding). As a result I ended up repeatedly leaving the secure area and having to be searched again on entry - I did remark to the guy doing it "We're getting to know each other quite well, aren't we?" but he didn't seem to see the funny side. I suspect the OP's comment about humiliation was pretty close to the mark on that one...

    30. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      LOL, Faux News was linked as proof that a story is real. National Enquirer gets more stories right than Faux News do.

      Believe it or not, it was the least sensationalist of the pages I could find covering the story. Most of them were titled like "Man Arrested for FART! ROFLMAO! *RASPBERRY*", even on slightly more respected news sites.
      BTW, it's hard to get arrest records wrong, since they're written down and easy for press to obtain. The rest of the story is that the prosecutor dropped the charges but it's something to think about; TSA guards might "think" you're trying to blanket the terminal with a gas-bomb and tazer you. "I smelled an odor similar to ricin, and concluded the suspect was breaching the canister."

    31. Re:Wanna check my balls? by commandermonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When I went through the atl. Airport in aug, the tsa guy tried his hardest to get me to go through the scanner after I opted out. He andhis buddy questiond my sexuality, told me it was incredibly invasive, questioned sexuality again.

      In the end the tsa guy was so uncomfortable he only went mid-way up the thigh. Make it more invasive for tsa? Yeah, that's a good idea.

    32. Re:Wanna check my balls? by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... and to help put them in the right frame of mind, make sure your laptop background is set to either the goat guy or tubgirl.

    33. Re:Wanna check my balls? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Years ago, I knew an anthropologist who had spent months in the jungles of Cambodia, and hadn't had much in the way of access to washing facilities. When I picked him up from the airport here in Perth (W. Australia), I had to wait a while.

      Turned out that he had been given a grilling by the Customs goons, and they had strip-searched him. However, one of them took just a sniff of his shoes, looked at his colleague and said "if that's what these things smell like, there's no way I'm looking up this guy's ass".

    34. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pocket pool before hand - how fast do you think the pat down will go then?

      You might want to consider the type of guy who accepts a job that requires him to touch the genitals of hundreds of other men every day. I am not saying they are all gay; and even if they are, they won't all enjoy your little stubby. But when you encounter the one who does appreciate, and assists with your completion, how dirty will you feel, and can you ever get clean again?

    35. Re:Wanna check my balls? by amanicdroid · · Score: 1

      Make sure to ask for the tonsil check.

    36. Re:Wanna check my balls? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Oh yes... touch me there. Yes that's the spot. You know you're really cute. Ever tried being gay Mr Security Guy?"

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    37. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that charge was dropped. probably because it is retarded.

      http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/29653059.html

    38. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then you'll be charged with battery. [foxnews.com] ...only to have them drop the charges.

    39. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked guns at SeaTac the female TSA agent who made sure everything was locked up tight was very cute and very nice.

      They aren't all moronic goons, we talked guns and iOS apps while my fiancee got an extra lock for my case.

    40. Re:Wanna check my balls? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Go ahead.

      You might want to have a think about who's really being humiliated in this situation though. I don't think it's me.

      This is a necessary step to body cavity searches. Which are coming eventually.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    41. Re:Wanna check my balls? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Maybe Orange Juice with Peanuts would be better for you, but not necessarily for those who would put their hands on your person.

    42. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Ditto. Not that I have the most bodacious set of balls in the world (I think I rank about number 6, globally) but because the bastard can't touch ME. Oh, he can run his hand up the crack of my ass, but my ass isn't ME. Public speakers have learned how to stay detached from the audience, people who have been through boot camp can focus away from the "humiliation", and I'm sure there are plenty of others who can maintain their dignity by various means. Maybe it's time for some of those self-help "therapists" to start teaching people about real dignity. For instance - I had a group of people barge in on me one day, as I was leaving the shower. Buck naked. I would never have DREAMED of parading in front of these people naked - but I found myself in the situation. At computer speed, I pictured myself running, gibbering like a nut, to the bedroom or back into the bathroom, pictured myself screaming at them all to "GET OUT!", then pictured myself just saying "Hi, I'll be right back." and calmly walking to the bedroom. I opted for choice 3. Lucky I didn't have a huge boner pointing the way, huh? The big guy stayed down and behaved himself, despite the fact that it was a mixed bunch of people. Oh - I also learned to make sure the door is locked before taking a shower . . . Dignity. The bastards can't touch you unless you let them.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    43. Re:Wanna check my balls? by sunderland56 · · Score: 2, Funny

      When/where is the next national transvestite convention? That could create some interesting situations.

    44. Re:Wanna check my balls? by http · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It looks like you have completely missed what the problems are.

      --
      If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
      3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
    45. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe it.

    46. Re:Wanna check my balls? by index0 · · Score: 1

      Charged with battery is different from being convicted of battery. Where is the followup news story that says he got punished for farting? (besides his time being wasted for going to court).

    47. Re:Wanna check my balls? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "You might want to have a think about who's really being humiliated in this situation though. I don't think it's me."

      It won't be me either. I'm thinking "eat massive amounts of kimchee" (love the stuff anyway), and slam beer the night before so I sleep well on the flight.

      Between farts and sweat that combo would clear out a step-van during a Korean winter.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    48. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm torn here people.

      I don't really like being publically groped, but I'm very loose with my morals when it comes to stranges. Plus the whole not being in a position of power. Perhaps I should try the train system.

    49. Re:Wanna check my balls? by couchslug · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Those who would give up essential liberty for a little ball rubbing action, deserve neither."

      Submission, frottage, AND denial?

      I, for one, find the idea vaguely arousing.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    50. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      You might want to have a think about who's really being humiliated in this situation though. I don't think it's me.

      Obligatory TSA Gangstaz

      Here's a few selections from the lyrics:

      Don't even think of coming through if you're a terr-or-ist.
      We got a gay body builder for the male assist.

      How can I be sure you aren't a member of al-qaeda?
      Now excuse my wand while I slide it up inside ya!

      Airport security done changed since 2001
      Let me squeeze those titties or the terrorists have already won.

      Hey hippie, you got a suspicious lookin face
      Let me up that ass like Maria Full of Grace.

      Girl, I can't let you bring on more than 4 ounces
      unless you wanna show me how your fat booty bounces

      We confiscate your liquors because you know they pose a threat
      I'll even confiscate your pussy if I make it too wet

      Damn I hate to see that breast milk go to waste
      But you cam come right through if you give me a taste

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    51. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 1

      Make sure to ask for the tonsil check.

      Is that before or after they check my colon for any growths?

      --
      Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
    52. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      The problem is, we've lost our dignity. We as a nation, we as passengers, our "leaders" - we have lost our dignity. We've given in to fear and animal instincts. That is exactly why we have all this airport security nonsense, and it is why people are getting into a tizzy over being searched. The only difference is the scale of things.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    53. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure that posting a link from Fox News counts as a credible reference. The article itself is pretty weak, even.

    54. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

      I would not be embarrassed by a more thorough search, if that is what they really want to do. I would choose the pat-down until the do they prove to me that the back-scatter body imaging machine is really safe. If they want to briefly touch my balls, between my buttocks, and wherever else, that would be OK. I also do not care if they do that in public or privately.

      I am used to my doctor having to feel my balls and do a digital rectal exam during my annual physical. I would not really mind too much having the TSA do that too. Even if the TSA wanted to include a digital exam for rectal explosives, I could handle that. I wonder what the TSA employees will think about constantly having to feel the balls and large rear ends of mid-50s year old guys, like me.

      Just to relieve my boredom, I might even pretend to be enjoying it.

    55. Re:Wanna check my balls? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Go ahead.

      You might want to have a think about who's really being humiliated in this situation though. I don't think it's me.

      This is a necessary step to body cavity searches. Which are coming eventually.

      It will come the first time someone tries to sneak explosives onto a plane in their rear end. Remember what happened after the shoe bomber? We all have to take our shoes off now.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    56. Re:Wanna check my balls? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Does that mean we'll soon be hearing about "The squealer's the dealer" defense?

    57. Re:Wanna check my balls? by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

      Beautifully said, esteemed brother!

      I don't mind the more invasive pat-down because when it's done professionally, it's really not uncomfortable.
      The real problem is that the time to get a pat-down will about an order of magnitude longer than the time walking through the machine.

    58. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that, buy a plane.

    59. Re:Wanna check my balls? by amanicdroid · · Score: 1

      Get 2 guards and you can have it done simultaneously.

    60. Re:Wanna check my balls? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Dude, that's awesome.

      For those that don't want to click the link, this guy was charged with battery because he farted near an officer.

      I think a round of golf claps is in order for this guy. When your flatulence gets you brought before a judge, you've been called up to the majors.

    61. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what about the underwear bomber?

    62. Re:Wanna check my balls? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Being charged is a punishment. It will show up on his criminal record for the rest of his life. He could miss a job because of his proven violent history.

    63. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Priceless...

    64. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Graff · · Score: 1, Informative

      LOL, Faux News was linked as proof that a story is real.

      It's a clever pun but it falls apart. See, "faux" is French and it's pronounced like "foe", not like "fox". When you say "faux news" it reads as "foe news" and doesn't make any sense.

      I'd try to come up with something more clever if I were you, right now you just look ignorant.

    65. Re:Wanna check my balls? by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

      Some TSA schmuck wants to check my balls? I just give 'em my wife's purse.

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    66. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Blink+Tag · · Score: 1

      If there is a ceiling to how much is enough, as you say, then I'm on the second or third floor.

      I've felt more annoyed than safe every time I've flown since 2001. ("Annoyed" doesn't come close to capturing my response, but as I can't come up with a better word at the moment, it will have to do.)

    67. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      He was made irrelevant by a foreskin bomber.

    68. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      The problem is, we've lost our dignity. We as a nation, we as passengers, our "leaders" - we have lost our dignity.

      Is that why GWB is traveling abroad not so often those days?

    69. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why yes here is my number"

      works both ways...

    70. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then you'll get put on the no-fly list for noncompliance.
      You won't do anything, you're not stupid. You'll either comply or stop flying like all the other sheeple.
      A population that doesn't travel is much easier to control than one that moves around.

    71. Re:Wanna check my balls? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      So what about the underwear bomber?

      This is precisely why we now have these new pat down procedures.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    72. Re:Wanna check my balls? by billcopc · · Score: 1

      If you crazy americans liken flatulence to assault, I'm just going to sit in my igloo with a fuckton of popcorn and marshmallows and watch excitedly as your so-called society self-immolates.

      If a fart leads to being charged with battery, you might as well kick the fucker in the balls - same offense, why not get your money's worth ?

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    73. Re:Wanna check my balls? by skine · · Score: 1

      But someone trying to sneak explosives onto the plane in their anal cavity will go through the scanners, and probably won't be caught.

    74. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is becoming a police state. Al Qaida got what they wanted, the end of freedom.

    75. Re:Wanna check my balls? by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      Do you then proceed to tell them that you're "all out of gum"?

      That's probably a safer option to go with than, "I'll rip off your head and shit down your neck."

    76. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens if you are wearing Depends

    77. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was covered by several mainstream media sources, turd.

      Fixed that for ya!

    78. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Espectr0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hi, i see that you live in Perth, i am going there for christmas and would like to know what are the best computer stores, cellphone stores and such, can i contact you by email? I don't see a place in your profile to do that. My gmail address is fj-leon without the dash. Thanks

    79. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hawt. Post pics

    80. Re:Wanna check my balls? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Oh no worries, there's no need to hide stuff up your butt, so hopefully there will never be a goatse-bomber:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/24/body_scanner_fail/

      You can just walk onto the plane with the bomb parts strapped to you. Like the underwear bomber that started this whole mess.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    81. Re:Wanna check my balls? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      My favorite parts was:

      I'll take your corkscrews, your lighters and your matchbooks, dammit
      Got enough bottled water to save the fuckin' planet

      Imma need fifty dolla if you know what I mean
      I saw you big-ass dildo in my X-ray machine

      Last week I scored my girl some Chanel Number Five
      Lady hand over the perfume or you're gonna have to drive

      Now where can I buy a TSA Gangstaz T-shirt? XD

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    82. Re:Wanna check my balls? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      "favorite parts was..." :-(

      I better get to sleep.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    83. Re:Wanna check my balls? by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Are we allowed to request opposite-sex guards for these new-and-improved patdowns? If I'm gonna be fondled, it'd be nice if we can at least ask for a phone number...

    84. Re:Wanna check my balls? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Beautifully said, esteemed brother!

      I don't mind the more invasive pat-down because when it's done professionally, it's really not uncomfortable. The real problem is that the time to get a pat-down will about an order of magnitude longer than the time walking through the machine.

      Not if there's a line a million miles long for the machine, and no line for the rub-and-tug.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    85. Re:Wanna check my balls? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I am so glad I don't live in the land of the free. Here in AU the cops would most likely laugh and call you a d**khead.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    86. Re:Wanna check my balls? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      don't tasers spark a lot?

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    87. Re:Wanna check my balls? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I'm looking forward to reading the story about the person who opts out and then strips off in the terminal to prove they aren't carrying anything. It has to happen sometime soon.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    88. Re:Wanna check my balls? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I remember I had to stay somewhere for a while and the only water available was for drinking purposes only. I had to stay in that particular environment for around two weeks(some ppl here would know what I mean). I would pity the poor TSA worker who had to get anywhere near my balls or arse. It was like rancid soup mix down there for a while. If I went to have a piss I was actually scared to touch my own willy(the smell was indescribable) so imagine what it would be like for others. Even a ten dollar whore would have been violently ill before telling me to fsck off. Maybe all those traveling should not wash their privates for a fortnight before traveling and make it really, really uncomfortable.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    89. Re:Wanna check my balls? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Just to relieve my boredom, I might even pretend to be enjoying it.

      Just body build your sphincter up to the point where you could trap his finger with a simple clench.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    90. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh*

      Ignorance: One of the conditions known to hurt more individuals who aren't afflicted with it. This is primarily due to the repeated impacts of the palm to the face.

      The "S" in TSA stands for Security. Can you see it? Can you feel it? No, not really. It is the sense that nothing terrible is likely to happen when you fly. Some even call it peaceful.

      It takes tens of thousands of individuals around our country, working around the clock, to ensure this security. Have we seen another Pan Am 103? (Lockerbie, Scotland) Have we seen another Richard Reid? Have we seen another 9/11?

      A clue: No.

      Would you like to fly on an airline that doesn't screen passengers? Would you like to sit uncomfortably close to a stranger that hasn't been subjected to any security standard? Would you prefer to fly in an airplane that has no officers, peacekeepers or assurances that the guy/girl/child next to you isn't "ready to explode?"

      The techniques of terrorists change, therefore so do the techniques of security. You don't like it? There's more ways to get there than flying.

    91. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop at midthigh? Okay, then go find a security guard and tell them there is a screener not properly screening people. I wonder how well that will go.

    92. Re:Wanna check my balls? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I have no choice. Arthritis prevents me from lifting my arms up over my head for the full body scanners so I have to get felt up.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    93. Re:Wanna check my balls? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Get the TSA agents drunk. Beer goggles make you want to feel up anyone.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    94. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I ask her to first don a paper bag with a hole cut out for her mouth. If they're going to go to these lengths to harass us, the least they can do is be accommodating.

    95. Re:Wanna check my balls? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Wish more people would look into this. A surprisingly large number of people can afford to purchase a small plane. Cost wise, it can be competitive with commercial travel if you typically travel less than 500 miles and especially if you tend to travel to areas without large commercial operators. Even better, you get to travel on your own schedule, travel time can actually be less than commercial operators, and its actually fun.

      Also, if you frequently travel for pleasure, when comparing driving versus flying, you can typically do a round trip in less time than it takes to drive one way. Which ultimately means, more time to enjoy your destination.

      If you know anyone who owns a fishing boat, or a nice below ground pool, or owns an extra vehicle (car, motorcycle, boat, ATV, etc), then you know someone how can afford to own a plane. Of course, we're talking about a used plane, but planes don't typically age anything like cars.

      Also, planes can be financed on fifteen to thirty year loans. Which means, if you have the money to spend on a $25,000 on an extra vehicle (motorcycle, car, or boat) every five years, you can likely afford a $70,000-$90,000 plane. And, like cars and boats, leases are available. Not to mention flying clubs are also available which can dramatically cut the costs of flying.

    96. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      You know what's really stupid? I actually went through the Dick Measuring Device (aka back-scatter machine) for the first time about 6 weeks ago at Ft. Lauderdale Airport. Every single one of myself, the gentleman in front of me, and the gentleman behind me in line all agreed to do it, and yet the TSA staff vaguely apologized to each of us that the machine hadn't gotten a "sufficiently clear" image, and then did a nice little enhanced pat-down anyway. I suppose this was before the full rub-and-tug rules kicked in, but the three of us guys were just kind of guffawing about what a waste it was walking through the dick-imager if you're going to get felt up anyway.

      Next time, I'm declining the Dick Measuring Device. I don't really care about an agent looking at my dick if that's what gets their rocks off, but I'm sick of the security theater and I'm even more sick of these morons wasting my time with things like back-scatter technology if they don't know how to use it properly anyway.

      As far as I can tell, the scanner failed to produce a conclusive result on every single male that was scanned and every one was subject to pat down regardless. This has just become a way for more agents to pass the buck - the guy sitting in the other room just hits a button that says "I'm not sure" every time and forces the guys out in the main room to give you a reach-around.

      Next time I have to go to Florida, I'm flying through West Palm Beach. Hopefully they don't have this retardedly useless technology there yet.

    97. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      next time there is a crying baby on your flight, just remember this story and be glad you are not sitting next to the guy who had spent months in the jungles of Cambodia.

    98. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Charged. Battery. Is that some kind of Fox News galvanic humor?

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    99. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I check your anus?

    100. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Schmyz · · Score: 1

      Its bad enough to remove our shoes...Why hasnt the US gotten the shoe xray system that they use all over Israel????

    101. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Schmyz · · Score: 1

      It is a shame how true this probably is.

    102. Re:Wanna check my balls? by futureguy5 · · Score: 1

      Wanna check my adult diaper? Clean or used, it's your hand at risk.

    103. Re:Wanna check my balls? by ikeman32 · · Score: 1

      And then you'll be charged with battery.

      Battery is defined as an unprivileged offensive touching. Since the passenger is not the one doing the touching he/she could not be charged with battery. Flatulence even if intentional would simply an offensive bodily function at an inopportune moment for the TSA worker. What made that case was that the guy was already under arrest and drunk his flatulence was obviously intentional and not doubt he though it was funny.

    104. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being charged doesn't affect your criminal record, only being convicted.

    105. Re:Wanna check my balls? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Arrests show up on a criminal record run from the FBI and from all the states I've ever lived in. My wife works in HR and runs piles of background checks, and they most certainly show arrests. And I have friends in the FBI and have obtained my own record from the FBI and my record was arrest-free, but I was informed that any arrests by the FBI (or almost every other federal agency or many state arrests for things the FBI tracks) would have been on that record as well.

      So I'm curious, how do you know that arrests aren't on criminal records? I've seen them on criminal records, and it sounds like some jackass AC is spreading lies because he thinks his incorrect opinion passes as fact.

    106. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      "breaching the canister"? is that what they are calling it these days.

    107. Re:Wanna check my balls? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      When I travel with a firearm, I generally find the checking in process to be *very* efficient. When you check in a firearm, they want to very quickly do the check-and-lock, they get your boarding pass to you and you go to the front of the line and give the handlers your bag yourself. I've had a *far* easier time traveling with guns than with musical instruments. When boarding with a guitar I have *always* been subjected to extra scrutiny. When traveling with a gun, I *never* have been. I've never traveled with both, but I think I should try it.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    108. Re:Wanna check my balls? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      At the other end of the trip, even flying on a gun friendly airline, when I was called up to get my gun case the baggage handler looked me like I was a leaper and all but ran away once I took possession.

      I flew with a giant Pelican case that's about 5 and a half feet long with wheels.

    109. Re:Wanna check my balls? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Wish more people would look into this. A surprisingly large number of people can afford to purchase a small plane.

      And it's not all that terribly difficult to get a VFR license. I know a whole lot of people who have a private plane and a VFR ticket (I work in an general-aviation related business, where *all* of the execs and senior management are pilots.)

      The thing to understand about VFR is that, yes, you can fly places a bit faster than driving, but you have to plan the day you fly and your route around the weather. To take it to the next level requires you to put in so many hours flying that you're a career pilot. To get to the threshold of flying private jets is way, way more serious.

      Now, there are still a surprisingly large number of people who can afford to pay the depreciation on a Gulfstream and can afford to employ a professional flight crew. But that's a way smaller number than those who can afford a Cessna Stationair or a 180 or whatever.

      Private flying can be really rewarding and can be a self-sustaining hobby or even a profitable endeavor, but do not underestimate the many hidden costs, and do not imagine that owning your own airplane and having your pilot's license means you won't be flying US Airways or Delta ever again. At best, it will expand your range for weekend trips and might be a huge boost to someone who does a lot of regional business. But flying will make you even more bitter about being at the mercy of the TSA and the parameters of commercial aviation.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    110. Re:Wanna check my balls? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Have we seen another Pan Am 103 [wikipedia.org]? (Lockerbie, Scotland) Have we seen another Richard Reid [wikipedia.org]? Have we seen another 9/11?"

      Would you say that is more a result of the TSA feeling your balls or more because they don't understand why your grandmother has a metal hip joint?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    111. Re:Wanna check my balls? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Now, there are still a surprisingly large number of people who can afford to pay the depreciation on a Gulfstream and can afford to employ a professional flight crew. But that's a way smaller number than those who can afford a Cessna Stationair or a 180 or whatever.

      That doesn't sound even remote possible. Besides, the operational differences between the former and later are night and day. It doesn't make sense to turn the key on a trip less than 500 miles for something like a Gulfstream. Likewise, for trips over 500 miles, the later suddenly becomes a lot more attractive. Furthermore, for those shorter distance trips, weather isn't typically an issue for a forward looking pilot.

      Besides, the flight profile for jets versus piston are also in stark contrast. Most pistons will fly somewhere in the 3,000 - 12,000 MSL range. Most jets will fly in the 20,000 and above range. That alone dictates big differences in their use. A low flying jet (in typical SE piston range) is slow with horrible fuel burn. A low flying single only typically sees a slight difference. Ideal or piston is short haul at the cited altitudes. Ideal for jet is long haul at the cited altitudes. Those are big, practical differences.

      Plus, a SE piston typically has many more choices of airports. Jets typically require larger ancillary or a primary. In some states this isn't much of an issue. In others, its an extra two hour turn around on the ground. Granted VLJs are working to somewhat change this aspect.

      Plus, operational expenses for turbine versus piston is huge. Piston is typically measured in hundreds of dollars. Turbine is typically measured in thousands of dollars. Granted you can carry a lot more people in a jet, but most trips typically require only one or two people plus baggage - which is exactly why VLJs have such an appeal to the jet crowd.

    112. Re:Wanna check my balls? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Going between Phoenix and Portland has never had the slightest reaction, but I once heard a person in line behind me gasp when I opened my case.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  3. doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How exactly does this make us anymore secure? If a terrorist could exploit a loophole in the pat down procedure, then he wouldn't care whether it was anymore embarrassing.

    1. Re:doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You'd almost think it wasn't about terrorism.

    2. Re:doesn't make sense by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fewer rights we have, the more secure we are! Eliminating privacy will surely protect us from those evil terrorists!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    3. Re:doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly does this make us anymore secure? If a terrorist could exploit a loophole in the pat down procedure, then he wouldn't care whether it was anymore embarrassing.

      It doesn't make us more secure.. that would be beside the point, don't you think? Increasing scanner use by humiliating airport travelers cuts labor costs for the security services and it helps to make a stronger business case for the manufacturer of those scanners so many airport travelers don't seem to want to use. They guy in the summary is right, scanners won't really do anything that a pat-down doesn't do until they can pick out the guys who shoved enough Semtex and detonators into up fundaments to take out an airliner. In the mean time you can choose between being groped by a security officer or stepping into the scanner and having a couple of donut eating uniforms make fun of your love-handles and man-boobs or making lewd comments about you if you are a woman.

    4. Re:doesn't make sense by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With the introduction of these scanners I just refuse to fly unless it's out of a small private jet. It may take longer to get somewhere in this country, and may limit where I can go in many cases, but it's better than giving up fundamental liberties.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    5. Re:doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you gave up the fundamental liberty of freedom of movement? Does not seem like an improvement just a d

    6. Re:doesn't make sense by hrvatska · · Score: 1

      How exactly does this make us anymore secure? If a terrorist could exploit a loophole in the pat down procedure, then he wouldn't care whether it was anymore embarrassing.

      Once you no longer have the right to move freely without the proper documents and every shred of your personal freedom is gone, then you'll truly be free. Remember, the next time we enter into another war, and anyone who asks too many questions is labeled unpatriotic, that WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. And then thank Big Brother that you have it so good.

    7. Re:doesn't make sense by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      How exactly does this make us anymore secure?

      It makes people fear and respect the power of authorities, and that makes a lot of other people feel secure.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    8. Re:doesn't make sense by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wish I had mod points so that more people would consider this. With todays economy depending on where you are going the size of your group and how close to the travel date you want to leave it may be cheaper to rent a private plane over taking comercial aircraft. I'd think even in cases where it isn't literally cheaper the added freedom on time and elbow room along with the only way to assure that the plane didn't get over booked means that you are by far better off.

    9. Re:doesn't make sense by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I would rather trade being able to leave the country (which I cannot legally do unless I lie on my passport application) then put up with intrusive scanning. I can still get in a car and drive anywhere in the continental U.S. that I want (with the exception of military bases, of course).

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    10. Re:doesn't make sense by grumling · · Score: 1

      Really? Must be nice to be able to blow that much money on a jet...

      http://www.netjets.com/NetJets_Programs/Fractional_Aircraft_Ownership.asp

      http://www.newflightcharters.com/private_jet_charter_flight_pricing.htm

      Meanwhile a quick Expedia.com search shows ASE to MIA at $315-450/person . Even with 6 fliers that's exponentially lower cost than going on a small charter flight. Granted that's not the-week-before-thanksgiving prices, but you get the idea.

      If you really want to avoid hassle, drive. I can make it across the US in 24-36 hours if there's no really bad weather. That's not really much longer than flying when you have to deal with connections and other crap. Sleeping accommodations may not be the best if you're aiming for that $315 price and/or time sweet spot, but a pickup truck bed with an air mattress works very well and is dirt cheap, unless you're in -20F degree weather.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    11. Re:doesn't make sense by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      I would rather trade being able to leave the country (which I cannot legally do unless I lie on my passport application) then put up with intrusive scanning.

      Out of interest, if I may ask, why are you not allowed to leave the country legally? I've never heard of such a thing...

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    12. Re:doesn't make sense by xnpu · · Score: 1

      If only that were true. Removing the rights of citizens just pushes terrorists into the government. It's a vicious circle.

    13. Re:doesn't make sense by T-Bone-T · · Score: 4, Informative

      I looked in to this when my family and I went to Cancun, Mexico. A small jet started at $3,000 per flight hour so our trip would have cost at least $12,000. The company also said that if you stay long enough at your destination, you will get charged for 2 round trips. We opted instead to spend $2,000 for round-trip tickets on American Airlines.

    14. Re:doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eliminating privacy will surely protect us from those evil terrorists!

      This isn't about privacy, we lost that a long time ago.
      This is trying to convince us that we're nothing more than government property.

    15. Re:doesn't make sense by T-Bone-T · · Score: 3, Informative

      You think 24-36 hours is almost as fast as flying? Southwest, know for always having to stop somewhere, can get you from Albany, NY to Ontario, CA in 9-11 hours. American can go JFK to LAX in 6 hours. Add in arriving 2 hours ahead of time and it is still 3 times faster than driving. On a good day, you'll get there tomorrow while I'll get there today and have dinner, a night on the town, a good night's rest, a good breakfast, a productive day, and then greet you as you arrive after you've dealt with countless idiots that may or may not be trying to ru you off the road.

    16. Re:doesn't make sense by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Felons, especially those on parole, can't get passports, along with own guns and vote.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    17. Re:doesn't make sense by Idbar · · Score: 1

      Oh, but it is. What you have to think harder is who's the real perpetrator.

    18. Re:doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here's a hypothesis:

      The data from these "backscatter" x-ray devices can be used to uniquely-identify people. (perhaps by body shape, or even one's stride/gate?) US intelligence authorities want to collect a variety of such biometric data, from as many people as possible.

    19. Re:doesn't make sense by harrytuttle777 · · Score: 1

      I don't think some people realize that an 'Effective' pat down is really hard to do, and IMHO would take > 15 mins. There are just to many folds, and crevasse in clothes where small objects could be hidden. If you really want to do it you have to take your time, and crumple/ smooth down every inch clothing / body. Take time to explore and get to know the subject under inspection.

      People should just grow up and forget their modesty. Realize that everyone has titties/ dicks / vaginas. But this is not the way of things today.

    20. Re:doesn't make sense by kevorkian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please tell me why you think you need a passport to leave the USA ??

      A passport is simply a note from the US state department documenting that you are a USA citizen. Some countries may require you to have one to enter it ( the other country ) But you sure do not need one to LEAVE the usa ..

    21. Re:doesn't make sense by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "This isn't about privacy, we lost that a long time ago."

      Almost...

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    22. Re:doesn't make sense by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      And, of course, what Orwell forgot to say is that once you have lost everything, you have nothing left to lose by fighting against such repression.

    23. Re:doesn't make sense by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Your comment has been flagged for the phrase "over taking comercial aircraft"!

    24. Re:doesn't make sense by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I feel the same way; unfortunately, I've had to fly several times for work. Due to the time it would take to drive, it has not been an option.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    25. Re:doesn't make sense by CAIMLAS · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can make it across the US in 24-36 hours if there's no really bad weather.

      No, you can't. Best case, you're looking at around 48 hours, assuming you don't sleep: two days of straight travel.

      Realistically, you're looking at 3 or maybe even 4 days of travel: sleeping, resting, stretching your legs and eating all take time (losing you about 8-10 hours a day). This number is a little higher if you've got children to contend with (more food and exercise requirements).

      If you've got a week+ to burn and don't mind driving, go ahead. A couple years ago I drove from the Black Hills to upstate NY (and then back again a month later). I was unemployed, so the trip was tenable due to not having any time obligations, and it was slightly cheaper than 4 plane tickets (even after a small collision with a deer). However, it took almost 3 days (1800 miles), and that was traveling at around 85mph for most of the trip.

      However, for any distance under (say) 600 miles or so, I'd agree: drive. It actually is quicker, and is substantially cheaper without the hassle. An hour to the airport, 1-3 hours waiting, an hour or so in transit, and another hour to get your bags, rental, etc. and then another 30 minutes to 2 hours to your actual destination. Anywhere on the seaboards, I'd say "just drive".

      Anything up to 12 hours of driving is, IMO, acceptable at this point - even for a single person. I'd love to get a small turbo diesel van to make these trips pleasant and (even less) inexpensive for me and my family.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    26. Re:doesn't make sense by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      Its not about making anyone more secure.
      They just want to perve on little kids.

    27. Re:doesn't make sense by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      You can drive across the continental US in 24 hours? 36 to 60 is a better estimate.

      I call shenanigans. LA to Jacksonville is pretty much the shortest coast to coast route and thats 2410 miles. Without stopping for fuel, food, you'd have to average 100 mph. Even doing it in 36 hours would be hard to do.

      I drove Portland to Jacksonville with only a four hour stop once, it was goddamned dangerous and I shouldn't have pushed it that hard.

    28. Re:doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can get there faster and have a pre-flight ball massage, who would drive?

    29. Re:doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSA is a ridiculous agency. You don't have to be a Slashdot reader to know that we live in a digital age and that information is collected on every American, mostly through commercial databases. Lexus Nexus and Reuters sell commercial information to law enforcement agencies. For official purposes, from my desk I can see a persons entire history, where you were born, went to school, last time voted, criminal and civil court filings, etc. in minutes. Since most people buy flight tickets well in advance a few TSA idiots could run the entire flight roster and see that no one on the flight is a threat risk. Of course, if there is a gap a person's history then further screening might be required. Everyone else could be passed through. the terrorists have already won. Our politicians want us to be afraid so they can keep their jobs "to keep the U.S. safe"

    30. Re:doesn't make sense by Leebert · · Score: 1

      However, for any distance under (say) 600 miles or so, I'd agree: drive. It actually is quicker, and is substantially cheaper without the hassle. An hour to the airport, 1-3 hours waiting, an hour or so in transit, and another hour to get your bags, rental, etc. and then another 30 minutes to 2 hours to your actual destination. Anywhere on the seaboards, I'd say "just drive".

      Anywhere along the Northeast Corridor, I'd say "Just Amtrak." (Just about to board an Acela Express, as a matter of fact...)

    31. Re:doesn't make sense by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 1

      Exploiting a hole of some sort is exactly what the author mentioned a number of times.

    32. Re:doesn't make sense by kcitren · · Score: 1

      Its doubtful. Regarding stride/gait, these devices are for static, non moving, images; they are completely unsuitable for gait analysis [which is a real thing]. If authorities wanted to collect biometric data on passengers, they would just do that [and I expect they will soon]. Multimodal biometric collection devices are cheap and relatively fast [fingerprint and iris verification would take less time than a patdown].

    33. Re:doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So has yours.

    34. Re:doesn't make sense by tx_kanuck · · Score: 1

      Please tell me why you think you need a passport to leave the USA ??

      A passport is simply a note from the US state department documenting that you are a USA citizen. Some countries may require you to have one to enter it ( the other country ) But you sure do not need one to LEAVE the usa ..

      Actually, I've had my passport checked by ICE as I was leaving the US by car. The Sweetwater border crossing in MT requires you to have your passport checked by ICE before you get to the Canadian border. They pulled the car in front of my off to the side and searched it.

      And yes, I have see this multiple times at that crossing.

      *ICE = Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

      --
      Now, if that makes sense to anyone, could you please explain it to me? I think I've confused myself.
    35. Re:doesn't make sense by republic · · Score: 1

      Passports, at least for the USA, do not prove citizenship. They merely prove nationality, a.k.a. allegiance. You may, or may not need a passport to leave the country, but if you wish to return, you will need to present one at the border. I know that all international air travel, via commercial aviation, departing the USA requires a passport per regulation. I am not quite so familiar with sea and land.

      For more info on nationality see "Why A National"

      republic

    36. Re:doesn't make sense by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      !!

    37. Re:doesn't make sense by kevorkian · · Score: 1

      While it may be required to have a passport to ENTER a country .. I have been able to travel without having my passport checked for departure.

      Last time I flew internationally ( to london in 04 ) The first time my passport came out was when I landed at heathrow. Yes the ticket agent asked for it, I handed her my NYS ID , she asked "do you have your passport?" , I showed it to her. but did not let her examine it.As far as I now it does not have any RFID in it ( was issued in 02 ) The guy at security used the phrase "passport please" but was satisfied with my NYS ID.

      The first time someone was permitted to examine the book in detail was after landing at immigration control ( or whatever the name is )

      Perhaps its changed .. but I sure hope not.

    38. Re:doesn't make sense by kevorkian · · Score: 1

      I understand the differences between nationality and citizenship .. However I can find no reference that states a US passport does not prove citizenship.

      Perhaps you can tell me why the state department will take a US passport as prof of citizenship.

      From

      http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

      Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (One of the following):

              Previously issued, undamaged U.S. Passport
              Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state*
              check box Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth
                Naturalization Certificate
                Certificate of Citizenship

      I would have to say that if the state department says a passport shows I am a citizen .. then thats what it does ..

      Do you have any references that say otherwise ?? ( and please avoid PDF's .. )

    39. Re:doesn't make sense by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I'm a felon, I travel the globe. I vote. I am not allowed to own a gun even though my crime involved no weapon or violence (Conspiracy to Witness.)

      Your argument is mostly invalid.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    40. Re:doesn't make sense by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

      People should just grow up and forget their modesty. Realize that everyone has titties/ dicks / vaginas. But this is not the way of things today.

      While it is true that most people have titties, it's not so common for people to have dicks and vaginas.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    41. Re:doesn't make sense by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

      However, for any distance under (say) 600 miles or so, I'd agree: drive. It actually is quicker, and is substantially cheaper without the hassle. An hour to the airport, 1-3 hours waiting, an hour or so in transit, and another hour to get your bags, rental, etc. and then another 30 minutes to 2 hours to your actual destination. Anywhere on the seaboards, I'd say "just drive".

      Maybe you just live too far away from airports. Take this example, I have a 15-30 minute rail to the airport, an hour at the airport (I take no head to the 2-3 hours early warning from the airlines), 2 hours of flight, no checked bags, and another 15-30 to get to my final destination. That's a whole lot faster than driving (4 hours flying vs 7.5 hours (600 miles at 85 mph)) Now, flying is most likely more expensive, but if the distance is over 250 miles I'll take flying any day.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    42. Re:doesn't make sense by harrytuttle777 · · Score: 1

      You insensitive clod. Why don't you think of all the hermaphrodites of the world. Your casual disregard for their many sexual apparatuses makes me sad, and makes me think you need to be probed by a TSA official

    43. Re:doesn't make sense by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        Are you still in the Black Hills area?

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    44. Re:doesn't make sense by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested to know which airlines allow you to get on an international flight without a passport. Certainly in the UK, the answer is "none of them".

    45. Re:doesn't make sense by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      You're falsely assuming that he would be doing the speed limit.

      http://www.wired.com/cars/coolwheels/magazine/15-11/ff_cannonballrun

      Alex Roy made it from NY to LA in 31 hours and 4 minutes by car.

      Regardless, with all the bullshit going on in airports, there's no reason to fly unless you're being held at gunpoint. If everyone simply refused to fly until they quit this crap, the airlines would lose money so fast the TSA would be out the door in no time.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    46. Re:doesn't make sense by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      I have about the same point in terms of driving vs. flying... If it's more than 12 hours of driving, I'll lean towards flying... otherwise I'd pretty much rather drive. Also, I didn't feel secure flying into LAX a few months after 9-11 and seeing a bunch of pseudo-military troopers with rifles all over the airport... it was definitely less safe feeling to me... All we needed to do after 9-11 is increase bag checks and, well not much else. Lets be honest, anyone tries to hijack a plane full of passengers at this point is going to be in a world of hurt...

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    47. Re:doesn't make sense by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      However, for any distance under (say) 600 miles or so, I'd agree: drive. It actually is quicker, and is substantially cheaper without the hassle. An hour to the airport, 1-3 hours waiting, an hour or so in transit, and another hour to get your bags, rental, etc. and then another 30 minutes to 2 hours to your actual destination. Anywhere on the seaboards, I'd say "just drive".

      The "seaboards" includes the west coast, which includes LA. Believe me, as someone who drives from Northern California to San Diego and back once or twice a month, it's a lot less painful to go through airport security than it is to drive through LA during any daylight hours.

      I fly about half the time, and drive through LA at 4AM the other half.

      I also voted for the CA high-speed train. I don't care if it's a boondoggle - LA traffic really is bad enough to be worth any price to bypass.

    48. Re:doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving 12 hours != sitting through 3 hours in airports.

    49. Re:doesn't make sense by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      However, for any distance under (say) 600 miles or so, I'd agree: drive. It actually is quicker, and is substantially cheaper without the hassle. An hour to the airport, 1-3 hours waiting, an hour or so in transit, and another hour to get your bags, rental, etc. and then another 30 minutes to 2 hours to your actual destination. Anywhere on the seaboards, I'd say "just drive".

      Must be an American thing.

      I travelled from Stockholm to Copenhagen and back this last week. Takes 1 hour from here to the airport. Need to be there 45 minutes ahead of time. 1 hour 45 minutes to fly to Copenhagen and then 1 hour from touch down to my destination.

      That's 4½ hours each way or 9 hours total. Total cost, including transit to/from airports: 230 dollars.

      Distance by car is 678 km (421 miles). Assuming 5 liters/100 km (not unreasonable for the distance assuming a diesel car) that adds up to 68 litres of diesel, totalling 123 dollars in local prices.

      Add 100 USD for the toll bridge (both ways) and we're now looking at 223 dollars for that trip.

      So now I'm paying 7 dollars more than I would have by car. But the car journey would take about 14 hours total. So by driving in a car, I'm making 1.4 dollars an hour, and to be honest, I'd rather pay those 7 dollars, save five hours of travel, not have to deal with the hassle of driving.

      Now - if I was going with a friend? Sure, car is cheaper, as the cost barely increases (ignoring that I don't have a car or a driver's license). But for the "puddle jumping" that I need to do, I find the plane much simpler, faster and more relaxing. Hell, I can catch a nap on the plane - not a good idea if you're in a car on your own.

    50. Re:doesn't make sense by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Understandable and unfortunate. ):

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    51. Re:doesn't make sense by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Albany, NY to Ontario, CA in 9-11 hours

      I liked that you inserted "9-11" in your response to an article about TSA hysteria over 9-11 actions (well, rather, responses).

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    52. Re:doesn't make sense by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but try telling that to folks who are addicted to convenience.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    53. Re:doesn't make sense by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Well, I was told (and never followed up to confirm) that one of the passport application is if you've ever smoked pot and if you answer yes, it's an automatic rejection. I'm about to confirm that, but if it is true, I will not be able to legally get a passport.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    54. Re:doesn't make sense by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      Apparently, I also mentioned New York. COMBO BONUS!

    55. Re:doesn't make sense by republic · · Score: 1

      Read 22 U.S.C. 212

      The only requirement for a passport is proof of allegiance.

      Then read 22 C.F.R. 51.2

      A United States passport shall be issued only to a national of the United States.

      The fact that the passport office deems a passport as proof of citizenship is either a mistake in terminology in the part of their instructions, or due to the fact that on the original application for the first passport issued, evidence of citizenship or nationality was provided.

      A third party, who is not the federal government, would need to request the passport office to check the original records to determine if a passport was issued to a statutory US Citizen, statutory US National, or to a non-citizen national. The regular passport (as opposed to the diplomatic or official passports) itself does not provide prima facie evidence of citizenship.

      If you are still interested in these issues, I really recommend the Why A National link. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, you should benefit from the compilation of relevant statutes, regulations and case law.

      republic

    56. Re:doesn't make sense by republic · · Score: 1

      In addition to my other reply to this post, 22 U.S.C. 2705 provides justification for the claim made in the instructions, but does not clarify the issue for a third party.

      There is no physical distinguishing characteristic between a passport issued to a national and one issued to a US Citizen.

      The instructions provided by the state department are not legally admissible evidence, and are even self contradictory in this case. A Certificate of Naturalization proves nationality, not citizenship. The fact that most applicants for naturalization choose to become statutory US Citizens by filing 1040s and W-4s (or otherwise changing their domicile to within the statutory United States), does not convert this document into proof of citizenship.

      See 22 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)
      'The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.'

      Here is some more info on naturalization in the form of a Cite List

      republic

    57. Re:doesn't make sense by republic · · Score: 1

      8 U.S.C. 1185(b)
      "Except as otherwise provided by the President and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may authorize and prescribe, it shall be unlawful for any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States unless he bears a valid United States passport."

      I did not see an passport requirement for departing nationals, but I may be missing it in the code.

      republic

    58. Re:doesn't make sense by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      However, it took almost 3 days (1800 miles), and that was traveling at around 85mph for most of the trip.

      You must do a lot of stopping! I just drove 2300 miles from PA to Arizona - with my mother - this summer. The car had rather shit A/C (leaky $45 fill valve), and once you hit the plains where its so flat you can see the curvature of the earth, it's a fucking boring drive. I left on a Friday around noon and was got here on Sunday night.

      I could have quite easily made it in two days and one hotel room if I didn't have a scared old lady who last was in the car with me driving when I was a teenager along as a passenger.

      putting in a 16+ hour day of driving sucks, but it's not THAT bad if ya take a long break in the middle and a few others in between.

    59. Re:doesn't make sense by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      I've never understood what was "convenient" about having to arrive 3-4 hours before the flight, wait in line for hours, hassle with security, etc.... but that's my opinion.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    60. Re:doesn't make sense by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Wow, you are so wrong. I've done it in under 36 hours... Vegas to DC. And 2900 miles (Cali to NY) at 75 is a little over 38.5 hours. Add an hour for 3 gas stops and drive-thru food and driver changes.

      Now, when I did it, I had a co-driver, and we took turns all the way. And we were lucky enough to not hit traffic. And there were no daytime speed limits in some of the states we drove through... so we were going over 90mph for much of the trip, and then 80+ for most of the rest, then down to 70 for the remaining 10% (when we hit the 65mph zone), and 55-60 for 50-100 miles.

      Of course, it was a lot cheaper back then too... nowadays, it would cost me $280-300 in gas... compared to less than half that back then. Still cheaper than flying two people, and very scenic. But, I'd prefer to fly...

    61. Re:doesn't make sense by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I think someone censored the last half of your post

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    62. Re:doesn't make sense by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      It's not that bad. Despite becoming antiquated, travel by boat is still quite possible. Well, freighter boats for the average American. Even though the article notes there could be problems entering a country, for the most part, lack of security funding and apathy will mean someone will just glance at your passport before waving you into the country. At the very least, one would not be required to wade through hours of pointless security before entering the boat.

    63. Re:doesn't make sense by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      Well, I was told (and never followed up to confirm) that one of the passport application is if you've ever smoked pot and if you answer yes, it's an automatic rejection. I'm about to confirm that, but if it is true, I will not be able to legally get a passport.

      While I also can't confirm or deny it, to me that just sounds ridiculous. Having smoked pot is something that a very large percentage of the US population has done (including more than one president in recent history apparently). I highly doubt that it would affect your ability to get a passport.

      One of the other replies (from interval1066) said that felons can't get passports, which while also dubious sounding is at least slightly more imaginable - Khyber's answer to him however seems to refute that.

      Basically, unless you're a wanted criminal or being officially detained in some way (such as "currently under order not to leave the state due to an ongoing criminal investigation"), I doubt there's anything that'll stop you getting a passport.

      Just to add to that, the standard form appears to be this one and everything on it is very standard. No questions about a criminal history or activities. I don't doubt they'd perform all the necessary checks if they are relevant, but they don't appear to ask you directly about them.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    64. Re:doesn't make sense by noodler · · Score: 1

      "If a terrorist could exploit a loophole in the pat down procedure, ..."

      A loophole, or any other body cavity.

    65. Re:doesn't make sense by CondeZer0 · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with sense, it is not supposed to make any sense, it is security theater, all it is designed to do is make people feel that the government is doing something and at the same time help fill the pockets of the "security" industry scam artists.

      --
      "When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
    66. Re:doesn't make sense by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Time to get a passport then. I'd like to be able to go on mission trips outside the U.S. at least once in my life. (:

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    67. Re:doesn't make sense by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      oh I agree, but flying is a convenience, supposedly.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    68. Re:doesn't make sense by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      In the jurisdiction where I live (CA), felons may not own guns, vote, or hold a passport. I know this to be fact; I'm married to someone who works in law enforcement. My "arguments" as you put it are valid on the face of it. What you didn't add was that as far as I know felons who are on probation absolutely may not do these things. Now once the probationary period is completed felons (who at that point are ex-felons) may have their records expunged or the legals statuses of gun ownership or passport holding modified, judge and jurisdiction discretion. Your statement is the incorrect one. You see, its disingenuous not to disclose all the information. But then what would one expect of an ex-felon?

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    69. Re:doesn't make sense by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      No, but Janis Joplin said that.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    70. Re:doesn't make sense by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 1

      His numbers are clearly way off. I just made a trip from San Antonio, TX to Glennie MI which is a little over 1600 miles in 25 hours. And I never broke 70 because I was hauling a trailer.

    71. Re:doesn't make sense by zero_out · · Score: 1

      I like your idea. Unfortunately for me, my wife simply will not travel if she can't fly, and the trip requires more than 6 hours of driving. So we either fly, or I visit my family alone. Furthermore, she insists on a vacation every year, and it is always to some place that requires flying. Hawaii? Europe? Caribbean? At least 2 of the 3 require flying or swimming.

    72. Re:doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the skeleton, that would work (they're unique and fairly stable). The skin is flexible, and there's a fat layer below the skin that varies in volume over fairly short periods. So, even if the backscatter result would be unique, it would be fairly useless because it's not stable over time. Besides, iris scanners are far cheaper (simple optics) and do offer both uniqueness and stability.

    73. Re:doesn't make sense by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I live in California as well. I have my voting card, I most certainly have my passport. I have not been on probation for about... oh three years now. Maybe that has something to do with it, but my status as a felon still stands, my record has not been expunged.

      Having someone that works in LAW ENFORCEMENT != having someone working as a LAWYER, and I have spoken with many of those.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    74. Re:doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      noooo, who would think of that. thats a crackpot theory.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO0-u900OG4

    75. Re:doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreeing with you. No, you cannot make it across the US in 24-36 hours in a car. I rode a motorcycle from NYC to San Francisco and (minus the day I rested) it took 4 days. Guess what? Even stopping for gas takes awhile.

      I'll fly, but I won't submit to the scanner because it is not safe. It is even less safe for the morons who are standing next to the machine all day.

  4. Pat down, or molest? by MoeDumb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What will be the difference between a pat down and a molest? Inevitably it'll take a lawsuit to find out.

    --
    Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
    1. Re:Pat down, or molest? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2, Funny

      The pat down stops all those nasty terrorists, of course! It's also done by people you can definitely trust.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Rod76 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All this is really going to do is make the already financially unstable airline industry even more likely to go into bankruptcy. The only time I fly now is if work forces it upon me. I'm tired of these TSA thugs, they are becoming more and more like prison guards these days and we the public are the new fish being introduced to their penal system. Where's the for the children tag when you need it. If the backscatter scanner doesn't violate them enough the TSA "child molester" pat down will definitely seal the deal. I wonder what future generations will say about our obsession with security in years to come? I don't think we'll come out smelling like roses.

      --
      Die First, Then Quit
    3. Re:Pat down, or molest? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I wonder what future generations will say about our obsession with security in years to come?"

      If people keep putting up with it, they'll probably be in the same situation we are.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    4. Re:Pat down, or molest? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      actually i am just tired of airline prices. It used to be well worth my time to fly instead of spending 6-8 hours driving. now a days it costs almost twice of what it did back then.

      I find it sad when one can fly to Florida, or Nevada, or Los Angeles from NY cheaper than it is to fly to Boston. Not only is it cheaper but it is faster too. As the majority of direct flights have to bounce through PA, or New Jersey.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:Pat down, or molest? by jimicus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which will almost certainly culminate in a ruling which essentially says "Airports are different to other parts of the world and the TSA can essentially invent their own law there, and if their law says they can gently fondle your bollocks with one hand while jacking off with the other, so be it".

    6. Re:Pat down, or molest? by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or the fact that they essentially steal with impunity. My coworker packed a macbook pro in his checked bag but when he got back he found a note from the TSA and no laptop. The TSA claims that they have security cameras on their employees at all times so they couldn't have stolen it. However when he looked closely at his bag he saw a small but certainly noticeable cut on the upper right part of his bag.

      We theorize that the TSA people look for bags with goodies, "inspect" them and if they find something worth stealing they make a small cut on the bag. Then they give the bag to someone else who then proceeds to take it to a place without cameras, grabs the goodies and then sends the bag through.

      The TSA repeatedly claimed that since they "screen" their employees and that their employees don't steal. Bullshit.

    7. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      I got patted down at a UK airport once (I forget which, probably Bristol). It didn't seem anywhere near as intrusive as even the "old" method described on this page is. The chap just patted down my upper body and legs, it took maybe 20 seconds, and the security guard seemed fairly good humoured about it.

      I'd prefer that to the radiation bath. Not sure about my preferences if full crotch-rubbing is involved.

    8. Re:Pat down, or molest? by phoomp · · Score: 1

      They'll just say a little molestation is a price worth paying to ensure our "safety".

    9. Re:Pat down, or molest? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually i am just tired of airline prices

      While you might be experiencing a moderate fare bump right now, historically fares have never been cheaper.

      50 years ago or so it would have cost about $300 to fly transcon - Nearly $2400 in todays's dollars. Today you can fly from New York to LA for under $500.

      Here's some more recent examples:

      In 1990 I flew from Vancouver to London... It was my first big backpacking trip after university. I remember the fare was around $950 - Around $1540 in today's dollars. By comparison, that same trip on those same dates would cost $1465 today - Almost $100 less.

      I remember around 1999 I used to fly Vancouver to Denver once a month on United. The flight, purchased three weeks ahead without a Saturday stay was around $1000. Indexed to today's dollars, that's nearly $1300.

      Today the fare is about half that - Or less.

      So are fares moderately higher than they might have been 2 or 3 years ago? Maybe, but in looking at the big picture fares have never been lower.

    10. Re:Pat down, or molest? by russotto · · Score: 1

      Which will almost certainly culminate in a ruling which essentially says "Airports are different to other parts of the world and the TSA can essentially invent their own law there, and if their law says they can gently fondle your bollocks with one hand while jacking off with the other, so be it".

      Did you used to clerk for the 2nd Circuit? Sounds like their "special needs" test.

    11. Re:Pat down, or molest? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't fly with a valuable laptop without theft recovery technology, period. This is what netbooks are for... or lojack

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Pat down, or molest? by gamricstone · · Score: 1

      but in looking at the big picture fares have never been lower.

      Except for (according to your post) 2 or 3 years ago...

      --
      The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. - Einstein
    13. Re:Pat down, or molest? by jhigh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or the fact that they essentially steal with impunity. My coworker packed a macbook pro in his checked bag but when he got back he found a note from the TSA and no laptop. The TSA claims that they have security cameras on their employees at all times so they couldn't have stolen it. However when he looked closely at his bag he saw a small but certainly noticeable cut on the upper right part of his bag. We theorize that the TSA people look for bags with goodies, "inspect" them and if they find something worth stealing they make a small cut on the bag. Then they give the bag to someone else who then proceeds to take it to a place without cameras, grabs the goodies and then sends the bag through. The TSA repeatedly claimed that since they "screen" their employees and that their employees don't steal. Bullshit.

      This is yet another problem with the TSA, government-run airport security. A private security company couldn't afford to tolerate employees that steal, as they would likely lose the airline's business if there were too many complaints. Now that the government runs it and there's no competition, though, there's no motivation for TSA to aggressively pursue these complaints and handle the thieving employees appropriately. That's not to say that there was no theft prior to TSA, but I would imagine that it was far less and probably resulted in more disciplinary action.

      --
      Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
    14. Re:Pat down, or molest? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Huh? Cite?

    15. Re:Pat down, or molest? by gamricstone · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming this was a joke, but I'll respond as though it isn't. I may be nitpicking here, but...

      > So are fares moderately higher than they might have been 2 or 3 years ago? Maybe
      > but in looking at the big picture fares have never been lower.
      The issue?
      > might have been (lower) 2 or 3 years ago
      > Never been lower

      What it could have read: So are fares moderately higher than they might have been 2 or 3 years ago? Maybe, but in looking at the big picture fares are still lower than they have been historically.

      --
      The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. - Einstein
    16. Re:Pat down, or molest? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh I see what you're saying. If fares were moderately lower 2 or 3 years ago then to say "they've never been lower" isn't correct. My bad... I meant while there have been upswings and downswings, historically fares today are cheaper than they were in the past.

    17. Re:Pat down, or molest? by JustOK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      depends on what the govt will let them say.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    18. Re:Pat down, or molest? by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      I work at an airport so I know that people already make up their own rules at airports. I've never seen so many people just stop in the road or run red lights. For some reason, they think the law no longer applies when you are at an airport.

    19. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Don't fly with a valuable laptop without theft recovery technology, period. This is what netbooks are for... or lojack

      Really? Lojack? You're kidding. Any thief/fence worth his salt will wipe the drive first thing. The closest thing to security for laptops are the BIOS passwords without mobo jumpers (that require a call to the manufacturer from the registered owner to get a master password). But even then, they can sell your laptop as spare parts on e-bay. Maybe if you get a GPS tracker that's always on, but I've not seen that standard on any laptop.

    20. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you think that "privatizing" security operations (which usually means outsourcing it to the company that pays their employees the least) will cut down on thefts, you are abysmally naive. Or you've been sucking on the rich Republican cock so long you think their disinformational jizz tastes yummy.

    21. Re:Pat down, or molest? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      2 or three years? try 10. it has been 5 years since I have flown and almost 10 since I flew to Boston. I look up the rates every once in a while(my sister isn't far from the airport, and driving in Boston sucks)

      For a non Stop Flight from upstate NY to Boston is $250 each way. 10 years ago it was $140. Non stop flights are less expensive but take 4-6 hours to do with 2+ hour layovers. I can drive there is 6 hours.

      I can fly to vegas which is 3 times farther away for half than i can fly to a major city that is 45 minutes by flight. call it an hour if the air traffic is heavy. The fuel alone should mean the prices are closer than that.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    22. Re:Pat down, or molest? by modecx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Always check a firearm--and make sure the case for the firearm is capable of holding your valuables. Cameras, computers, whatever. It's perfectly legal, and usually easy enough. Use a throw-away pistol if you don't want to risk loosing fancy guns.

      And, unlike standard baggage, you have to use a lock and case THEY can't open... And if they want to see the contents, by their own regulations YOU have to be present! Make sure your cell # is plastered all over the case.

      If someone (TSA, airport, whoever) ever lost or stole a checked in case containing a gun... Well, let's just say there's no surer or quicker way to see their representatives collectively crap their pants.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    23. Re:Pat down, or molest? by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Where in upstate NY exactly? Because I've flown to Boston from Rochester a number of times, for about $80 each way.

      JetBlue or Airtran, I can't remember which one.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    24. Re:Pat down, or molest? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      While you might be experiencing a moderate fare bump right now, historically fares have never been cheaper.

      Depends on what time of year you fly. If you fly randomly during the year, your prices might really be lower. They make up for it by screwing everybody flying within a couple of weeks on either side of Thanksgiving and Christmas with fares that are, on average, more than three times what they were in the late 1990s, from what I've seen.

      Ten years ago, I could fly back home from the SF Bay Area to Nashville or Memphis for... say $150 round trip. Maybe $250 on the high side. Even booking six full months in advance, it's hard to get under $300 each way. To get inexpensive flights or to get a free flight at bottom-mileage-tier rates, you had to fly out on the Monday or Tuesday of he week prior to Thanksgiving and fly back in December, then fly for Christmas no later than a week before Christmas and fly back almost a week after new years. And that's booking six months out.

      In short, they've eliminated the low cost fares during the holiday season and cranked up all the low cost fares to some of their highest tier prices as though you bought a ticket a week beforehand, all because they know people will fly during those periods no mater how bad they make it for them.

      Incidentally, I'm sick of the TSA bullshit. If I have to leave that early to get a decent rate and have to be subjected to a virtual strip search, then fuck all of them. I might as well take a train.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    25. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the fact that they essentially steal with impunity. My coworker packed a macbook pro in his checked bag but when he got back he found a note from the TSA and no laptop. The TSA claims that they have security cameras on their employees at all times so they couldn't have stolen it. However when he looked closely at his bag he saw a small but certainly noticeable cut on the upper right part of his bag.

      We theorize that the TSA people look for bags with goodies, "inspect" them and if they find something worth stealing they make a small cut on the bag. Then they give the bag to someone else who then proceeds to take it to a place without cameras, grabs the goodies and then sends the bag through.

      The TSA repeatedly claimed that since they "screen" their employees and that their employees don't steal. Bullshit.

      who in their right mind would check a laptop as baggage?? You might as well check a box of $100 bills with a green label saying "this box is full of CASH!!"

      It makes a lot of sense to check your carry on bag of dirty laundry instead and hand carry the laptop --- in your lap -- where you can keep an eye on it.

      maybe my laptop is more important to me or something, but really, how could you just throw away your data by checking it as baggage?

    26. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Come up to Alaska and then complain about plane fares.

      It costs less to fly long distances because longer flights are much more fuel efficient and cost effective.

    27. Re:Pat down, or molest? by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      What will be the difference between a pat down and a molest? Inevitably it'll take a lawsuit to find out.

      Then if a child passenger gets on the plane, we get to see who wins between "national security" and "think of the children".

      If "think of the children wins" then what's stopping anybody who wants to smuggle something on a plane from using a child to do it?

      If "national security" wins then any true pedophile who isn't registered is going to have a new dream job.

    28. Re:Pat down, or molest? by mr+exploiter · · Score: 1

      That's why Lojack (aka computrace) is installed in the BIOS, genius.

    29. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I think in time the definition will change: by definition, if a "security official" does it, it's not a molest.

      As someone else pointed out, this isn't about security, it's about training us to allow invasive searches without due process. Which includes training us to accept that whatever Authority does is acceptable.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    30. Re:Pat down, or molest? by wwphx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Excellent suggestion! I would never check my laptop or camera in to baggage, but if I ever did, I'd head down to Western Auto and buy a $200 POS.

      If I understand correctly, a blank-firing starter pistol also qualifies for this restriction.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    31. Re:Pat down, or molest? by iceperson · · Score: 1

      The real difference is a private company can fire their employees when they do wrong...

    32. Re:Pat down, or molest? by modecx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I understand correctly, a blank-firing starter pistol also qualifies for this restriction.

      That it does indeed. Someone wrote a guide to doing the checked firearm thing in far more detail than I can echo here (and I can't find the article), but it's also important to pack another lock or two for the case--in the event the retards cut your lock, you can always lock the case back up and be on your merry way.

      Also, the airlines may have rules above and beyond TSA's, so it's necessary to check that out.

      The reason I became interested in it, is I often check camera equipment that's just not practical to carry on... And I have a CCW with reciprocity in most states I travel to, so... Bonus.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    33. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      .. and this post and its score is a great example why debate is superfluous and we should just get down to killing as many as possible of those we hate instead.

    34. Re:Pat down, or molest? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Only us airways offers a direct flight. jetblue and airtran both bounce through JFK, newark, with delays.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    35. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      Yep, my retired parents drive when they come to Colorado from Florida to visit me. I've driven to Seattle twice and Corvallis, Oregon in the past 5 years, and the Oregon trip was for business (The Seattle ones were for sushi.) Sure, I'll fly if I absolutely have to, but if there's any other option, I'm taking that first.

      I took a train from Colorado to North Carolina a few years ago and that was one of my most enjoyable travel experiences. The seats were bigger, the treatment from the employees was MUCH better, I didn't have to deal with the TSA and the food was much better. If I had time free to drive but didn't want to actually drive, I'd totally take a train again.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    36. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wrong" has a different meaning at a private company.

      At a private company the moral obligation of managers is maximum profit so they can be quite content if employees do their jobs like shit as long as they cost next to nothing to employ and the company keeps the contract. Managers of government-run operations on the other hand at least have a moral obligation to do the job right.

    37. Re:Pat down, or molest? by LBt1st · · Score: 1

      By definition; Nothing.

    38. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still easy to wipe, genius.

    39. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Micah · · Score: 1

      I just booked SAT ATL leaving Thursday before Christmas and coming back Sunday (Christmas is the Saturday) for $315. I had been concerned that it would be $500 or more, maybe I just got lucky.

      Of course there's stupid checked bag fees which I may be able to avoid. Fares are often pretty low but the bag fees can help bring them back up to more historic levels.

    40. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "historically fares today are cheaper than they were in the past."

      Mind telling me where I can get a one-way ticket from LAX to DFW for $79 nowdays?

      Didn't think so.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    41. Re:Pat down, or molest? by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

      As the majority of direct flights have to bounce through PA, or New Jersey.

      I would posit that a whole 0% of direct flights "bounce" through PA or NJ, but I'd have to collect more data to be sure. As an aside, my brother takes the train from Boston to NY frequently and apparently it's quite nice, with power outlets for computers, leg room, freedom to walk and no intrusive security.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    42. Re:Pat down, or molest? by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

      Just because others don't follow the rules doesn't mean the TSA shouldn't.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    43. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't even have to be a real firearm. A starter pistol requires all the same special handling.

    44. Re:Pat down, or molest? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        This may seem like a stupid question (I don't fly) but wouldn't you always have to check a firearm if you're a civilian? Otherwise you might be planning on hijacking the aircraft, or something...

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    45. Re:Pat down, or molest? by jimicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you may have just hit upon the legal definition of "unstoppable force meets immovable object".

    46. Re:Pat down, or molest? by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      The real difference is a private company can fire their employees when they do wrong...

      And can't get away with excessive screening as they are more vulnerable to lawsuits.

    47. Re:Pat down, or molest? by hxnwix · · Score: 1, Troll

      .. and this post and its score is a great example why debate is superfluous and we should just get down to killing as many as possible of those we hate instead.

      Someone points out that you are wrong and you want to kill them. Welcome to being a Republican.

    48. Re:Pat down, or molest? by AGMW · · Score: 1

      ... As an aside, my brother takes the train from Boston to NY frequently and apparently it's quite nice, with power outlets for computers, leg room, freedom to walk and no intrusive security.

      Has no one told the TSA about the Madrid Train Bombings?

      Also, if the pat down doesn't include a cavity search then can anyone tell me where someone might hide something they didn't want found during a pat down? Anyone?

      Also, wasn't there some unfortunate suicide jockey with a grenade and cell phone implanted into his abdomen then remotely triggered by an accomplice when he got close enough to his target? As I recall the target survived 'cos the bomb's meat jacket contained the blast, but I don't think it was much fun for the cleaners!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    49. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was mentioned in a Schneier post. Pack a track pistol that fires blanks. It's legal without a license in all 50 states and the airlines classify it as a firearm.

    50. Re:Pat down, or molest? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Mind telling me where I can get a one-way ticket from LAX to DFW for $79 nowdays?

      Nowhere - But the $200 it costs today is still dramatically cheaper than it would have cost you 30 years ago, indexed to today's dollars.

    51. Re:Pat down, or molest? by modecx · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess what I mean is that most people don't even realize it's possible to bring a firearm along on a jet ride, and naturally assume it's not something that is done.

      Yeah, you're not going to make it far trying to carry it on. Not even Joe Blow Police Officer can do that.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    52. Re:Pat down, or molest? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Man, that is lucky.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    53. Re:Pat down, or molest? by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      If you think that "privatizing" security operations (which usually means outsourcing it to the company that pays their employees the least) will cut down on thefts, you are abysmally naive. Or you've been sucking on the rich Republican cock so long you think their disinformational jizz tastes yummy.

      Well, exactly how rich is this Republican cock you speak of?

    54. Re:Pat down, or molest? by skine · · Score: 1

      You're right. That is a stupid question.

      Please read the second word of GP's post.

    55. Re:Pat down, or molest? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Nowwhere in his post does he say anything about requirements to check a firearm for a civilian.

        His second paragraph - which I'm assuming you're referring to, rather than "second word" states:

        And, unlike standard baggage, you have to use a lock and case THEY can't open... And if they want to see the contents, by their own regulations YOU have to be present! Make sure your cell # is plastered all over the case.

        Which is only indirectly related to what I was asking. He states that it has to be locked up. Not whether or not one can check a firearm as a civilian. I've never flown, but personally, I don't travel anywhere without at least one sort of "personal weapon".

        His "second word" is: "check"

        Please review your reading comprehension as it relates to your posting.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    56. Re:Pat down, or molest? by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 1

      The point is to bring a firearm with you on your trip, even if you don't need it. Then you check it in (as required) in order to benefit from the improved regulatory environment that gets triggered by the presence of the firearm.

    57. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use a throw-away pistol if you don't want to risk loosing fancy guns.

      Don't you mean "loosening"?

      Of course it scans better if you said "losing" but I'll assume you can spell.

    58. Re:Pat down, or molest? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      He checked it in because the airline told him he couldn't bring 2 laptops in his carry on, we were doing a demo and he needed to bring two laptops for it. If he didn't have to check it in he wouldn't have.

    59. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing has been pointed out, that would require one not be lazy and provide a source. All that's happened here is someone claimed someone else was wrong and insulted that person to boot. The only way to deal with people like that is to either walk away, or invoke the most primal law "might makes right." One could also play a calm logical counselor I suppose, but after awhile, you just lose the energy to deal with assholes.

      ~ Another Anon

    60. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL, but TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 109A 2244(C) or TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 109A 2242(1) would seem to apply. Now, all we need is a Federal prosecutor willing to stand up for a vocal victim. Oh, wait...

      Well, so much for that.

    61. Re:Pat down, or molest? by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      You're parsing it in an unintended way. He means to always bring a gun to check in luggage, not that you should opt to check a gun that you always have with you. A subtle, but important distinction.

    62. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note: Bringing certain firearms into certain cities can get you arrested. Look into a starter pistol or perhaps a flare gun, though. I think they get the same treatment by the TSA, but might not get you locked up in NYC.

    63. Re:Pat down, or molest? by edawstwin · · Score: 1

      His "second word" is: "check"

      Please review your reading comprehension as it relates to your posting.

      SB

      Yes, his second word is "check", as in "check" your firearm. I believe it is you who needs to "review your reading comprehension". You may be confused by the fact that he is advocating carrying a firearm every time you fly if you have valuables, whether or not you want/need to bring along said firearm. By checking a firearm (and putting your valuables in the same case), you prevent TSA from opening the bag unless it's in your presence.

      --
      I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
    64. Re:Pat down, or molest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Losing, not loosing.

  5. Maybe a solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe a solution to this panic-stricken theater would be to start requiring all passengers coming off a US flight to go through the same mess as those arriving in the US. Especially those who are government employees. And make sure they are told "this policy will remain in place until the US once again starts behaving like a civilized country".

    Maybe with the addendum that "All travelers arriving from countries who have not signed the ICC treaty must be strip-searched and quarantined for 48 hours on arrival, before passport check is done." (this would include those arriving on diplomatic passports). Countries who do not accept international laws have no business sending people outside their own borders, period.

    1. Re:Maybe a solution? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I'm not making plans to visit America anytime soon if that's how they're going to treat me.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Maybe a solution? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Countries who do not accept international laws have no business sending people outside their own borders, period.

      As if every single country accepts every single "international law", except for the US.

    3. Re:Maybe a solution? by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1

      Especially those who are government employees.

      FTFA:

      In part because of the back-scatter imager's invasiveness (a TSA employee in Miami was arrested recently after he physically assaulted a colleague who had mocked his modestly sized penis, which was fully apparent in a captured back-scatter image)....

      I know a TSA officer and she says they have to go through the same shit we do.

      What we need is for Congress to go through this - none of this horseshit of them flashing their IDs to walk on through. Then, you'd see changes until the next attack and then they'd suck it up to keep their jobs - I know quite a few people (mostly old) who feel safer with all this extra security.

      Senators will always get around it because they're either multimillionaires themselves with their own jets or they get to borrow private jets from big corporations that are getting "favors" from them.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    4. Re:Maybe a solution? by forand · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apparently you didn't fly through Brazil shortly after the US started requiring those entering to give finger prints. Once the Brazilian boarder patrol people found out one was an American they would take them aside and get their finger prints. This consisted of using the old school stain your hand for a week ink for ALL fingers. They would then hold up the card, look at it intently and say something about the US requiring THEIR citizen to do this, then tear up the paper and throw it away. In the end though we still require finger prints to enter the US.

    5. Re:Maybe a solution? by X0563511 · · Score: 0

      Senators will always get around it because they're either multimillionaires themselves with their own jets or they get to borrow private jets from big corporations that are getting "favors" from them.

      Doesn't matter. Even if it's your own plane, and you are the only one going to fly it, you still have to obey the rules.

      You never know, you might hijack yourself with that pocket knife!

      NOTICE: An actual, real, does-this-for-a-living pilot as told me this. This isn't some assumption on my part.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:Maybe a solution? by hedwards · · Score: 2, Informative

      That sounds more like Iran. I haven't been there myself, but from what I gather when you come in as an American they go out of their way to humiliate you the way we treat their citizens. After that there isn't much trouble and apparently the Iranians are just as nice as the ones you run into here, but they do even things in the airports.

    7. Re:Maybe a solution? by ProfanityHead · · Score: 1

      I'm not making plans to visit America anytime soon if that's how they're going to treat me.

      Yea, that'll show 'em.

    8. Re:Maybe a solution? by noidentity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This consisted of using the old school stain your hand for a week ink for ALL fingers. They would then hold up the card, look at it intently and say something about the US requiring THEIR citizen to do this, then tear up the paper and throw it away.

      That would be so awesome if true. It just sounds too good to be.

    9. Re:Maybe a solution? by swfranklin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Doesn't matter. Even if it's your own plane, and you are the only one going to fly it, you still have to obey the rules.

      You never know, you might hijack yourself with that pocket knife!

      NOTICE: An actual, real, does-this-for-a-living pilot as told me this. This isn't some assumption on my part.

      He told you wrong. If you aren't going through the secured terminal (which 99.9% of private flights don't), then you don't need security screening. I am an actual, real, living pilot and I've flown through over 250 airports large and small in the USA on private flights. O'Hare is the only one I've seen that actually has even a metal detector for private flights... I walk through, it beeps (because of my pocket knife, flashlight, keys, etc. on my person) and they wave me on through.

    10. Re:Maybe a solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember in the movies when people think you are infected with some biological agent, they strip the suspect, give him/her a nice cool pressurized shower and leave them in quarantine. What about we do that every time to government employees, just in case, you know. Particularly, during winter.

    11. Re:Maybe a solution? by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      This is what happened to Steve Jobs recently, when he tried to carry-on his iNinja souvenirs in his private plane.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    12. Re:Maybe a solution? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 0

      This consisted of using the old school stain your hand for a week ink for ALL fingers. They would then hold up the card, look at it intently and say something about the US requiring THEIR citizen to do this, then tear up the paper and throw it away.

      That would be so awesome if true. It just sounds too good to be.

      I see. So America should not be able to penalize the citizens of other countries for the things their governments do, but other countries should be allowed to penalize our citizens for the things our government does.

      Yep. Hypocrisy is still very much alive on Slashdot.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    13. Re:Maybe a solution? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Countries who do not accept international laws have no business sending people outside their own borders, period.

      Absolutely! I expect the troops to be home for Christmas

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    14. Re:Maybe a solution? by bcmm · · Score: 5, Informative

      As if every single country accepts every single "international law", except for the US.

      Of course not, but there are several bits that are very nearly global. For example, every UN member apart from the USA and Somalia has ratified the UNCRC.

      Somalia hasn't got around to it due to lacking a functioning government. Everyone else signed it in the 90s. Prior to 2005, the USA's major objection was that it would prevent them from executing children. That is failure to accept international law.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    15. Re:Maybe a solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Apparently you didn't fly through Brazil shortly after the US started requiring those entering to give finger prints."

      Apparently, you don't know that I no longer do business with Brazil for this reason.

    16. Re:Maybe a solution? by noidentity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Huh? You're saying that the TSA treats foreigners that way in response to something their governments does to American citizens? I'd like to understand your charge of hypocrisy.

    17. Re:Maybe a solution? by Grapplebeam · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, but if we give up the right to execute children they'll all become terrorists and try to kill all the adults! Won't someone think of the children?

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree.
    18. Re:Maybe a solution? by Thunderstruck · · Score: 1

      On the other hand (and drifting way off topic) does the federal government in the United States have the constitutional authority to implement the provisions of UNCRC?

      --
      Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
    19. Re:Maybe a solution? by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      Looking at a couple of summaries, it looks like there would be both constitutional issues and an enormous financial burden to meet the 3% of requirements that we don't already meet. There seems to be no real benefit to anyone (except possibly 17-year-olds who want to boil their parents in acid and spend life in prison instead of dying pretty quickly) and extra cost. Which means, at best, back burner it for a while.

      Again, based on the summaries I just read. Maybe they didn't mention the important changes.

    20. Re:Maybe a solution? by LateArthurDent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This consisted of using the old school stain your hand for a week ink for ALL fingers. They would then hold up the card, look at it intently and say something about the US requiring THEIR citizen to do this, then tear up the paper and throw it away.

      That would be so awesome if true. It just sounds too good to be.

      I see. So America should not be able to penalize the citizens of other countries for the things their governments do, but other countries should be allowed to penalize our citizens for the things our government does.

      Yep. Hypocrisy is still very much alive on Slashdot.

      This isn't really penalizing someone. Unlike the US, apparently they aren't even keeping the fingerprints in a database. They're tearing it up and throwing it away right in front of you. Sounds more like a way to bring awareness to the behavior of their government to the citizens. After all, we are a democracy, and we get some say in what our government does, do we not?

    21. Re:Maybe a solution? by FoolishOwl · · Score: 3, Informative

      If the US Supreme Court has the authority to suspend the death penalty on the basis of its unconstitutionally arbitrary imposition, as the court did in 1972, it would follow that the federal government has the authority to set limits to the use of the death penalty.

    22. Re:Maybe a solution? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Private-private, or airliner?

      Hmm. He doesn't seem the type to embellish.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    23. Re:Maybe a solution? by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      Take a look at Article 29 of that there treaty.

    24. Re:Maybe a solution? by Mark+Atwood · · Score: 1

      Seventeen year old rapists and gangbangers are not "children".

      We don't execute too many of them. We execute too *few*.

    25. Re:Maybe a solution? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      This consisted of using the old school stain your hand for a week ink for ALL fingers. They would then hold up the card, look at it intently and say something about the US requiring THEIR citizen to do this, then tear up the paper and throw it away.

      That would be so awesome if true. It just sounds too good to be.

      I see. So America should not be able to penalize the citizens of other countries for the things their governments do, but other countries should be allowed to penalize our citizens for the things our government does.

      Yep. Hypocrisy is still very much alive on Slashdot.

      This isn't really penalizing someone. Unlike the US, apparently they aren't even keeping the fingerprints in a database. They're tearing it up and throwing it away right in front of you. Sounds more like a way to bring awareness to the behavior of their government to the citizens. After all, we are a democracy, and we get some say in what our government does, do we not?

      No, that's just being abusive too, and the fact that we're being stupid asses doesn't excuse their behavior. Worse, all they're doing is showing our leaders that other countries are just as asinine as we are, which is all the more reason for them to treat foreign visitors badly. Believe me, they're looking for excuses. Furthermore, it doesn't help when people here who are trying to improve matters don't get the support they need because Americans got shit on out of some sense of retribution.

      "Raising awareness" my ass. We have to go through the exact same bullshit when we return from abroad. So you're saying that we should go overseas, get fucked by everybody else's security, and then come back home and get fucked by ours too.

      Brilliant! Just fucking brilliant. Why is it that everyone in the world keeps getting pissed off that America isn't setting the example that they would like, and then, instead of demonstrating that they are the better society, they have a hissy fit and act worse?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    26. Re:Maybe a solution? by Riktov · · Score: 1

      And how would this in any way affect search procedures for U.S. citizens on domestic flights, which constitute the vast majority of flights to/from U.S. airports? Pre-flight TSA security checks (keeping bombs off the plane) have nothing to do with immigration procedures on arrival (keeping undesirable people from entering the country).

      And many countries are doing what you've described, singling out U.S. passport holders for higher visa fees and more extensive checks, fingerprinting, etc. It hasn't done a thing except piss off international travelers. It certainly isn't going to increase pressure on the U.S. to change policies, and ends up just hurting the countries doing this (as well as the U.S.). I don't think many U.S. citizens are going to complain to the government to please stop hassling Brazilian citizens, so that the Brazil will stop hassling U.S. citizens and make it easier to go there. They're just going to decide not to go to Brazil.

    27. Re:Maybe a solution? by Riktov · · Score: 1

      I recently obtained a Brazilian tourist visa for a trip in January. Whereas the visa fee for most countries like EU members or Japan is $20, U.S. citizens are singled out for a $160 fee, which is classified as a "reciprocal fee" (and the clerk at the consulate made sure to emphasize that when I submitted the application). And when I go, I fully expect the full interrogation, fingerprints, etc., while my Japanese wife will be waved right through.

      It's just a blatant tit-for-tat move to get back at U.S. immigration policies. I frankly don't see how it benefits Brazil in any way, but I can hardly blame them.

      Interesting thing, though, is that while my wife's $20 visa is valid for a 90-day period, my $150 visa is good for ten years.

    28. Re:Maybe a solution? by chappel · · Score: 1

      I'm a private pilot, with my own plane, and have also been through lots of airports - mostly tiny ones, but I've been to some larger ones, including Dulles, Indianapolis, and Orlando. I must have been to at least 150 different ones within the US. The most security I've seen consists of the cute girl behind the service desk needing to push a release button for you to walk out the doors to the plane, the next most security has been several airports with a white stripe painted across the parking area delineating the 'private' from the 'carrier' areas, which you aren't supposed to walk across on penalty of a stern warning - although all the larger ones have a considerable distance between the ramps for private planes and the commercial ones. So far the only effective security I've seen is at the little strip where I learned to fly, where the owner lives along side the runway, and keeps an eye on things.

      I always fly with a pocket knife, and have flown with a handgun in a waist holster. I don't ever recall seeing a security agent; there are no checkpoints. If your plane doesn't crash, explode or get a 'ramp check' from the FAA (which I've heard about but never witnessed), no one would ever know what you had on board.

    29. Re:Maybe a solution? by greap · · Score: 1

      I know people like quoting it like this but actually that’s not the objection, the objection is that they don’t have the authority to sign an agreement that includes that (or rather they do but it would be struck down by the courts, I guess they think the political fallout from not signing it is less then what it would be from signing it and having it rejected later). SCOTUS has repeatedly held that who to execute and when is a matter for the states and their, and the federal governments, authority ends at interpreting how that interacts with individual protections afforded by the constitution.

    30. Re:Maybe a solution? by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      "Raising awareness" my ass. We have to go through the exact same bullshit when we return from abroad. So you're saying that we should go overseas, get fucked by everybody else's security, and then come back home and get fucked by ours too.

      No, we don't. I've been overseas many times since 9/11. There's a separate line for citizens and non-citizens. Citizens don't get fingerprinted. In fact, the vast majority of the time, it was rather hassle free for me. Customs guy looks at the passport, asks me what the purpose of my visit abroad was. Waves me through.

    31. Re:Maybe a solution? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      "Raising awareness" my ass. We have to go through the exact same bullshit when we return from abroad. So you're saying that we should go overseas, get fucked by everybody else's security, and then come back home and get fucked by ours too.

      No, we don't. I've been overseas many times since 9/11. There's a separate line for citizens and non-citizens. Citizens don't get fingerprinted. In fact, the vast majority of the time, it was rather hassle free for me. Customs guy looks at the passport, asks me what the purpose of my visit abroad was. Waves me through.

      You already got fingerprinted when you got your passport, and because you're a U.S. citizen, the government already knows far more about you than it needs to already (far more than it does about some random foreign dude.) You've already been hassled, you just don't know it yet.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    32. Re:Maybe a solution? by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      You already got fingerprinted when you got your passport, and because you're a U.S. citizen, the government already knows far more about you than it needs to already (far more than it does about some random foreign dude.) You've already been hassled, you just don't know it yet.

      The government does know far more about me than it needs to already, I won't argue with that. However you're either not a US citizen or have never traveled overseas. You don't get fingerprinted when getting a passport. Photo ID and proof of citizenship are sufficient information (and no, I didn't get fingerprinted for my driver's license or birth certificate). I'm guessing not US citizen, because otherwise you'd know that there are very few things that get Americans riled up, but among the big ones are gun control and government IDs. A large number of Americans would make a big fuss if the government started fingerprinting us.

  6. So now there's a choice... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    ... between indecent assault, and being irradiated with dangerous levels of microwave and X-rays?

    Oh well, it's not like I can't drive anywhere I'd otherwise fly to.

    1. Re:So now there's a choice... by JustOK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      have fun in Hawaii

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:So now there's a choice... by baegucb · · Score: 1

      Travel to Canada by train/car, fly from there.

    3. Re:So now there's a choice... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      have fun in Hawaii

      Travel to Canada by train/car, fly from there.

      How do you suggest getting back without getting felt-up by TSA droogs in Hawaii?
      Swimming to Kiribati or the Marshall Islands before getting on a plane sounds a little extreme (Johnston Atoll is closer at only 1300km from Honolulu, but it belongs to the US).

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    4. Re:So now there's a choice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not missing anything HI--seriously. You're much better off in SoCal or SoFL than in HI. Less expensive to get there, eat there, and stay there--plus it's warmer.

    5. Re:So now there's a choice... by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      Travel to Canada by train/car, fly from there.

      Yes, but unless you plan on staying there permanently or working your way back on a ship, you have to make the flight out.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    6. Re:So now there's a choice... by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah... TSA and customs/immigration.. double your fun

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    7. Re:So now there's a choice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That Kenyian communist hellhole?! What Republicans would be caught DEAD there?

      Oh.

    8. Re:So now there's a choice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, that's not the case for all of us - I did the calculations on gas mileage for my specific (very old) vehicle and motels, and I found that if you're traveling cross-country by yourself, the cheapest way to go is by discount airline. It's actually cheaper than a seat (and not a sleeper car, so that means 2-3 days of not showering) on a train, or a bus ticket, or even driving and sleeping in cheapo motels every night (although you might break even if you can sleep in your car in a 24-hour Walmart parking lot, but again that's 3 days of not showering).

      As a female, I've simply dealt with this problem by making sure that when I fly, I'm wearing clothes that would make pat-downs, or later the backscatter x-ray, redundant. When I started I was pretty skinny and didn't mind appearing in public like that at all, now I just wear, say, a cami and too-tight leggings with a long sweater over it... look fine the rest of the time, but when the TSA agent asks "if you're wearing anything under that sweater, could you take it off?" off it comes and out comes my muffin top! Incidentally, I wonder how that would work with men... "Why yes, TSA agent, I am in fact wearing clothing under my coat. And it's ALL SPANDEX! What? I find it comfortable."

    9. Re:So now there's a choice... by crashandburn66 · · Score: 1

      Or go to and from Hawaii on a boat.

    10. Re:So now there's a choice... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      have fun in Hawaii

      Just take the H-1 interstate from california.
      http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/hawaii01.cfm

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  7. I may be drunk.... by TornCityVenz · · Score: 1

    but let me be the first to say.... LOL

    --
    I Need someone to rebuild a Digitech Digital Delay pedal for me....for me...for me...for me.
  8. Fine ... I'll still take the pat-down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they find it inconvenient, good. Every time I take the "3 minute pat-down" versus the <30-second backscatter scan, it will be my small, quiet protest against the whole fiasco.

    1. Re:Fine ... I'll still take the pat-down by Barny · · Score: 1

      Quiet? Hell you really want to make it fun, take some viagra before going in, and moan a little when they start the pat-down.

      If you have to feel uncomfortable, they should as well :)

      XKCD, where would we be without your ideas.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    2. Re:Fine ... I'll still take the pat-down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have my attitude completely backwards. I don't want to torment the screeners -- after all, the screeners are only trying to do their difficult, thankless jobs. My message is directed at the people at the top who might take notice if an increasing number of people refuse to sheepishly accept their shiny new "security illusion" machines.

      I didn't find the pat-down uncomfortable. I was too angry at the people making these decisions to think about embarrassment (again, not anger at the screeners, who were professional about it). And if I'm intentionally *supposed* to feel uncomfortable, well, that will just make me angrier at the people at the top, and therefore it will be easier to put up with going through the option "they" don't want me to choose. I'm stubborn that way. And I'll have to make a point of apologizing to the screeners for putting them through it.

    3. Re:Fine ... I'll still take the pat-down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      best xkcd reference ever!

    4. Re:Fine ... I'll still take the pat-down by Barny · · Score: 1

      Kinda remands me of a tactic the Aussie unemployment benefits department (Centrelink) used a while back, they didn't want people to come in to the office so they would keep changing the appointment times to encourage people to use the call centre to solve their problem.

      Or even our local water authority, who after many complaints about chlorine levels in the water being too high (it was because their dissolving drum units kept getting it caked up inside them), rather than fix the chemical system, they increased the size of their call centre to handle the complaints.

      Hrmm, seems its a common thing that government agencies just don't care about people, they only care about numbers.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    5. Re:Fine ... I'll still take the pat-down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, go to the bathroom before hand and use some water to make your crotch area soggy for an added surprise.

    6. Re:Fine ... I'll still take the pat-down by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      "Orders are orders", eh? It is the screeners who are executing bad policy. They are just as guilty as anybody else

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    7. Re:Fine ... I'll still take the pat-down by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Every time i take the "no pat-down at all" of driving instead of flying, it will be my small, quiet protest against both the injustice of the unconstitutional search, and the waste of time. Recommending you arrive two or three hours early for a three hour flight mocks the whole process.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    8. Re:Fine ... I'll still take the pat-down by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I somehow doubt the TSA employment procedures include the question "Does the candidate have the good sense to refuse to accept stupid orders?"

    9. Re:Fine ... I'll still take the pat-down by Barny · · Score: 1

      Inspired work.

      Please, if you could add more do so :)

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
  9. I would opt-out, reluctantly by sosaited · · Score: 1

    I would opt for the pat-down provided the person checking me is not gay. Considering how seriously homo-phobic (most) men are, he hopefully won't be too thorough.

    1. Re:I would opt-out, reluctantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares if they're gay or not? Just close your eyes and pretend they're a woman -- at least you'll get something out of it.

    2. Re:I would opt-out, reluctantly by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would opt for the pat-down provided the person checking me is not gay. Considering how seriously homo-phobic (most) men are, he hopefully won't be too thorough.

      After the pat down, I plan on asking - rather loudly - for a cigarette and if it's appropriate to tip for more "stringent" searches.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    3. Re:I would opt-out, reluctantly by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I've beem patted down twice, both times by law enforcement. The one cop seemed to enjoy it, and it wasn't fun for me at all. What's worse, I hadn't done anything wrong either time.

      You don't even have to be arrested, let alone be tried, let alone be found guilty, to be punished in the US (and probably everywhere).

  10. If i was a terrorist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd STILL be cheering after all these years...

    Look what we're doing to ourselves... We've done more damage to our country than the terrorists ever could have hoped to do directly...

    We proved it.. Terrorisim works! And works fuckin awesome too! Not directly.. But the whole country losing its fucking mind, wasting BILLIONS, is sure a huge victory for the terrorists.

    Way to go my fellow sheeple americans. Fuckin ijits.

    1. Re:If i was a terrorist... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      You sound like a terrorist! I've seen right through your pathetic disguise. In reality, this will help us catch all of your dirty terrorist friends while allowing us to be nearly 100% secure! Now all that's left to do is install cameras inside everyones houses and we're good to go.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:If i was a terrorist... by ProfanityHead · · Score: 1

      I'd STILL be cheering after all these years...

      Look what we're doing to ourselves... We've done more damage to our country than the terrorists ever could have hoped to do directly...

      We proved it.. Terrorisim works! And works fuckin awesome too! Not directly.. But the whole country losing its fucking mind, wasting BILLIONS, is sure a huge victory for the terrorists.

      Way to go my fellow sheeple americans. Fuckin ijits.

      You are 100% correct unfortunately.
      Meanwhile, the 90 IQ TSA screeners all have secure jobs while the rest of us watch the entire economy implode.

    3. Re:If i was a terrorist... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      At the least, if "they" can't quite force us to do their stated will, watching us humiliate ourselves could be gratifying / next best thing...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    4. Re:If i was a terrorist... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Ah, now I see what's really going on... The terrorists can't get pr0n in their own countries, so they're getting the TSA to generate it for them!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:If i was a terrorist... by frozentier · · Score: 1

      I'd STILL be cheering after all these years...

      Look what we're doing to ourselves...

      No, it's not what WE are doing to ourselves. American citizens didn't vote to have ANY increased security in airports, or any other security crap. That came from government officials without approval of the citizens.

    6. Re:If i was a terrorist... by SamSim · · Score: 1

      Oh, please. The goal of terrorism is not to inconvenience you at the airport.

    7. Re:If i was a terrorist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One akronym says it all:

      TSA - Terror Support Agency ..or was it that?

    8. Re:If i was a terrorist... by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      You mean those representatives we keep re-electing, so long as they promise us more "free" stuff paid for with our own money?

    9. Re:If i was a terrorist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was under the impression it was:
      TSA: Team Sexual Assault
      but I could be wrong :/

    10. Re:If i was a terrorist... by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

      You're correct - the goal of terrorism is to make us inconvenience OURSELVES at the airport - and on the roads - and in any public place. The goal of terrorism is to cause fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

      We Americans have done more to destroy our own freedom in the name of security (fear) than a whole army of jihaddis could have done by direct action.

      We've gone so far over the edge that a simple sno-globe in someone's carry-on made them evacuate an entire terminal at my local airport this morning.

      The goal of terrorism is to use fear to accomplish political aims. Mission accomplished from what I can see.

      The only way to keep the terrorists from winning is to refuse to allow fear to rule us.

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
  11. Wrong target! by lewildbeast · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whilst making the pat down more embarrassing may encourage scanner use for the average bloke, average blokes don't blow up planes! So basically this seems like just another ploy to irritate the general public to foster a false sense of security.

    1. Re:Wrong target! by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 1

      But it might encourage folks who haven't had a good pat-down in a while to fly instead of taking the train ;-)

    2. Re:Wrong target! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Did they bother to fix the fact that the scanner sends images to the home office? Interesting they have to intimidate people into using them anyway. All this BS is a deterrence to air travel. Even with terrorists, flying is a lot safer than driving, but if you make it too inconvenient, then people that have a choice might choose something else.

    3. Re:Wrong target! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a minute, that argument is only supposed to be applied later. You know, when the few that still hold out get anal probes just after being told "if you have nothing to hide you would have opted for the scanner.

    4. Re:Wrong target! by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Even with terrorists, flying is a lot safer than driving, but if you make it too inconvenient, then people that have a choice might choose something else.

      It's a lot safer per distance travelled; or one of the safest per hour of travel (equal to trains here, but loosing noticeably to bus travel; and overall within the same order of magnitude as cars). It's one of the least safe per journey - only bicycles and motorcycles are worse.

      So in practice, if traveling somewhere by bus or train seems practical, it's most likely safer (with cars it's often not that much worse). And people might even start choosing it more.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    5. Re:Wrong target! by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 1

      Wrong. They don't want "to foster a false sense of security". Quite the contrary, they want the public to feel scared and to be constantly remaindered that they are in danger. Some of those people would lose their jobs if the general public felt safer.

      --
      There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
    6. Re:Wrong target! by Reziac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Average terrorists don't blow up planes either. There are too many more readily-available targets that don't require putting up with a lot of boring security theatre.

      Any Wal-Mart would do for a start. They're everywhere, they're essentially unguarded, and each one has a few thousand people and a whole bunch of combustables all in one handy place.

      Wait, I don't see ay Wal-Marts blowing up... maybe the true answer is that there aren't actually enough terrorists to be worth worrying about, hmmm??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Wrong target! by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is things with a smaller N have a higher percentage of occurrences P than those with orders of magnitude larger N.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    8. Re:Wrong target! by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Just pretend to be a flaming homosexual... "OOHH! Do I give you a show, or do *I* get something for me? I think I want my balls rubbed by Mr. Man."

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    9. Re:Wrong target! by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      While I am with you in that the efforts spent look like overkill in relation to the real threat, I would like to point a main difference because an attack against a Wal-Mart and against a plane.

      In the attack to the Wal-Mart, you will most likely cause injuries only to people in the blast radius, in a place with a high roof (the shock wave is dispersed) and with shelves in the way of the blast. To do more damage, you need a far more big bomb and/or a complex plan (blocking emergency exits, blocking roads so emergency services cannot reach). With a plane, you do not need your bomb to kill anyone... you just need that it gets the plane to stop working, the falling is what kills.

      Also, what a terror attack wants primarily is to terrorize the public, so they want publicity. An airplane is a far more enticing target than a Wal-Mart, even if the Wal-Mart is an easier one. Maybe a series of attack at Wal-Marts would do the same, but that would mean multiple attacks (and after the last ones, with the public aware), getting lots more of explosives... so it would become harder and harder.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    10. Re:Wrong target! by MozzleyOne · · Score: 1

      maybe the true answer is that there aren't actually enough terrorists to be worth worrying about, hmmm??

      More than that .. why would they need to attack again? They've already been amazingly effective with just the few attacks they've actually performed.

      --
      Ayjay on Fedang
    11. Re:Wrong target! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Exactly. :( So long as we're busy strangling ourselves, why should any terrorists be arsed to do it??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    12. Re:Wrong target! by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      that would mean multiple attacks (and after the last ones, with the public aware), getting lots more of explosives... so it would become harder and harder.

      Let's see.. in bass ackwards countries, that have been blown to crap, it's easy to get explosives.. but in the US where there are mega stores everywhere, it's difficult.. No, I am with the parent.. I think that the numbers of terrorists are just low, and that most are where they want to be, and creating havoc where they want to create it... From a "terror impact" point of view, the plane holds more fear because the people in a plane are trapped inside the plane already, and a mode of transportation that many people are fearful of even without the possibility of terrorism.. From a practical point of view, people are just as dead if they are killed in a mega store, an airplane, a political rally or any other place where you can have a large number of targets.. For the most part, common terrorism does not have to be a huge or symbolic event.. those are rare.. and in this media frenzy country, an incident with even 5 victims would be a big deal.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    13. Re:Wrong target! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      That's just dumb.

      Why would a terrorist blow up a Walmart instead of a TSA screening line? Hundreds of people, packed close together, instantly shut down the entire air transport system...

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    14. Re:Wrong target! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Average terrorists don't blow up planes either. There are too many more readily-available targets that don't require putting up with a lot of boring security theatre.

      Any Wal-Mart would do for a start. They're everywhere, they're essentially unguarded, and each one has a few thousand people and a whole bunch of combustables all in one handy place.

      Wait, I don't see ay Wal-Marts blowing up... maybe the true answer is that there aren't actually enough terrorists to be worth worrying about, hmmm??

      I don't know the number, but there have been at least 10 suicide bombers, doing their thing in afganistan in the last 3 years. What is to prevent them from buying a plane ticket and doing their
      thing here, instead?

    15. Re:Wrong target! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      That's why you're not a terrorist. :)

      Remember when the big fear was bombs in sports stadiums?? or bombs in the London subways?? It doesn't matter if it actually does enough damage to notice; it only matters that it makes a big splash in the news, which IMO is what most terrorists are REALLY after -- "See, I'm a big man, I make things happen, this proves it."

      Hit a couple dozen Walmarts at random, all on the same day. You don't even have to kill anyone. Now the average consumer is afraid to go shopping, and a much larger economic disruption results than shutting down air travel. And you've got news that average people can made fearful by, even if they never fly.

      That was the key in hitting buildings with planes, BTW -- it put it out where "it could kill anyone!" If they'd blown up the same planes at the airport, 9/11 would have had far less effect and been far less memorable.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    16. Re:Wrong target! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      An AC complains,

      "I don't know the number, but there have been at least 10 suicide bombers, doing their thing in afganistan in the last 3 years. What is to prevent them from buying a plane ticket and doing their thing here, instead?"

      Aside from possibly lack of money to buy plane tickets:

      1) Terrorism is largely about trying to be a big fish in a little pond (making the terrorist feel important). It's a lot easier to do when you've got a captive audience (lacking the resources to escape the situation), like most of Afghanistan.

      2) America doesn't have quite so much of the mentality of "If I can't get my way, I'll blow shit up!"

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    17. Re:Wrong target! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Oh, no, as I've said in other places in this discussion, if you want to cause random fear, you just start pumping out DC Sniper-ish teams.

      Nearly unstoppable if done correctly:

      1) Setup a car modification location in the US, and a mechanic who can do it.

      2) Send one guy over, who buys a used car, and then leaves it and the keys in a known location. He then just hangs out in a motel room for a week. (Don't want him to leave the country, that looks suspicious.)

      3) During that, finish up training a second guy as a sniper, and tell him where to get the car and the location of the other guy.

      4) Send second guy over, car gets dropped off, he grabs it, meets with the first guy.

      5) They stay in motels, each day they get up, go out, drive to some nearby city, shoot someone, pick a different nearby city, drive there, and stay the night there. (In fact, each group should have a different pattern, with different levels of randomness. Some groups might stay a week, some might be in small geographic areas, some might go cross country, etc. Some might have actual randomness in the form of dice rolls. But perhaps I've been watching Numb3rs too much.)

      6) Go back and repeat 2-5 whenever. Have multiple groups at once, wait until one is caught and have another instantly show up, whatever. Used the tried and true method of prearranged messages in hotmail accounts to control them, if they need orders.

      Which each team could eventually be caught, no one could actually stop the process, because none of the teams knows anything. The car is in their names, they don't know where the modifications were made (The mechanic could just take a bus halfway across the country, pick up the car, and then put it back when done.), they don't know anything at all about the other people.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    18. Re:Wrong target! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Pretty much the same principle as the old-fashioned drive-by shootings (now passe in Los Angeles, dunno about elsewhere). Unpredictable death plus media hype equals panic among the masses. As you say it could be simple, inexpensive, and for all practical purposes, impossible to stop. And it doesn't really matter who or what their targets are -- people on the street, random front windows of homes, busy storefronts, schools -- the possibilities are endless.

      (How are the cars modified? I don't see that as a necessity in this operation.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    19. Re:Wrong target! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      You got it. In the U.S., even a failed attempt with NO casualties gets tons of media hype, typically along the lines of "OMG!! What if XX and YY had happened and NN-many millions of people were killed??"

      Of course this is really about selling our eyeballs to their advertisers, and panicked people are more likely to glue their faces to the boob tube.

      Meanwhile, even the failed terrorist gets instant gratification: the public whipped into a frenzy.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    20. Re:Wrong target! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but drive-bys are usually located in specific areas. The whole point here is to spread the panic out. Even have a few in very small towns, so everyone feels included. (Statistically, this is nonsense, of course, but people are horrible at estimating risk.)

      The DC Sniper's car had a hole cut in the trunk and a backseat removed so that the sniper could lay in the trunk backwards and shoot out the back. Which would also muffle the sound. (I'm assuming the person in the trunk wore ear protection.) At least, I'm remembering it that way.

      There are actually cars with seats that fold down to allow you to put long stuff in the trunk which that would need minimum modifications. A bunch of 90 midrange cars did it, mine, a 92 Pontiac Sunbird, does. (I've actually considered trying to sleep back there before. At an angle, with the front seat pulled forward, it should work)

      So if you have one of those, all you have to do is cut out a piece of the trunk and mount it on something that lets you put it in place and remove it from inside the trunk.

      Use the driver as a spotter to say when people are back there, flip down the cut out part of the trunk, fire off a shot, and put it back.

      Technically, you don't need to cut out part of the car...people could simply have lumber or something in the trunk that 'required' the trunk to be open a few inches, and shoot out there, then perhaps throw a blanket over themselves. The point is to shoot out the trunk and immediately vanish, while the driver looks as confused as anyone else and drives off.

      The whole thing about drive-bys is everyone see the car that did it. Whereas the whole premise of this is that no one knows, and the sniper team can just move from place to place. (In fact, with the DC Sniper, people weren't even sure it was from a vehicle. People always seemed to get shot near parking areas, and that was all the clue anyone had.)

      I actually forget how they caught the DC Sniper team, but I don't think it was recognizing their car, I think it was some third party who knew realized what was going on and turned them in.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    21. Re:Wrong target! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Ah, okay, you're looking at the anonymity angle. I guess it depends on the level that you want the "recognition of your cause" and influence to happen. If local (a la street gangs), then it's okay for the shooter to be semi-identifiable (at least at the moment it happens). If you want to affect a broader spectrum, then being anonymous on the site of the shooting makes it seem like more of an "anyman, anywhere" event, totally out of anyone's control.

      Coupled with appropriate notices to news outlets, just a few such units could cause all manner of chaos.

      Another related trick might be scattering long-fuse grenades on the freeway, via a similar mechanism. By the time they go off, you're far down the road. Of course that requires access to better materiel, whereas sniping requires nothing beyond a cheap .22 rifle and the most readily-available ammo.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    22. Re:Wrong target! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I wasn't thinking 'anonymity' as much as 'longer time until getting caught'.

      Pulling off a drive by would be like trying to pull off a bank robbery...everyone's looking for the getaway car. If this was an episode of 24, the terrorists would have magical car swaps set up under overpasses while helicopters flew around above, but in reality, once the police figure out the car, it's all over.

      Whereas with the DC Sniper, it took forever to even figure out what car it was.

      A clever organization could have multiple teams even in the same city, to keep the cars from being noticed. I mean, sure, that incredibly common model car was at four of the shootings, but there wasn't any car like that at the other two.

      If people are going the explosives route, they should throw them at bridge supports. Under bridges are a bad place for car accidents anyway, there's never any space to get around the accident...and there's always the chance it will damage the bridge itself. Even small explosives would result in the bridge being shut down until it can be checked out.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    23. Re:Wrong target! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Well, being anonymous does extend the time it takes til you're caught :)

      But the sheer simplicity you describe goes to prove my original point: if there really were hordes of terrorists coming to get us, we should be drowning in such incidents, all too easily set up in all manner of public places (something the IRA certainly did in its heyday). No need to get all complicated about it, or to figure out how to breach anyone's security. Just use the public infrastructure same as everyone else!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    24. Re:Wrong target! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      Either the terrorists aren't there, or they don't want to attack us.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    25. Re:Wrong target! by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about such practical "details" as large overhead of air travel (especially on shorter journeys; also how it spends comparatively large amount of time in dangerous flight modes), plus how you need to somehow get to/from the airport using other means of travel - which on shorter distances would get you a large part of way already...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  12. Really? by amanicdroid · · Score: 1

    So I get a little free hand action with every flight? AWESOME!

    Can I tip extra to get a stewardess?

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Air hostess! Get it right!

    2. Re:Really? by amanicdroid · · Score: 1

      If she kisses me on the neck first I'll call her anything she wants.

  13. Recent experience at IND by walmass · · Score: 2, Informative

    TSA: Sir, please empty your pockets, even scraps of paper, then step into this booth and place your feet on the yellow footprints. Me: I'd like to request a patdown, please TSA: Certainly sir, please wait here. Approx 3 min wait, then someone walked over, and spent another minute explaining how he will touch my butt and pelvic area with only the back of his hand, then he proceeded to do that The actual pat-down took another 3 minutes and was quite thorough It felt a bit intrusive, but not having experienced one before I don't know if I got the new, enchanced version or not. Like parent above, this was my silent protest: let them waste time on this. I will continue to opt for the pat-down.

    1. Re:Recent experience at IND by JustOK · · Score: 3, Informative

      back of the hand is the old

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Recent experience at IND by camperdave · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It doesn't waste their time, it only wastes yours. They are there for the duration of their shift whether people choose scanning or not. Likely, having to do a pat-down is a break from the otherwise mind numbing task of having to explain to passengers how to walk through the metal detector.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Recent experience at IND by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      However, if enough people turn what would be a 30-second check into a 3-minute check, they will eventually have to hire more staff to process the normal flow of people. Additionally, I think it would be a good thing to display for all just how absurd our security theater is by showing off people getting patted-down, rather than innocently stepping through a scanner that (for all they know) is little more invasive than the metal detector they have been walking through every time they get on a plane anyways.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    4. Re:Recent experience at IND by swillden · · Score: 1

      However, if enough people turn what would be a 30-second check into a 3-minute check, they will eventually have to hire more staff to process the normal flow of people.

      So we can waste our time AND increase our federal debt!

      I understand your point, but I don't think this sort of protest will accomplish anything. If we want to change it, we need to apply political pressure to the top. We need to convince our congressmen to impose limitations on the TSA.

      On a less serious note, you could try to turn up the volume by not bathing for a couple of weeks before your trip. See if you can make yourself so nasty that the TSA employees refuse to pat you down. Please let me know when you're going to do this, though, so I can make sure I don't end up having to sit next to you on the plane.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Recent experience at IND by horatio · · Score: 2

      While in principle I agree with you, they don't care if you think you're "wasting" their time. The TSA has all the time in the world, and absolutely zero incentive to speed things up. You, on the other hand, have a plane to catch. We already have to be at the airport 1+ hours before our flight. The TSA people aren't going anywhere. You are.

      Are they going to be replaced by a competitor who can do it better when their contract is up? Oh right, they're a government monopoly. No competition, no incentive for customer service. No reason to improve service or more fundamentally - stop being assholes. Can we vote out to head of the TSA? Can we vote out the screeners? Can we vote against the policies and regulations of Big Sis? Not directly? I've venture to argue not at all. Bush started the TSA, and Obama is happy to put an imp like Napolitano in charge - someone who actually refused to do anything to secure her southern border as governor of Arizona. So we're supposed to now believe we're safer because of her stupid policies? Bullshit.

      Traveling from place to place at will and by choice is a freedom. The natural order of government is to hate freedom, because every freedom represents something they can't or don't control. So the government by nature will make travel - especially air travel - as much of a pain in the ass as possible - if not downright illegal (East Germany, North Korea). The TSA may have been started with good intentions, but it almost overnight became about power and control.

      --
      There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
    6. Re:Recent experience at IND by gnud · · Score: 1

      You don't have to stink, you can just wear pants coated in something sticky, preferably something that really irritates skin. And have some spare pants in your carry-on bag :)

    7. Re:Recent experience at IND by swillden · · Score: 1

      They wear gloves.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  14. Today is "opposites day"!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee, I must be the only one who thinks this is a plus not a minus. Free handjob with every ticket. What's wrong with that?

    But seriously, this kind of nonsense is precisely why, for my last vacation, we drove. And we had a great time. And the vacation before that, it was Amtrak. Had a great time too.

    I don't miss air travel.

  15. I continue to find it appalling... by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...that you people continue to put up with this crap.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:I continue to find it appalling... by digitig · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, "I heard it from some unverified source who might know" stories really are sloppy journalism. It is appalling that people put up with them.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    2. Re:I continue to find it appalling... by thomst · · Score: 1

      ...that you people continue to put up with this crap.

      Whereas WE continue to find it appalling that we seem to have no choice but to put up with this crap, regardless of which party is in power.

      And the same goes for the war on pot, warrantless wiretapping, indefensible patent and copyright law, etc., etc., et-fucking-c...

      --
      Check out my novel.
    3. Re:I continue to find it appalling... by brunes69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And again the rest of the world finds it appalling you only have two parties to choose from.

    4. Re:I continue to find it appalling... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 0, Troll

      And again the rest of the world finds it appalling you only have two parties to choose from.

      Most of the rest of the world doesn't even have political parties, or if they do they're strictly for show, so that's a ridiculous comment on your part. Furthermore, what we're talking about here is institutionalized corruption, and if you're claiming that other countries don't have at least as much of that as we do (regardless of the quality or quantity of political parties), then you're full of little red ants.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:I continue to find it appalling... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      You have a choice. You could do as I do and refuse to subject yourself to it (yes, it's inconvenient. If you really cared you'd do it anyway.) and express your outrage at it to your representatives. If a substantial fraction of the population followed my example the crap would stop.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:I continue to find it appalling... by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      ...that you people continue to put up with this crap.

      In an attempt to get something more than a form-letter response, I asked my Senator (and his opponent in the upcoming election) what they intend to do about such asinine rules. Simply making noise and statements does nothing...if you want to know what somebody intends to do about something, you have to ask the direct question.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    7. Re:I continue to find it appalling... by thomst · · Score: 1

      And again the rest of the world finds it appalling you only have two parties to choose from.

      The two-party system is not the problem. Our broken-ass campaign financing system of legalized bribery is the problem. First our (Republican majority) Supreme Court declared that money and free speech are equivalent. Then our (even more Republican-dominated) Supreme Court ruled that corporate "persons" are entitled to spend unlimited amounts of "free speech" to influence our elections.

      Oh, and our Fox "News" channel, with its (un)Fair and (un)Balanced all-Republican-talking-points-all-the-time editorial policy helps keep the campaign of fear a sacrosanct "core values" issue that no politician of any party dares to challenge.

      So thanks, Australia!

      --
      Check out my novel.
    8. Re:I continue to find it appalling... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...that you people continue to put up with this crap.

      I agree, it is appalling.

      So what's the alternative? We've tried to vote the idiots out, but we got even worse idiots in their place. (The Douche vs. a Turd paradigm is entirely too close to reality.)

      Some of us have stopped flying when we can (work requirements make this somewhat difficult). I drove 3600 miles (5700 odd km) two years ago to visit family so I could avoid the security theater. I don't need that kind of violation in my life, thanks: I'd rather be inconvenienced and pay more, and I'm not going to support that kind of boot-thuggery one way or another.

      So, seriously: how do we get the federal government to scale back? They appear fully capable of continuing on the same track regardless of who is voted in - largely because they control that process, too. What's left?

      Not a hell of a lot. Armed rebellion? Even if the US military rebelled against the government allowing such a thing to be possible, you can bet the US government would petition China, Britain, the EU, etc. - another massive government with interests in maintaining control over the people of the world - to come crack down on us.

      The world - particularly the Western world - is looking increasingly fucked.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    9. Re:I continue to find it appalling... by bell.colin · · Score: 1

      If all it really takes is for the one with the most money to make the most campaign commercials to win, Then i have news for you...

      The Money/Campaigning is NOT the problem, the Problem are the FUCKING IDIOTS who will vote for whoever has the flashiest commercial, hip slogans, and the most air time!

      The Supreme Court got this right, Put the blame where it really belongs.

    10. Re:I continue to find it appalling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only remaining US exports are the ones that are subsidized by the US government. A subsidized economy is not a sustainable situation, and it's showing quite clearly today.
      There is no prove that all of that is caused by business people not putting up with this crap, but I would not be supprized if it was a contributing factor.

    11. Re:I continue to find it appalling... by EdIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're wrong. We only have one party to choose from, and that was by design.

      I've noticed that regardless of who gets voted in, that my rights keep disappearing, corporate american gets to keep raping me, and my tax dollars are used to bail out those companies and provide million dollar catered parties to the douchenozzles that tanked our economy in the first place with their greed.

    12. Re:I continue to find it appalling... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      And again the rest of the world finds it appalling you only have two parties to choose from.

      Most of the rest of the world doesn't even have political parties, or if they do they're strictly for show, so that's a ridiculous comment on your part. Furthermore, what we're talking about here is institutionalized corruption, and if you're claiming that other countries don't have at least as much of that as we do (regardless of the quality or quantity of political parties), then you're full of little red ants.

      To whoever modded the arrogant parent +4 Insightful and me -1 Troll, please explain exactly what I said that was wrong. If you found it offensive because you happen to live in a totalitaran State, or one of those outfits with sham political "parties", well, that's not my fault. I have enough trouble with the corrupt bastards that run my two-party system.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    13. Re:I continue to find it appalling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kang: (as Dole) Fooling these Earth voters is easier than expected.
      Kodos: (as Clinton) Yes. All they want to hear are bland pleasantries embellished by an occasional saxophone solo or infant kiss.

      Kang: It's a two party system! You have to vote for one of us!
      Man: He's right, this is a two-party system.
      Man 2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
      Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away!

  16. Cough, please ... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    If I had that job, I would at least have to humor to say, "Cough, please!", when checking the balls.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Cough, please ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Also in the news:

      Nobody will ever use the scanner in San Francisco.

    2. Re:Cough, please ... by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When the intent is to touch the genitals, then is the intent to search or commit a sexual assault. At what stage when committing sexual assault is a search warrant required.

      At least everyone is likely to have the last laugh on the TSA, how well are they shielded from the continually exposure to tumour inducing xrays. Of course there will always be people to protect idiots from their own ignorance http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/.

      With regards to limits on ionising radiation "the maximum exposure to ionising radiation shall not be more than 1 mSv34 per year for members of the public and 20 mSv per year for exposed workers", what steps are the TSA taking to ensure they are not exceeding mandated limits. One would assume questionnaires are being handed out with risk warnings and notifications for people at risk or do they just no think they will be held legally liable for failing to take due care, especially with children.

      How about all operational personal, flight crews, cleaners luggage handlers and TSA agents, are they also required to be scanned when entering areas of higher security risk.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:Cough, please ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you're new to standards of radiation. It's possible that they are providing TLD dosimeters to each employee, but this could be overkill - although it's very easy to do in this case. A slightly easier thing to do would place a few TLD badges around the machine. Will they do this? I'm not sure. According to Wiki, this looks like 0.25 uSv is the highest dose they are legally allowed to use on the searchee. The searcher will get less than this, but will get it regularly. At 0.1 uSv per instance(an over estimate I'm sure), they're allowed ~20 000 searches per year. Rotating personal could stretch that pretty far. But it's true that it's non-trivial for them.

      Flight crews is a whole other issue. People tend to ignore this - once the airline industry is outted for the cancer risks of flying, there will be a huge number of lawsuits. It's not hard to work out the risk - and it's much much higher than the risk from the scanner. Think more than 10% will get cancer due to their job.

    4. Re:Cough, please ... by i.am.delf · · Score: 1

      I know for the TSA personnel you often see radiation dosimeters. The government isn't unaware of the risk. I'm sure they are much more worried about the carry on bag scanners than the backscatter machine. Those bag scanners have much higher energy and higher intensity x-ray sources. You know those black rubber things and lexan shields on those machines? Those are to block as much of the radiation as possible. The lexan of course doesn't do much against x-rays, but they prevent passengers from grabbing at a bag coming out of the machine which could get those rubber things swinging and exposing everyone.

      I have a bet running with some friends that at some point a very frequent flier(daily) or a member of the flight crew will get melanoma from the backscatter x-ray machine(remember the x-ray dose is only to the first few millimeters of skin). The lawsuit against the manufacturer will be huge, because of course the federal government is shielded from those lawsuits.

    5. Re:Cough, please ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Backscatter x-rays aren't ionizing radiation. Nor do they penetrate the body. That's why they produce an image of the surface of the body. Duh!

    6. Re:Cough, please ... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      When the intent is to touch the genitals, then is the intent to search or commit a sexual assault.

      Eh, not sure about that. Otherwise, every routine physical exam could also be a felony. And doctors don't always stop at "resistance"... (hey doc, using the whole fist? Mooooon riiverrr...)

    7. Re:Cough, please ... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      No the Federal government will be screwed for failing to obtain releases, or enquiring about prior doses (all accumulative) or for warning people about the risks. The negligence is theirs especially when you add Airport ionising radar into the mix. It will be quite clear the Federal government failed their duty of care and not only that but actively via routes of public and sexual humiliation to take the risk, including minors who have far greater risks for exposure that kind of radiation.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:Cough, please ... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Consent is the basis for legitimising that kind of contact. So announce you accept a non sexual pat down and scream if they exceed that level of consent followed up with a lawsuit.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re:Cough, please ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know where the question mark is on your keyboard.

    10. Re:Cough, please ... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      The ration risk to fight crews is frequently over stated. Its frequently compared to that of an X-ray. The difference being, density of exposure. And X-ray is highly focused in an extremely short duration, and as such, is far more likely to strike something important in the body. Whereas, the exposure while flying is spread out over a fairly long duration, over the entire body. So while its true the total expose may be higher while flying at certain locations, the odds of something being struck are significantly reduced. And that's why, by in large, you don't hear concerns from those who fly.

  17. t ouchy-feely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You wanna touch me? That's fine, I'm a pretty attractive guy, don't you think? It's been a while since I've gotten THIS level of attention from a pair of hands. Yeah, TSA, good job.

  18. This is reasonable by digitalsushi · · Score: 3, Funny

    But I expect a refund if the plane blows up. Is that fair?

    --
    slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    1. Re:This is reasonable by jimicus · · Score: 1

      That's perfectly fine sir. If you report to the airline's desk and fill in form 274(a) (Plane Exploded) in triplicate within 48 hours of the plane blowing up and submit your £20 processing fee, you can have your refund within 3-6 months.

  19. Homo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just tell them you are gay, before the pat down. That will make them uncomfortable.

    1. Re:Homo by hrvatska · · Score: 1

      Just tell them you are gay, before the pat down. That will make them uncomfortable.

      Or just start moaning and bucking your hips when they get to your crotch.

  20. ALWAYS REFUSE THE SCANNER by OKLetsTalk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Then ask for a private area. This will require at least three TSA employees to occupy there time exclusively for you. I fly several times a month and always do this. I guess it is just my little method of rebellion. I did notice the pat down I received two days ago was much more invasive.

    1. Re:ALWAYS REFUSE THE SCANNER by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1

      I had to get a pat down a couple of years ago and the officer did hit my balls with the back of his hand. Maybe it was an accident.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    2. Re:ALWAYS REFUSE THE SCANNER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this will have no affect. If everyone starts doing this they will simply put you in a long, slow queue with the risk of you missing your plane.
      The warnings on the reservation slips about having to be on time on the airport will be amended. "Please allow for 4 more hours if you require a manual security check"

    3. Re:ALWAYS REFUSE THE SCANNER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably thought you were cute.

    4. Re:ALWAYS REFUSE THE SCANNER by SilverJets · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fuck that shit. I'm not letting a bunch of college drop outs take me anywhere out of the sight of the rest of the public.

    5. Re:ALWAYS REFUSE THE SCANNER by sjames · · Score: 1

      Be sure to giggle like Mr. Slave the whole time. Don't forget to wink at the TSA guy and give him your number when he's done.

    6. Re:ALWAYS REFUSE THE SCANNER by Zadaz · · Score: 1

      Won't work. I fly out of San Francisco.

    7. Re:ALWAYS REFUSE THE SCANNER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, but the GP has a point about taking the TSA's time. If enough people opted out, at some point it becomes a "denial-of-service", it's not workable anymore. I seem to recall a fellow named Ghandi who proposed similar manners of peaceful yet effective civil disobedience.

  21. Re:Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, let me know when "only people who trigger the metal detector get patdowns" day is. Last time I suffered through the drooling incompetence that is the TSA they were doing hand searches of every bag... whether attached to a person or not.

  22. It's about obedience by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You need to be trained to accept government intrusion into your personal space, do whatever they tell you to.

    If you'll let them feel you up in public then letting them scan your email will seem like no big deal.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:It's about obedience by amanicdroid · · Score: 1

      Make the lackeys feel dumb and ridiculous. The price of operations will go up and they'll find different methods.

    2. Re:It's about obedience by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No they won't. First the lackeys will just take it out on the travellers (as they're already doing, judging from TFA). And if they eventually get sick of it and quit, the TSA will find new lackeys. It's hardly the worst job to be found in most cities, so there will always be a supply of people willing to get in out of the weather, stop doing physical labor, and/or get away from hazardous/noxious materials.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    3. Re:It's about obedience by Shark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The sad thing is that in 7 to 10 years, nobody will even care... People will just accept this as completely normal. What scares me is what will make people uncomfortable then? People will be indignant that TSA employees are allowed to shoot anyone who looks at them funny on the spot? Then it's another 7 to 10 years of easing the measure onto the sheep as part of their everyday life...

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    4. Re:It's about obedience by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      There's people out there who spend their lives cutting out the 'bungs' of thousands of dead pigs every day*. You think they'd turn down a job at the TSA because of this?

      (Do a Google Image Search for "bung dropper" if you're not squeamish....)

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:It's about obedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You need to be trained to accept government intrusion into your personal space, do whatever they tell you to.

      If you'll let them feel you up in public then letting them scan your email will seem like no big deal.

      I fly quite a lot (international on average at least every second week) and I'm the opposite of a fear monger and quite strong on protecting my rights, but scanning people for weapons when entering a plane with me is not something I consider an intrusion of my and others' personal space. You'd be stupid not to see that this still is a factual threat (as recent days have shown).

      I do get that the pat downs and other of the checks aren't foolproof, or might even be argued are ineffective. And I'm irritated by much of the stupidity and hassle around this on an almost weekly basis. But these body scanners are effective. And I wish people would get over nevrotic hangups about the body you're born with, and have these scanners as obligatory. If people could get over the 'OMG! they can see a cartoon version of you actually having the same bodyparts as everybody else!' they could ease up on the stupid stuff.

    6. Re:It's about obedience by harrytuttle777 · · Score: 1

      The government for the people now looks on the people as the enemy. In our increasingly fractured and divided society there is no longer any shared vision of what it means to be a common peoples. If the people openly hate one another, isn't it logical that the goverment would just view these 'peoples' as quarrelsome and potentially dangerous animals who need to be watched?

      The USA needs to develop some kind of shared vision / identity as a common people NOW, or we will surely collapse. It may already be to late. In other words the 'elites' need to stop looking at the lower class as a resources to be mined and outsourced, and the 'lower class' needs to get their act together. The USA is too ethnically/ religiously diverse to form any kind of identity along any of those lines.

      The foundation I can see would be the SPACE / Aeronatics program. If we had a leader that made it the goal of the administration to see that every household had their own plane, or that the average USAian could make it to space, I thing that would work. I know I would work a lot harder to build my own plane in my backyard than work to 'encourage respect and diversity'

      It is a crazy idea, but at this point, I think the only hope is for a crazy idea. At any rate it is much less crazy that the idea of having 'wars on crime', 'wars on drugs', 'wars on military tactics', or the crazy idea of a 'war on cyberbullying.

       

    7. Re:It's about obedience by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I would be okay with it under the following conditions:

      • The scanners must be designed to search for chemicals that don't belong in the human body, not for nonstandard shapes.
      • The scanners must penetrate the body fully so that they are actually effective against a terrorist with more than three brain cells.
      • The scanners must be designed in such a way that it is physically impossible to get anything APPROACHING a nude picture of the person, and physically impossible to see anything that would constitute private medical information as well.

      Until then, you're massively invading my privacy without doing a damn thing to stop terrorism---something that should not be acceptable to anyone sensible. I guarantee you that this bullshit will stop the first time somebody releases a "Girls Gone Wild TSA Style" video showing a bunch of goons sitting around watching nude X-ray pics of hot women who walked through the scanners. And statistically speaking, it's only a matter of time before this happens and it turns into a public outcry the likes of which the government has not seen since Vietnam.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:It's about obedience by FiloEleven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a factual yet minuscule threat, and the response is way out of proportion.

      It's like we're allergic to terrorists.

    9. Re:It's about obedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be okay with it under the following conditions:

      • The scanners must be designed to search for chemicals that don't belong in the human body, not for nonstandard shapes.
      • The scanners must penetrate the body fully so that they are actually effective against a terrorist with more than three brain cells.
      • The scanners must be designed in such a way that it is physically impossible to get anything APPROACHING a nude picture of the person, and physically impossible to see anything that would constitute private medical information as well.

      Until then, you're massively invading my privacy without doing a damn thing to stop terrorism---something that should not be acceptable to anyone sensible. I guarantee you that this bullshit will stop the first time somebody releases a "Girls Gone Wild TSA Style" video showing a bunch of goons sitting around watching nude X-ray pics of hot women who walked through the scanners. And statistically speaking, it's only a matter of time before this happens and it turns into a public outcry the likes of which the government has not seen since Vietnam.

      Have you seen these pictures? Even those that are leaked with the 'censor' part off are so far from naked picture of you that I really don't get the outrage.

      And btw. whatever else you might think of them, these scanners actually are an effective measure, if obligatory. Much of the other stuff is not.

    10. Re:It's about obedience by amanicdroid · · Score: 1

      Good luck finding enough people that can fulfill the background check requirements.

    11. Re:It's about obedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a factual yet minuscule threat, and the response is way out of proportion.

      It's like we're allergic to terrorists.

      I actually agree with that (same anon), but what is your solution, no security checks at all to board a plane?

      I'm of the opinion that the body scanners are effective (for once) and non-hassle (for once), and should replace the other crap.

      But then, I'm of the opinion that people should get over hangups about their natural body.

    12. Re:It's about obedience by Kilrah_il · · Score: 3, Informative

      The amazing thing is people get worked up about the summery, but nowhere is it written that the "more embarrassing pat-down" is actually a TSA directive. It is the opinion of one employee that the writer talked to. As far as we know, it might be that it is really a more effective pat-down intended to be more useful at finding weapons/bombs on those who refuse the scanners.
      I'm not saying I am that naive, but OTOH, getting all worked up over the opinion of one TSA employee, without even the TSA's response...

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    13. Re:It's about obedience by Zerth · · Score: 1

      The scanners must be designed in such a way that it is physically impossible to get anything APPROACHING a nude picture of the person, and physically impossible to see anything that would constitute private medical information as well.

      Actually, the last scanner I went through(outside the US) already did this. It used a generic picture and scaled the results to match, only picking out objects as yellow dots.

      The screen was right next to the seating area, so I watched 25 or 30 people go through. Same image every time.

      One guy with a plate in his shoulder showed up as a huge yellow dot and got felt up a bunch. Another guy had some pins in his ankle, just showed the guy his scars.

      And none of us had to take off our shoes. Silly, but that makes me prefer these scanners over non-specific/non-locating metal detectors.

    14. Re:It's about obedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really not that difficult. They screen for a fairly select set of obvious disqualifying crimes on your record. They don't care about the Minor In Possession you picked up in college or your Driving Under the Influence convictions, and even that Breaking And Entering you got nailed for 10 years ago and did two years in lockup wouldn't disqualify you. The random drug testing might make it more difficult to keep the positions filled, but it doesn't seem to be posing the TSA with any problems. If it did, they'd relax the requirements.

    15. Re:It's about obedience by Selivanow · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. Right now my feeling is this: If you really feel the need to see me naked, Mr TSA Guy, then I might as well give everyone a show and strip right here. Why should the guys in the booth have all of the fun?
      All we really need to do is just casually talk to the other passengers about how much they see when you go through the scanner. I'm sure that you will find many more people willing to opt out, of course you should also be vocal about how they are feeling you up while they "pat you down"

      --
      -- ...trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -Bruce Schneier
    16. Re:It's about obedience by 32771 · · Score: 1

      We are. It seems to be some sort of auto-immune disorder.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    17. Re:It's about obedience by FiloEleven · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I could almost agree with that IF and ONLY IF they got rid of the no-fly list. If body scans are mandatory, then there's no flight risk from the people on that list who should actually be on it, much less those whose names ended up there accidentally or for political reasons.

    18. Re:It's about obedience by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        Except for the old farts (of which I am now technically a member) who remember what things were like... you know, before.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    19. Re:It's about obedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be okay with it under the following conditions:

      I guarantee you that this bullshit will stop the first time somebody releases a "Girls Gone Wild TSA Style" video showing a bunch of goons sitting around watching nude X-ray pics of hot women who walked through the scanners. And statistically speaking, it's only a matter of time before this happens and it turns into a public outcry the likes of which the government has not seen since Vietnam.

      Nah, they keep those videos to themselves...

    20. Re:It's about obedience by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Have you seen these pictures? Even those that are leaked with the 'censor' part off are so far from naked picture of you that I really don't get the outrage.

      The ones I've seen weren't far from a naked picture at all. Maybe the ones you saw weren't calibrated correctly, or maybe you were looking at pictures from the other type of machine (there are two systems in use: backscatter and millimeter wave). Or maybe you're seeing it after they apply the post-processing filters. That doesn't mean that the unfiltered data doesn't exist, and if it exists, it could be leaked.

      And no, they're not effective. The only way they could possibly be effective is if the terrorists didn't know they were there. Now that the terrorists know that they are being scanned, they will simply hide the dangerous substances somewhere the scanners can't see---in a hollow leg, a body cavity, etc. It certainly wouldn't be the first time terrorists smuggled explosives in body cavities. It is the ultimate example of security through obscurity. It is an utterly useless security mechanism because A. its flaws are blindingly obvious, B. it is only effective if the attacker doesn't know that he/she needs to exploit those blindingly obvious flaws, and C. the attacker almost certainly knows it is there, and thus can see the blindingly obvious flaws readily, and thus should reasonably know to exploit those blindingly obvious flaws.

      It's about as effective a security measure as checking for photo IDs at the security checkpoint. It's a completely perfunctory, superfluous gesture whose sole function is to keep people who aren't flying from going past security so that they have time for all the other foolishness. In other words, the billions of dollars they've spent on these bits of snake oil are a pretty clear example of the fleecing of America.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    21. Re:It's about obedience by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. Right now my feeling is this: If you really feel the need to see me naked, Mr TSA Guy, then I might as well give everyone a show and strip right here. Why should the guys in the booth have all of the fun?

      Funny, I suggested the same thing on Facebook a couple of weeks ago---that people should just say, "Well if you wanted to see me naked that badly, why didn't you just say so!?!" and then do a striptease right in the middle of the security checkpoint line. I'm certain that if anyone actually did that, he/she would be on a no-fly list for the rest of his/her life, and probably a national sex offender registry as well, but it still might be worth it....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    22. Re:It's about obedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a job at TSA because they annoy me. I wanted to see what it's like. They want to know jobs/houses for 10 years.

      Handling baggage is physical labor and the Feds don't like paying for on the job injuries or unemployment. Lots of people screwed up their wrists, backs and shoulders there. They like to hire ex-military because they consider themselves a military group.

      I did it for a few months then quit. It already has a high turnover rate. It's fairly crappy work at low wages. The immature stuff I'd see in the non-public areas was amazing. Dildo fights, baggage guitar playing, flipping through laptops just to see what's on them.

      It's always great to hear that they get more powerful. It's like the prison population. Any attempt to make sense out of it will be used as a sign of political weakness so politicians won't back down.

    23. Re:It's about obedience by fractoid · · Score: 1

      One guy with a plate in his shoulder showed up as a huge yellow dot and got felt up a bunch. Another guy had some pins in his ankle, just showed the guy his scars.

      Maybe I'm missing something here, but if I were going to kill myself and everyone around me anyway, I wouldn't have too much problem with having a bomb implanted somewhere. I remember some talk a while ago about a plot where women were having 'breast enhancements' made out of plastic explosives...

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    24. Re:It's about obedience by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I guarantee you that this bullshit will stop the first time somebody releases a "Girls Gone Wild TSA Style" video showing a bunch of goons sitting around watching nude X-ray pics of hot women who walked through the scanners. And statistically speaking, it's only a matter of time before this happens and it turns into a public outcry the likes of which the government has not seen since Vietnam.

      I don't think the US people are capable of that sort of outcry/protest anymore. The American mindset/psyche has changed radically in just fifty years. When this inevitable video gets out of TSA employees all sitting around spanking their monkeys to backscatter porn all it will take is anyone important enough to be on TV to say the words 'just a few bad apples' and 'think of the children' and it will be business as usual. What did happen to the people in the US? One of my friends believes that all of the best and brightest male genetic material was destroyed in a century of insane warfare. I guess this will be modded down to the depths of hell. I just hope those moderating examine their motives afterwards.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    25. Re:It's about obedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I'd worry more about fat Americans with with gastric bypass surgery scars. You can fit a lot more explosives in a beer belly after you scoop out the fat than even a set of double G's.

    26. Re:It's about obedience by swb · · Score: 1

      I had lunch the other day with a guy who used to work in a pork slaughterhouse.

      I tell you what, sticking a gloved finger up strange people's assholes for the rest of my life sounds vastly superior to a day in the slaughterhouse.

      He said you got paid in cash the first couple of days as so many people quit the first day (or part of the day) that issue checks for these people was too much headache.

    27. Re:It's about obedience by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      You'd be stupid not to see that this still is a factual threat (as recent days have shown).

      Ah, yes, in recent days, where we were reminded that any personal intrusion in fine, but scanning shipping? Why, that would interfere with commerce and cost companies more money! So let's not bother with that at all, ever.

      You'll notice that no one seems to be proposing a solution, either. Everyone's just sorta hoping it will go away and we'll all forget the fact most of us didn't know: That while they're scanning us down and stripping us naked and fondling us and taking our checked luggage apart, they're putting shipping in the luggage compartment without bothering to check it at all.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    28. Re:It's about obedience by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how your third paragraph logically follows from the second.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    29. Re:It's about obedience by fractoid · · Score: 1

      This is very true. Also, what about people who simply wear thick leather jackets? If the scanner doesn't penetrate skin, presumably it doesn't penetrate cowhide. What about a thin layer of alfoil? (Yeah I know LOL TINFOIL HAT IRL but it should work.)

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    30. Re:It's about obedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are already scanning email. On US servers. It's in my hosting company's TOS.

    31. Re:It's about obedience by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      o The scanners must be provably safe.

      I don't care if anyone sees me naked. Hell, I'll strip and walk through the metal detector if they want. But there are serious questions about whether these new scanners cause skin cancer. Until that's resolved, or until some new, safer technology appears, I am not getting in one.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    32. Re:It's about obedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scanners must be designed to search for chemicals that don't belong in the human body, not for nonstandard shapes.

      We are combining the war on terror with the war on drugs. Do you have a prescription for that narcotic that we can detect in your bloodstream?

      The scanners must penetrate the body fully so that they are actually effective against a terrorist with more than three brain cells.

      It COULD be a gastric band, or it could be some explosive. Do you have a doctor's note about your terrible obesity?

      The scanners must be designed in such a way that it is physically impossible to get anything APPROACHING a nude picture of the person, and physically impossible to see anything that would constitute private medical information as well.

      I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of being able to see beneath clothes.

    33. Re:It's about obedience by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      It COULD be a gastric band, or it could be some explosive. Do you have a doctor's note about your terrible obesity?

      Why, precisely, is your gastric band made of Semtex?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    34. Re:It's about obedience by harrytuttle777 · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to be obvious, but the second paragraph was referring to the need to create a shared vision, of what it means to be an USian. A vision greater then just making more money that can energize the population.

      The third paragraph was giving one example of such a vision. I know that support of a national space program is kind of cliche around here, but it is better then the alternative which is to continue to fight like rats over a shrinking piece of cheese.

      Really, your post was a 5?

      I hope that explains it.

    35. Re:It's about obedience by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      But is that the only image the machine is capable of displaying, or was that just the public-facing feelgood output?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    36. Re:It's about obedience by Zerth · · Score: 1

      That was the image the security staff was using to search passengers. The machine may have recorded more than that, but there weren't any other displays or workstations.

  23. In other news by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Informative

    How's the crackdown on TSA employees who steal from baggage coming along? Oh, there isn't one.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh, there isn't one."

      Then why even ask about how the crackdown is going then?

  24. TSA the problem, not the solution by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone else starting to see the TSA as a bigger problem than actual terrorists?

    Not sure about the solution but what we have is dysfunctional. We know we can't count on the airlines to run airport security. But TSA is starting to treat the flying public like some inconvenience while doing little to thwart actual terrorists.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:TSA the problem, not the solution by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anyone else starting to see the TSA as a bigger problem than actual terrorists?

      No, I see the TSA as the actual terrorists. They're the ones scaring people and grabbing their nuts.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:TSA the problem, not the solution by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Anyone else starting to see the TSA as a bigger problem than actual terrorists?

      Oh absolutely! It costs the US tens of billions of dollars every year in lost tourism/business revenues to maintain the security theater.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    3. Re:TSA the problem, not the solution by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Starting? It's been that way for quite a while now. Ever notice how apart from 9/11 there hasn't been a single plane taken down due to terrorism in the US in the last decade? And the only other attempts have either failed on their own or by use of less sophisticated counter measures.

      You're always going to have terrorism as long as folks are willing to do that sort of thing, but when the likelihood of a plane going down due to terrorism is less likely than it going down due to either mechanical failure or pilot error, you have to wonder why we're putting up with the extra security measures.

    4. Re:TSA the problem, not the solution by DigitalKiwi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh absolutely! It costs the US tens of billions of dollars every year in lost tourism/business revenues to maintain the security theater.

      It cost the USA my business.

      I fly from London -> New Zealand via LAX once or twice a year, I often used to stop over for up to a week in the US on the way and head up to vegas, or do some skiing. Now I always go via Hong Kong even tho its a longer flight just to avoid the 'bullshit'. I suspect many others avoid the US for the same reason.

      Lucky for the US it doesn't need those tourism jobs with its low low rates of unemployment eh?

    5. Re:TSA the problem, not the solution by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh we don't worry about little one off folks like you. We have Goldman-Sachs and Company - they're capable of trashing the US economy one hell of a lot more than some itinerant sheep herder.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:TSA the problem, not the solution by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyone else starting to see the TSA as a bigger problem than actual terrorists?

      The TSA is the terrorists' success. They've forced us to waste billions, reduce our freedoms and even give up our personal dignity.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:TSA the problem, not the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when was the last time a plane went down before 9/11 due to terrorism?

    8. Re:TSA the problem, not the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Lockerbie? Were there any others?

    9. Re:TSA the problem, not the solution by Shark · · Score: 1

      Airlines like making money. If they come up with a method that makes people want to fly them over their competitor, they will. And be certain that they'll factor in the cost of having one of their planes high jacked. Heck, the company that would advertise: "We treat you like a human being, but one in 1000 of our planes *will* blow up." would still get my dollars.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    10. Re:TSA the problem, not the solution by mhollis · · Score: 1

      I did no less than four investigative reports on how lax security used to be at US airports we would have a production assistant get a job with security with no background check or sneak contraband into a security zone. We would then interview a Congresspweson and an FAA person and they would wring their hands and agree that it was awful.

      And nothing would change.

      Now that we have professional security that is actually paid to care, everyone is complaining. I'm not. I get the full pat-down each time because I have a knee replacement. I point to it and politely tell the TSA person that I will set off the magnetometer. I always do the pat down. It is completely routine, I expect it and know what to do. I thank the TSA worker "for keeping us all safe." always gets a smile.

      If you're going to cop an attitude, it won't be pleasant. If you don't see it as an imposition, it won't be. I am looking forward to the scanners. Maybe I won't need the pat-down. I am hoping the new technology makes everyone safer.

      --
      Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
    11. Re:TSA the problem, not the solution by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 1

      Terrorists don't give a shit about American freedoms, budgets, and personal dignity. They want US forces out of the Middle East and freedom to impose their medieval theocracy on anyone they can reach.

      So far, the score in the War on Terror is probably a Nil-all draw between Team America and Islamic ultra-conservatism.

    12. Re:TSA the problem, not the solution by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "doing little to thwart actual terrorists"?

      How many planes have blown up in the USA lately? None. So the TSA is 100% effective!

      Whereas everywhere else in the world, without the gropings by the TSA, planes are exploding out of the sky daily, almost hourly!

      You've never had it so good!

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    13. Re:TSA the problem, not the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup - I've done the London to NZ flight a few times. Now I will no longer fly via the USA.

      For a culture that is portrayed as being very service oriented (what happened to the whole 'Have a nice day' thing), LA airport is populated by large, surly people who seem to be there only to make travellers lives difficult.

      Rather bizarrely I was stood in a queue in Heathrow a few years back and everyone seemed to be taking their shoes off. Odd I thought. There weren't any signs to say that was a requirement. Same with belts. I didn't bother. Always preferring to do that which is easier (i.e. not taking my shoes and belt off and trying to hold up my trousers up while faffing with my shoes, belt, coat, mobile, change and hand luggage). I wasn't asked to take them off and when I set the metal detector off I told the security guard that I had a metal implant and would set the detector off even if I was naked. He waved a hand held metal detector over me and waved me through. I still don't know why everyone was taking their shoes off...

    14. Re:TSA the problem, not the solution by swillden · · Score: 1

      Terrorists don't give a shit about American freedoms, budgets, and personal dignity. They want US forces out of the Middle East and freedom to impose their medieval theocracy on anyone they can reach.

      Of course they don't care about our freedom, etc. Their goal is to make our lives worse in whatever way they can until they get what they want.

      So far, the score in the War on Terror is probably a Nil-all draw between Team America and Islamic ultra-conservatism.

      You're right that the terrorists haven't achieved their end goals in any significant way, but they've certainly had a lot of success with their intermediate goals. I think they have a commanding lead, because we've chosen to give it to them.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    15. Re:TSA the problem, not the solution by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Airlines are not in charge of TSA, and have no ability to do anything like you're describing.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    16. Re:TSA the problem, not the solution by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 1

      Ever notice how apart from 9/11 there hasn't been a single plane taken down due to terrorism in the US in the last decade?

      "What are you wearing that open umbrella for, it's not raining?"
      "It keeps the elephants away."
      "But there are no elephants here anyway."
      "See, it's working."

      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
  25. Re:Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    Last time I suffered through the drooling incompetence that is the TSA they were doing hand searches of every bag.

    Which is not a patdown.

    AND Mr AC, I've seen random screening of bags and some passengers before but never hand searches of ALL carryons from EVERY passenger. There is not time to to that for any plane that is even moderately full.

    AND if that random searching is done, it's done at the gate which it way, way after the scanner choice so it STILL doesn't support the conclusion the article makes.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  26. didn't xkcd cover this by DMoylan · · Score: 1, Informative

    seems like

    http://xkcd.com/779/

    would make it as embarrassing to security doing pat downs as viewing the scanner results

    1. Re:didn't xkcd cover this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      best xkcd ever!

  27. I guarantee my facial expressions and sounds by VShael · · Score: 1

    will make it FAR more embarrassing for the dude or dudette who has to examine my sweaty junk.

    The biggest complaints about this new policy will soon be coming from the staff.

    1. Re:I guarantee my facial expressions and sounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if its a female doing it for the guys, then there will be a looooooooooong line for the patdown..

    2. Re:I guarantee my facial expressions and sounds by amanicdroid · · Score: 1

      Make sure to request gentle ball cupping rather than the less personal and insulting open hand.

  28. It is time to find another solution by assertation · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whether it is sanctioned sexual molestation ( pat downs ) or getting nuked with scanner radiation Americans didn't cause this problem and we do deserve to be treated this way. It is time to find another solution.

    A start might be to make the scanning more palatable by hiring higher caliber people for security and giving them training in how to act and be more mature about the process. Their behavior and comments started many of the objections with scanning.

    1. Re:It is time to find another solution by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      Currently, the only other solution seems to be to not to fly at all.
      Which, given recent events, "terrorist" are apparently the first to implement.

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    2. Re:It is time to find another solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Or, we could recognize that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western values and start denying access to ports by Muslims. Nobody likes Muslims anyway. Dear Muslims: please undergo an enlightenment period. Your culture is a stale anachronism, and you're about 1000 years overdue for an enlightenment. When NASA's mission has been reduced to making you feel good about yourselves for stealing the alphabet from the Hindus, then you know you're a joke.

  29. Think of the children! by amw5g · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No seriously. I haven't come across any details regarding the backscatter or the pat downs that discusses differential treatment for young travelers. Don't have kids, but I would imagine a parent's dilemma when traveling in the coming days will be: a) quasi-nude imagery of my children; or b) stranger danger.

    1. Re:Think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      TSA Screener has got to be becoming the profession of choice for perverts who have not been convicted of any sexual offenses. Most of them (especially pedophiles) understand that they'd get their balls cut off if they ever actually touched someone non-consensually, and like most people they're capable of exercising self-control, so they are completely unknown to law enforcement and will easily pass a background check. Working for TSA now gives them the chance to see through people's clothes and/or feel them up several times a day. No particular skills needed, jobs available in every medium-to-large city, a decent working environment, a livable wage, and... benefits! Where do I apply?

    2. Re:Think of the children! by izomiac · · Score: 1

      IMHO, we need some celebrity to decry airport scanners as a cause of autism. That's highly unlikely, but a lot more plausible than most of the stuff they're blaming. In any case, it'll put the TSA in a pretty rough spot. I'm sure it'll demoralize all but the sickest TSA workers to be forced to essentially molest children all day. Plus it'll put some much needed attention on these useless practices.

    3. Re:Think of the children! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      No seriously. I haven't come across any details regarding the backscatter or the pat downs that discusses differential treatment for young travelers. Don't have kids, but I would imagine a parent's dilemma when traveling in the coming days will be: a) quasi-nude imagery of my children; or b) stranger danger.

      Don't forget that the safe levels of radiation exposure are, like exposure to chemicals in foods, calibrated for adults. A child going through the radiation box is going to get a much higher dose per kilogram of body-weight than an adult will and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that radiation exposure at a young age turns out to have more of an impact than an adult because the kid is still growing.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exposing children and adolescents to this kind of search is an assault on both their pre-adult privacy and their pre-adult biology.

  30. Plan behind a plan by SlovakWakko · · Score: 1

    I think that the real long-term plan here is to minimize pat-down use to such a level, that later it can be abandoned altogether without much resistance from the flying public. When they (you know, THEY) have been able to make us consider pat-downs as the less-humiliating option, I think they are safe to assume they'll eventually be able to force us to do anything...

  31. Not a problem. by Jarnin · · Score: 2, Funny

    This has never been a problem for me. I only wear a speedo and flip-flops when I travel by air.

    1. Re:Not a problem. by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

      You've appropriately been modded funny but I wonder what would happen if a prospective traveler took off his or her trousers and placed them in the X-Ray conveyor while standing aside for a pat-down.

      If enough people did this (coordinated protesters) what would the TSA do? Can we travelers ram backscatter machines back down the TSA's bureaucratic throats?

      --
      blog
  32. Three Magic Words: "Hostile Work Environment" by Dredd13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does your job require you to travel cross-country?

    If so, your employer, as part of your work function is forcing you to subject yourself to either [a] "being seen naked by a stranger", or [b] "being groped by a stranger".

    Either way, it seems like a perfect test-case for a sexual-harassment lawsuit. There are alternate forms of transportation that don't require being forced to make the decision above (if speed is important, you spend more money and charter a jet, if thrift is important, you spend more time and take a train). So if your employer requires that you fly commercial, it seems that you have an excellent cause of action under existing Sexual Harassment law.

    Bonus points if you actually work for the gov't so you can avoid suing someone who didn't have a lot of say in the rules in the first place.

    1. Re:Three Magic Words: "Hostile Work Environment" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, thrift and long-distance trains don't go together. The cost is at best equivalent, at worst the train can cost double or triple what the plane costs. If you want thrift, take the bus (I'll bet you won't do that twice...)

      AC

    2. Re:Three Magic Words: "Hostile Work Environment" by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      your employer, as part of your work function is forcing you to subject yourself to either

      Oh come off it! It would be so if it were a specific order from the employer. But it never is and chances are the employer would prefer you to travel at ease and would certainly never spend money to make his employees feel like shit. The employer is merely asking to travel -just as he might ask to do other things normal people do- and he cannot be held liable for out of proportion security measures.

      Seriously, what were you thinking when you punched in this line?

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    3. Re:Three Magic Words: "Hostile Work Environment" by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Actually, the bus isn't all that much cheaper. It costs more than the gas to go the same distance in a sedan.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    4. Re:Three Magic Words: "Hostile Work Environment" by Dredd13 · · Score: 1

      If you tell your employer "being subjected to groping or being seen naked makes me uncomfortable", then they are knowingly sending you into a hostile work environment, plain and simple.

      It may not be "their fault" that the TSA is making that portion of your work-day hostile, but they are still knowingly sending you off into the hostile environment, and there are alternatives an employer can undertake NOT to do so.

    5. Re:Three Magic Words: "Hostile Work Environment" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the court will side against you. Remember, it's not sexual harassment if no one sympathizes with you.

    6. Re:Three Magic Words: "Hostile Work Environment" by Dredd13 · · Score: 1

      Well, by comparison against a charter jet, it's thrifty. That's what I meant. If you're trying to stay "cost-effective" a train works as opposed to a charter-jet. :-)

    7. Re:Three Magic Words: "Hostile Work Environment" by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      If you tell your employer "being subjected to groping or being seen naked makes me uncomfortable", then they are knowingly sending you into a hostile work environment, plain and simple.

      Sure, and as it seems, your employer has devious plans spelled out for you. Words of a youngster that found a glitch in "the system" and is making a point ad absurdum, truly believing in a certain conspiracy.

      It may not be "their fault" that the TSA is making that portion of your work-day hostile, but they are still knowingly sending you off into the hostile environment, and there are alternatives an employer can undertake NOT to do so.

      OK, say you have a business in CA and you need occasional presence in ME. Try getting there without a plane. Amtrak? Greyhound? Forget both. Maybe driving over 2 days non stop? Sure. And when you get back you will put more shit on your employer for being deprived from sleeping.

      You sound like one of the many pathetic women on Oprah, discussing some non-problem and expecting the panel and the audience to nod in sympathy. The difference is that a woman's problem is solved by care and sympathy but the travelling salesman problem needs actual action.

      Who the hell modded you up in the first place?

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    8. Re:Three Magic Words: "Hostile Work Environment" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you tell your employer "being subjected to groping or being seen naked makes me uncomfortable", then they are knowingly sending you into a hostile work environment, plain and simple.

      Well maybe they'll fire you or demote you so you won't have to suffer from a hostile work environment anymore, eh?

    9. Re:Three Magic Words: "Hostile Work Environment" by Dredd13 · · Score: 1

      Sure, and as it seems, your employer has devious plans spelled out for you. Words of a youngster that found a glitch in "the system" and is making a point ad absurdum, truly believing in a certain conspiracy.

      A "youngster"? That's just funny. Most days I feel like one of the oldest people reading slashdot. I've probably been reading slashdot since before you even heard about it. :-)

      OK, say you have a business in CA and you need occasional presence in ME. Try getting there without a plane. Amtrak? Greyhound? Forget both. Maybe driving over 2 days non stop? Sure. And when you get back you will put more shit on your employer for being deprived from sleeping.

      This is a problem for your employer to sort out. Is your TIME more valuable to them? In which case, they should be paying for a charter flight (which doesn't use the TSA at all amusingly). Is THRIFT more important to them? In which case, they should be paying for Amtrak or the like.

      You sound like one of the many pathetic women on Oprah, discussing some non-problem and expecting the panel and the audience to nod in sympathy. The difference is that a woman's problem is solved by care and sympathy but the travelling salesman problem needs actual action.

      Who the hell modded you up in the first place?

      People who apparently have a clue how the legal system works, perhaps?

    10. Re:Three Magic Words: "Hostile Work Environment" by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      For the people just tuning in, we're having a fervent discussion about whether an employer should be held accountable for inconveniences with TSA.

      Good point about charter. I take you mean private charter and not a chartered flight for cheap skates. I also take that if you are special enough your employer will shell out many bucks for you. Having you on a train or bus will not be much cheaper as you will tyre more, be out of office longer etc... (Forget about mobile offices as they don't really work, unless it is your job to phone people and give them a ruddy good bollocking.)

      Now move your context to international and intercontinental flights. Intercontinental charters are freaking expensive.

      I'd have serious second thoughts on employees that would come to me and tell me to fix a crappy situation that the elected government did induce and that would suddenly cost huge amounts of money. I mean we're not bankers and we just can't light up our cigars with $1000 bills. You have to do with 1000th of it. It's a tough world I say.

      My solution? I don't travel to the US or any other country requiring my scrotum to be fondled or my fingerprints to be taken. I would love to visit the US and Japan but alas. Oh, and I'm owner, general manager and main employee of my own LLC so nobody will push me about.

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    11. Re:Three Magic Words: "Hostile Work Environment" by Dredd13 · · Score: 1

      Look, I don't disagree with you, which is why (if you go back to my original post), I mentioned that bonus points for being a gov't employee who can actually punish "the right person". I'm not ADVOCATING for suing private employers, only that it's not inconceivable that an employer, so sued, might be found liable. (Except inasmuch as I'd like to see a couple people sue their employers to create the necessary uproar).

      You're absolutely right about the issues involved (intercontinental travel, etc. etc.), and there are work-arounds (telepresence equipment, etc.) but as someone who sits in a telepresence suite twice a week, it's definitely not the same thing.

  33. Either do it right or not at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cavity searches for everyone!

    Or

    Let everyone get on aircraft without any searches, pay cash for our tickets and not provide our names for travel.

    What we're doing today is just crazy. This is a numbers game - there are more normal people than terrorists out there. After they blow up 100 aircraft, it will stop.

  34. Not gonna work at all... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    For most nerds, this pat down would be the closest thing to 2nd base they'll ever get...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  35. I'll spend my holiday money elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hit em where it hurts.... in the pocket

  36. Recent events by Gonoff · · Score: 1, Troll

    Was anyone else completely unsurprised at the cargo place alerts just now?

    One day we have a senior airline exec saying that this is ridiculous and the next daythings are 'found' that reminds us how much we need all this security.

    Coincidnce? I don't think so!/p>

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    1. Re:Recent events by Dredd13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are you implying the US Gov't would run false flag operations? That would never happen, sir, and I challenge you to retract your implication or back it up with facts. :)

      (sarcasm, for the impaired)

    2. Re:Recent events by jimicus · · Score: 1

      TBH, the only thing that surprised me was that the explosive was in shipped cargo rather than passenger-carried. Cargo can't complain about its treatment.

    3. Re:Recent events by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Yet those bombs weren't even caught by any security screening, but by some sort of intel.

    4. Re:Recent events by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why would that surprise you? Shipped cargo isn't inspected at all. (Well, except once it lands at customs)

      This is because, it's totally impossible for a bomb to be in shipped cargo and...wait, no...

      This is because inspecting cargo before shipping would not be visible to the American people, nor would it involve herding them around like cattle so they accept whatever you choose to do to them without warrants, like sexually molest them.

      And hence there's no spending money on that part of security theater.

      In fact, such a thing might inconvenience an Almighty Corporation, so that's doubly bad.

      Sometimes I think the best way for a terrorist to act would be to incorporate and just kill people that way. Or just blow up the economy. Or destroy all real estate records so no one knows who owns what.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  37. you can have a bit of fun here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    work up a nice stiffy and request a female screener.

  38. TSA receives its latest product... by Bysshe · · Score: 2

    This just in, TSA has received the next model of magic-wand scanner device. Complete with multiple prongs for total coverage this new model will effectively prevent terrorism by submitting all passengers to the US to rape. Experts say that his device, known as the probulator, is the most effective weapon against terrorist because "muslims don't like getting things shoved up their ass". Thank God for our freedoms and liberties as we all walk bow-legged down the concourse to our next flight.

    --
    Read what I mean, not what I wrote.
  39. risk perception. by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    The whole security theather is not about the whole efficiency of the measures. It is more a thing that someone who thinks he is responsible can say that all measures are taken. Your 2.30 minute delay will not make an impact for this. As the writer of the article points out, it would be more effective to attack the security waiting queue. It will shut down air traffic just as effective. Bad guys will route arround the security

    However if it makes you feel good then please take the ball feeling pat down instead of the penis measure machine. the fact that you feel you did your part to resist this is a good start.

  40. Re:Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    only a handful of people get pat downs - the ones who fail the metal detector

    This is not true -- my travel companion was once stopped for a pat down for no reason at all, right after walking through the metal detector without setting off anything.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  41. Re:Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! by voop · · Score: 1

    Come on, what real proof is there the rule change is to be more "embarrassing"? It's utterly stupid on the face of it if you think AT ALL about airport security as it is, and will be in the near future:

    1) There are not enough scanners to process traffic flow at any airport.

    2) (the big one) only a handful of people get pat downs - the ones who fail the metal detector. Which you don't realize until AFTER you have gone through it, so how is a slightly more embarrassing pat-down which no-one even knows about going to make you want to choose a scanner? Since people assume they are not going to trigger the metal detector why would behavior change in the slightest?

    Honestly, more and more SLashdot stores are devolving into utter paranoia. And not even the productive kind.

    Pat-downs are given to those who fail either of the automatic methods, or to those who explicitly request opt-out from the backscatter xray.

    I belong to the latter group, those who request opt-out. As it would be, hospitals and veterinary clinics have highly trained people with advanced degrees who, when taking any kind of medical imaging, are tracking exactly the exposure that their patients get (and over time). This, so as to minimize and manage the risks from being radiated. They also have people at hand who know how to deal with radiation burns etc.

    Airports have.....the TSA. They're neither trained in radiation nor tracking exposure. As exposure is cumulative, there is a real risk.

    The general advice has been around here, that if you have a melanoma in certain forms, you definitely should refuse backscatter x-ray because we simply do not know that it won't worsen it, and we suspect that it may.

    Thus, having a (common form of) skin cancer sufficient reason for the TSA (the employees of which, for the vast majority, are not licensed to practice medicine) to present "more embarrassing" treatment.

    I systematically refuse to go through backscatter x-ray, as I find it unduly invasive, and that it does nothing to further aircraft security. Sometimes the TSA agents ask, and I reply "on medical grounds" - as they are not physicians, they are not competent (and they start to know this) to discuss passengers' medical conditions.

    And, for the record, I know of at least one sexual molestation lawsuit having been brought against a TSA agent and the TSA, who enjoyed the "pat-down" of a teenage girl a little too much. Note to TSA agents: if you want to group a teenage girl, pick one whose dad is not both a trial lawyer and just behind her in line .....

    --
    -- "Life is a bitch - and she hates me..."
  42. Precedence for this by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is precedence for this. In the early 20th Century, there were frequent terrorist bombings by anarchists. As such, it was standard procedure in France to have a similar pat-down before boarding a steamer ship. An account of this was written by the famous author Henri de Balsack.

    1. Re:Precedence for this by J+Story · · Score: 1

      Henri de ... Balsack?? Perhaps you meant "Balsac", although given the current topic the misspelling is understandable.

    2. Re:Precedence for this by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

      Let me fix that for you: Honoré de Balzac.

      --
      blog
    3. Re:Precedence for this by Reziac · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds like something you should cry out just as the TSA dude's hands touch your jewels.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:Precedence for this by davidbofinger · · Score: 1

      Early C20 anarchists mostly focused on heads of state, or at least power elites. They weren't like early C21 al-qaeda, which engages in assassination but is also interested in killing basically ordinary people. Unless the steamer was carrying very important people a pat-down sounds like security theatre.

    5. Re:Precedence for this by SheeEttin · · Score: 1

      An account of this was written by the famous author Henri de Balsack.

      Between his name and the topic (pat-downs), I thought you were kidding...
      Turns out you just got the name a little wrong. Honoré de Balzac

  43. Random facts by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    This article is the one linked to from Drudge. I find it interesting that it reports most people at LaGuardia were willing to go through the TSA security because the 'alternative' is worse (plane blowed up). I queried my friends and acquaintances this past week and not one of them feels these security measures are necessary and many are changing travel plans around which airports have the scanners.

    "I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747,"— Rafi Sela, leading Israeli airport security expert, referring to Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world. source

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    1. Re:Random facts by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Well of course the people who actually go the airport think its worth it. Everybody else avoids the place, like you said. All that shows is how many people are willing to believe that it actually makes them safer.

  44. Freedom of choice ? Yeah right .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As in so many "civilised" countries the "freedom of choice" is payed nothing more than a lip-service.

    Although a countries Law may grant you some rights, it has no problem with also granting some random other party the right to make it impossible (or very costly in one way or another) for you to exert it.

  45. It won't change until... by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This won't get any better until you require everyone who flies to go through it. None of the private aircraft passengers are required to endure this, nor are any legislators. That means that everyone with power, and everyone who controls power, are exempt.

    Until that changes, expect airport "security" to get more annoying.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  46. Re:Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! by LargeMythicalReptile · · Score: 1

    It's not just "the ones who fail the metal detector" who get pat-downs, and that's not what the article is about. The TSA is increasingly using backscatter x-ray machines; if they decide to put you through one of those, you can opt to get a manual pat-down instead. This is the category of people we're talking about; they are trying to get more people to choose the backscatter x-ray by making the manual search more uncomfortable.

    As for there not being enough scanners, TFA says "Agents were funneling every passenger at this particular checkpoint through a newly installed back-scatter body imaging device." I can confirm this; the last few times I've been to Logan Airport in Boston, they were putting every adult through the scanner. (They allowed a few small children to go through the metal detector instead.) Perhaps this is true only at some airports or only at non-peak times, but there are certainly situations where everyone gets funneled to the backscatter machine, and opt-outs get patted down.

    The second time this happened to me, the TSA agent announced that we would go through the scanner, and didn't mention that anyone had the option to get a manual pat-down instead. When I politely requested to opt out of the scanner, the TSA agent kept trying to talk me out of it, repeatedly asking why I wanted a pat-down, informing me that it would be degrading, etc., before finally allowing it. (Honestly, one of the reasons I wanted to request a pat-down was so that other people knew it was an option!)

  47. i thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    i thought child pornography was illegal, but dont kids have to go through the backscatter too... hmm... odd

    1. Re:i thought by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      i thought child pornography was illegal, but dont kids have to go through the backscatter too... hmm... odd

      Considering that the scanners are also storing the images produced, TSA is essentially creating and distributing child porn. Oh, but that's right, those in power created this, so it's okay.

  48. One more recourse by DaMattster · · Score: 5, Informative

    If the TSA wants to make your pat down more humiliating, you have a chance to be even more of a pain in the ass: demand a private screening. It is well within your individual rights to do so. Furthermore, demand that a video camera document the screening so if something untoward happens, you have legal recourse. You have to remember that the TSA are just "security guards" with no more real authority than a civilian. The only TSA employees with real power are the Criminal Investigators (also known as an 1811 after the GS-1811 pay grade.) I have no problem giving an 1811 the respect they deserve, I have friends that are 1811's and they epitomise professional, honest civil servants. They go to rigorous training, have strong formally educated backgrounds in law, science, and procedure.

    If your rights are denied and you miss the plane as a result, you do have more than a fighting chance. The ACLU is known to rabidly hate the TSA and itches for a chance to whittle away at their undeserved power. However, when I say be a pain in the ass, I mean be polite but firm and stand your ground. You need to appear like you are the better, more responsible person in the interaction. Don't allow yourselves to be bullied by a screener and don't be afraid to call out a potential abuse. Most importantly, know your rights! You do not have to submit to a body scan. I work in an airport and if I got this x-ray scan every time I pass through security, I might get slow radiation poisoning over several a career.

    1. Re:One more recourse by catman · · Score: 1

      +5 informative, and interesting. It's been a long time since I did any serious flying, but when I went through security in a Japanese airport, it was always a cute girl wearing white cotton gloves who patted me down after asking, "May I touch you?" .Yes (..oO - please.) No ball check.though,

    2. Re:One more recourse by sempir · · Score: 1

      This is all pussy stuff...wait till they introduce the scanner that sets off any explosive material. That should sort out the carriers pretty damn quick! Love it.

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    3. Re:One more recourse by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      This is all pussy stuff...wait till they introduce the scanner that sets off any explosive material. That should sort out the carriers pretty damn quick! Love it.

      There was a short story in Frank Herbert's Eye where a man invented a device to remotely detonate most combustible materials. Very interesting read.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    4. Re:One more recourse by sc0p3 · · Score: 1

      Good post, just a thought re:cancer - the radiation flying on the plane itself is 100x more than the backscatter. You leave the protection of the ozone.. its the wild west up there. Looks like I'll be avoid USA now on my travels.. the options are pretty terrible. Groped or photographed naked. Surely this won't stay for long?

    5. Re:One more recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you leave the protection of the ozone but you are in a metal box.

  49. Simple solution.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just don't fly anymore. I have stopped completely. There is nothing I need to fly for in terms of business that cannot be handled via email/teleconferencing. As far as travel for pleasure, well fuck it. I have decided my dignity and health are far more important that a jaunt to the Bahamas (or anywhere else). Let the airlines and TSA people starve, I could care less. Sympathy level = zero.

  50. Obvious Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the scanners cannot detect explosives in body cavities or even behind the scrotum. So if the TSA are serious, they should be *requiring* invasive pat-downs for every passenger in the name of anti-terrorism, whereas the scanners should be banned as being terrorist-friendly.

    Instead they are encouraging people to use this terrorist-friendly technology.

  51. Re:Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time I suffered through the drooling incompetence that is the TSA they were doing hand searches of every Sack.

    I think that may be what he meant to say.

  52. PITA by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    So, the TSA is out to make flying a PITA. Well, at least they're finally admitting it.

  53. Open Road, Baby by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    Flying for pleasure seems to be dead. Guess I'll have to keep the car running in tip-top condition, and drive to my various destinations. Virginia to LA, Virginia to Tucson, Virginia to St. Louis... its something to do after retirement. Maybe I can get a travel buddy to share expenses.

    1. Re:Open Road, Baby by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      Flying for pleasure seems to be dead. Guess I'll have to keep the car running in tip-top condition, and drive to my various destinations. Virginia to LA, Virginia to Tucson, Virginia to St. Louis... its something to do after retirement. Maybe I can get a travel buddy to share expenses.

      Or take the train...I had to do so on a recent trip when the final leg of my return flight was canceled and enjoyed it very much.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    2. Re:Open Road, Baby by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Yeah, tried the train a couple years ago. In addition to an absolutely stupendous parking charge 'cuz the terminal is downtown, I got a bit turned around downtown and arrived about 45 minutes to the train leaving. Absolutely ridicuously long line for checkin, and they finally got me checked in and took my bag 20 minutes to the train leaving. Rode the thing all night, got to Chicago, and... no bag. They sent it on the next day's train, by which time I had already caught a plane back home, becuase without the bag on the day I arrived, there was no reason to be in Chicago. Had to drive back up to DC to pick up the back 2 days later. Totally busted trip. One of the officials I talked to actually suggested bringing the bag up the day before. Nope, not doing that again.

  54. Body Cavity Search by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

    Seriously, they're going to end up doing cavity searches. As it is, your choices are get strip searched or get fondled, and that's fucking nuts (no pun intended). The sad part is that even if they did do a cavity search on everyone from 3 years to 103 years, they still wouldn't be able to stop terrorists from attacking us (hell, what's stopping a terrorist from chartering a private flight out of some rural airstrip that doesn't have any real security?). If we don't want them to hijack major airliners, we just needed the reinforced cockpit doors and instruct pilots that as soon as terrorists take the plane over they should land (or otherwise contact the FAA for guidance). 9/11 can't happen again. Our actions were based off the premise that the terrorists would fly the plane to Cuba, land, get some money, and everyone goes home happy, end of story. We know what happens now, so we adjust those plans and the rest of us go about our business. Instead we get people freaking out and others saying we need more and more security to fight a problem that quite frankly doesn't exist in any real sense. Al Qaeda are like The Matix of terrorists. Their first attempt was unexpected and really hit us hard, but their sequels just kinda fizzled.

    1. Re:Body Cavity Search by jimicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have serious doubts that Al Qaeda - at least, as portrayed by the media - exists.

      I believe there are fundamentalist factions that want nothing less than to return civilisation to the fourteenth century and will blow things up to achieve it. But I think they're rare and consist of independent groups of nutters - occasionally one of those groups succeeds in causing harm, usually it fails miserably. I mean really, what sort of moron ships a printer full of explosives from an arabic country to a synagogue in the US and then leaves a traceable phone number with the shipping company? You might as well print "Danger: Explosives!" in big letters all over the box.

      This idea of an organised, worldwide, cell-based terror organisation for whom there are almost no limits to what they can achieve working to organise these attacks doesn't hold water on the very simple grounds that I don't believe such a group would have such a poor hit rate.

    2. Re:Body Cavity Search by mrxak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I was training to become an EMT, we had a whole unit on terrorism. As emergency personnel, we of course are front-line in an attack, but also, we tend to get access to people's homes and such. Since we're not police, we tend to get welcomed inside even if somebody's building bombs or running a meth lab. We're trained on what to look for, and so on.

      Anyway, long story short, the terrorism expert asks us that hypothetically, if we had $500 and a desire to cause as much damage and chaos as possible, with no regard for our own lives, how much damage we could cause. He gave us only a minute or so to think about it, and if you yourself think about it now, the damage would be significant. Then he says that terrorists are much, much more motivated, better funded, and spend all of their time, day and night, figuring out how to kill us.

      It's a scary prospect, but the moral of the story is that any security measures can be beaten, no matter how extreme. As far as I'm concerned, hijacking is now impossible. That happened as soon as we locked and reinforced the doors, things any forward-thinking airline should have done before 9/11. Blowing up a plane seems unlikely as well, but not for the reasons of TSA's latest measures. Think about the times terrorists have tried, since 9/11. What happened? Security failed to recognize a threat, so the other passengers subdued the terrorist and prevented the bomb from going off.

      What was the government's response to this? Increase security for last-week's threat, rather than attempt to figure out what might be the next threat. No real praise for the alert general public, just lots of fear-inducing "the government needs to do more!" calls from the media and government leaders.

      What I learned as an EMT is that government is not the answer, an alert public is. Like the smoking SUV in Times Square, a street vendor stopped a terrorist attack. Passengers on airplanes have stopped terrorist attacks several times. Government should worry more about identifying these people before they get to the US, and uncovering plots among those terrorists already here.

      Two things are absolutely critical for the government and general public to realize. One, that terrorist attacks will occasionally happen, and no amount of security will protect us from a sufficiently determined murderer. Anyone who promises no more attacks can happen is flat-out lying. Two, the best defense from terrorism is in rapid reactions from whoever happens to be there when an attack gets underway, either to stop it, or contain the level of mayhem.

      Hopefully people out there, and not just those who read slashdot, come to accept the above two facts, and government changes to reflect that.

    3. Re:Body Cavity Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Logical implications:

      New Rule #1: No mentally able adult is allowed on any passenger aircraft _without_ a handgun or a double edged knife at least 8 inches in length.

      New Rule #2: Effective immediately, concealed carry is legal nationwide, all restrictions about gov't buildings and schools are rescinded, and public school teachers and bus drivers are _required_ to carry on the job, and to be re-certified in marksmanship annually to keep their jobs.

      I'm mostly serious, though I'd reconsider requiring/allowing handguns on aircraft if someone could convince me that the probability of a stray bullet hitting something vital is high enough (like 5 or 10%, as opposed to 0.1%). Most of your neighbors are decent sensible people like you; if they're armed and you're armed, it _enhances_ your security, just like vaccinating most people enhances your health. It's time to crank up our herd immunity to violence.

    4. Re:Body Cavity Search by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Anyway, long story short, the terrorism expert asks us that hypothetically, if we had $500 and a desire to cause as much damage and chaos as possible, with no regard for our own lives, how much damage we could cause.

      I don't know how much C4 or semtex I could buy for about 450 dollars, but I'm pretty sure I could wreak terrible havoc in an airport with a large trolley suitcase, two solid steel plates, four steel plates with plenty of holes in them, a few thousand steel ball bearings and say 25 lbs of C4/semtex.

      No need to get through security. Find a nice spot in the busiest part of the airport (like the arrival area), wait for a particularly busy time of day and kaboom.

      There is no way to stop that kind of attack for two very simple reasons
      1) You can't ban luggage at an airport
      2) You can't move the secured area outwards in such a fashion, that there won't be an unsecured area with lots of people in it

      You could use bomb sniffing dogs, but then you've only expanded the secured area, and my bomb can just be set off when I'm another unsecured location with lots of people. After all - dragging a heavy suitcase isn't exactly an uncommon sight at busy locations.

      Okay, so I won at "Beat the Security Theatre" - what's my prize, Alex?

    5. Re:Body Cavity Search by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Anyway, long story short, the terrorism expert asks us that hypothetically, if we had $500 and a desire to cause as much damage and chaos as possible, with no regard for our own lives, how much damage we could cause. He gave us only a minute or so to think about it, and if you yourself think about it now, the damage would be significant. Then he says that terrorists are much, much more motivated, better funded, and spend all of their time, day and night, figuring out how to kill us.

      But that's sort of my point. If there's this supposed huge ring of well financed, well trained, militant group that thinks of nothing but killing us, then how do they suck so much at it? With so many completely unprotected targets (malls, metro stations, concerts, etc), it's surprising that we aren't attacked more. It's not like you need 20 people to set off even a large bomb, one or two will suffice (See the Oklahoma City bombing), so where is it? We've had a couple people with bombs that don't work and plans that sound like a mad libs game. (We're going to blow up a [vehicle] by putting a bomb in our [article of clothing] in [city].) It just seems like our fear of a terrorist group out to destroy America is overblown. I'd be more scared of a stiff breeze knocking over buildings than anything Al Qaeda has.

    6. Re:Body Cavity Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK with £500.. Simple, create an underwater bomb large enough to set off any one of the 6000+ bombs left on the SS Richard Montgomery. Seriously, give that a google, see how much ordnance is just sitting there, and read the reports into what would happen should it decide to go up...

    7. Re:Body Cavity Search by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      I'd reconsider requiring/allowing handguns on aircraft if someone could convince me that the probability of a stray bullet hitting something vital is high enough (like 5 or 10%, as opposed to 0.1%).

      In a crowded environment like a plane, the likelyhood of hitting the wrong person is very high. Bullets come out a weird angles after passing through a body and can still be lethal. Add to that the 99% of the population who doesn't know how to properly aim a gun.

      Weapons in general level the playing field (the side with more people is more likely to win an unarmed fight than an armed fight), but when the good guys (non-terrorist passengers) vastly outnumber the bad guys (attempted hijackers), levelling the playing field is a bad idea.

      (Exception #1: when the terrorists already have weapons. Exception #2: when the terrorist needs to be eliminated quickly as unarmed fights are often longer than armed fights.)

    8. Re:Body Cavity Search by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      The real solution? No checked bags, and everyone flies naked. That'll do it.

    9. Re:Body Cavity Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, but one nitpick...

      The SUV in Times Square was not prevented from blowing up by a street vendor. The bomb design was faulty, so it just let out a lot of smoke instead of exploding. The street vendor noticed the smoke and called 911, and the bomb squad came and checked it out.

      If it had actually worked, it would have killed a lot of people and done a lot of damage... The bomb-maker just screwed up. In essence, we got lucky.

      -- An authentic NYC resident

    10. Re:Body Cavity Search by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I don't know whether Al Qaeda 'exists' or not either, or what that means for a group where it's clear that people are just taking the name without 'permission'.

      I do know that I can trivially think of much more devastating and/or spectacular attacks then they've tried. In fact, we've seen one of them, the DC Sniper. And that was two fricking people!

      Get 20 people doing that, 10 teams, 4 on the west coast and 6 on the east. Have them roam from city to city, moving every couple of days, killing a person a day at least two hours away from where they're staying. Make sure none of them have any idea of where or who the others are. Bring in more people as they get caught.

      This isn't some plan I thought of...we already had this attack,with two people. All you have to do is find 10 guys who can shoot and 10 guys who can drive, and give them 500 each to buy a used car!

      I want people to think about that situation for a moment and how America would react, and how they'd react when the first person got caught and it turns out this wasn't over.

      I used to think AQ wasn't doing stuff like this because we'd done exactly what they'd wanted: Started wars so they could recruit people to stop us.

      However, right now, with the wars winding down and the American people no longer panicked, would be the perfect time to launch another attack...and they did, and it was the most pathetic attack ever.

      They apparently don't even have people who can get into the US at all. It looks like 9/11 was it. Those 19 guys were all the competent, American allowed, guys they had. That was it.

      Incidentally, that woman whose phone it was that was arrested? She was released....they just stole her identity to ship the package. So they aren't totally stupid. They just appear to have no resources at all.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    11. Re:Body Cavity Search by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      $500 is really low. Hell, if people really cared about 'no regard for their own lives', can't they take out another damn mortgage? Or rob a bank?

      As I said in the other post, the most obvious one would be a 'DC Sniper' style attack, writ large. Have multiple teams, operating independently and randomly, moving from city to city after a few days. You could shut down most major cities, and it's an attack that is, by the very premise, segmented into teams of two, so it has perfect operational security and catching a team won't affect other teams. It requires no communication with anyone.

      All it requires is X guys who can drive, X guys who can shoot, X sniper rifles, and X used cars. Scale it up or down as required.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    12. Re:Body Cavity Search by molo · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the times square bomber's own incompetence stopped that attack. By the time a street vendor noticed a smoking SUV, it would have probably been too late to prevent an explosion if the bomber was at all competent about explosives.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    13. Re:Body Cavity Search by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      They could always disperse after a bigger attack and then do that.

      Go to a neighborhood like mine, with wooden houses six feet apart on one way streets. Drive slowly down the street in the middle of the night with three people in a jeep. One drives, and the other two throw a Molatov Cocktail into every third house on each side of the street. Space those appropriately, bomb a few local fire stations, and 20 people or so would stand a very good chance of burning down a few square miles of city.

    14. Re:Body Cavity Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm all for an alert public myself, but an alert (scared/panicky) public requires a massive (invasive, expensive) infrastructure able to deal quickly with perceived threats. Which brings us to today...

    15. Re:Body Cavity Search by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Burning down parts of a city don't really accomplish anything.

      If you're going to be throwing explosives at things, throw them at highway bridge supports and power substations. (I've talking about the giant bridges areas, like the I-285/I-85 interchange in Atlanta, aka, Spaghetti Junction, and I'm sure the equally absurd setup in other cities.)

      Infrastructure, man, infrastructure. Screw housing. The city would just open a stadium as a shelter or something.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  55. Just want to say what I did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm posting this anonymously so as not to get any further repercussions.

    I was on my way back from a trip in Florida at Ft. Lauderdale with a group of youths doing service projects, and the bored agents said "You can either go through this new high tech scanner or be subject to a pat down".

    And I said without pausing... "Will you be doing full pat-down?"

    He said "Yes", very sternly

    I said "Go ahead then, right here."

    And as I was being patted down I said very loudly as he approached my crotch "What a great pat-down, I haven't gotten this much action in weeks".

    He very quickly waved me on by.

    I'm telling you, it doesn't embarrass me to be patted down, I just let the guy know how much I'm enjoying it. Airport security is worse than worthless these days. Good thing we pay the TSA so much money. We should all feel more secure.

  56. Well, they've stopped me from flying by xiando · · Score: 1

    I will not submit. Period. This, sadly, means I can't fly anymore. I haven't done so since the rise of modern facism using numerous false-flag terror operations early this century. These new full-body scanners are another step in the wrong direction.

  57. Re:Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Those are excellent points (and I had not heard of any checkpoint being able to handle sending everyone through the backscatter system), but I still think it makes no sense to claim the more invasive techniques being introduced now are designed to drive people to accept the backscatter machine now, when full deployment is years off for most locations.

    They are probably just another bureaucratic shuffling to do something just to have something being done, there is nothing more sinister afoot.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  58. I have something to show'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wondering: are there any restrictions on the shapes you make your fingers into during the screening? Say, is it allowed to clench your fists, spread your fingers, etc? 'Cuz next time I fly, they will see me showing double middle fingers to them. Along with my shawty dong, naturally, which makes it three.

  59. The joke is on the "security" idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who would you rather be, the loser who gets paid to look up assholes,
    or the traveler who suffers inconvenience at most once per trip ?

  60. STARTING to see?????? by sgtrock · · Score: 1

    Anyone else starting to see the TSA as a bigger problem than actual terrorists?

    Not sure about the solution but what we have is dysfunctional. We know we can't count on the airlines to run airport security. But TSA is starting to treat the flying public like some inconvenience while doing little to thwart actual terrorists.

    They've been the bigger problem all along!

  61. Get your resumes ready! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If any of you out there are contemplating a career in air travel, or are already in it, then now is a good time to leave. That way when commercial air travel collapses world-wide because the carriers are using speculums you'll have enough seniority at some other job to withstand the flood of new job seekers that didn't leave in time. Don't say you weren't warned.

  62. Feels awfully Venusville in hurr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What will the guard do when he finds out I have 3 testicles? Will he warrant surgery and a cryogenics because the Flight ticket to Mars only allows for 2 testicles?

    "Don't fuck with me and my job man, I got 5 kids to feeed."

    And now back to your Slashot FEATURE PRESENTATION, thankyou for choosing Recall Incorporated.

    1. Re:Feels awfully Venusville in hurr. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I worked with woman who has a bone disease making her bones very brittle. She has had to have something like 3 or 4 four pins in her arms and legs, shoulder joint replacements and hip replacements (she was only around 40 at the time). She and another coworker had to fly into some airport in Montana or Idaho (Helena or Boise) and the airport was small enough that at the time they didn't have a stationary metal detector and were checked with wands. The wands were more sensitive than the stationary detector and it kept going off as he scanned over the parts of her body with the replacement parts. She kept saying "yes there is pin there" or "that is a metal shoulder joint replacement." Eventually the idiot got frustrated and asked her if she could take them out. Apparently the guy traveling with her almost had a hernia trying not to laugh. At the time she didn't appreciate the humour but when they got back it made a pretty funny story. Bottom line is that many of these security guys are not rocket scientists for a good reason.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    2. Re:Feels awfully Venusville in hurr. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I thought the trip to Mars required extra bits on your body....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Feels awfully Venusville in hurr. by Bahamut_Omega · · Score: 1

      Damn; where's Cthulu when you need him?

    4. Re:Feels awfully Venusville in hurr. by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Many of the people working for TSA are not rocket scientists, granted, and many are genuinely below average IQ (and many above) but their main objective is to protect their job and paycheck, NOT to insure safety. That would be true of most any normal person who hasn't been through the reconditioning training that the military offers (and police/firemen/paramilitary to a lesser degree).

      My experience has been that most TSA agents are fairly normal, friendly people. The minority that act like jackbooted thugs are the typical "failed the police entrance exam" types that were beat up as kids and want to take it out on the rest of the world now by "protecting" them.

      The real problem (for me) isn't the jackbooted types, it is the sheer incompetence of the average TSA agent, which is so bad that you have to blame the system, not the individual. And of course, blame the politicians who are a bunch of cowtowing pussies for implementing such a kneejerk system to begin with. I still say give everyone a gun or a knife when they enter the plane, and there is no chance of a terrorist taking it down.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    5. Re:Feels awfully Venusville in hurr. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      jackbooted types

      And the boarder agents at the land boarder crossings as well. They can be over the top too often... both on the American and the Canadian side (mind you on the Canadian side it is mostly directed towards Canadians as they really are just rebranded tax collector automatons).

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    6. Re:Feels awfully Venusville in hurr. by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

      She kept saying "yes there is pin there" or "that is a metal shoulder joint replacement."

      Isn't that why people with certain medical conditions, such as metal pins, are supposed to carry around some sort of bracelet or whatnot so that they can pass through security with fewer incidences. This also protects you from accidentally getting tossed in an MRI after an accident if you're unable to respond.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    7. Re:Feels awfully Venusville in hurr. by billcopc · · Score: 1

      The TSA is protecting fuck-all. They are there to perpetuate the culture of fear that has been so profitable for a few people in positions of excessive power. A patdown isn't going to stop the next 9/11, all you need to hijack a plane is your bare hands and a psychopathic disorder.

      These patdowns and scans punish the innocent and do nothing to stop the truly dangerous people of this world.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    8. Re:Feels awfully Venusville in hurr. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      People where medic alert bracelets for medical reasons. I have yet to hear of any legitimate security reason to do so. I suspect that given her surgery scars (these are not two inch pins but ones that fit down the centre of her bones where the marrow runs (not the whole length but enough to give support). So the scars are visible (including the joint replacements). I am pretty sure doctors and nurses can figure out things like that when they see them.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    9. Re:Feels awfully Venusville in hurr. by Gravitron+5000 · · Score: 1

      And the boarder agents at the land boarder crossings as well. They can be over the top too often... both on the American and the Canadian side (mind you on the Canadian side it is mostly directed towards Canadians as they really are just rebranded tax collector automatons).

      Are the boarder agents looking for pirates? I can't think of any other reason that they would deploy boarding parties.

    10. Re:Feels awfully Venusville in hurr. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      They're incompetent people implementing an incompetent system. Even the ones that are competent can't change the fact they in something that obviously can't work. Banning weapons? Really?

      I say give everyone a tiny club. Something about a foot long, with weight in the end. Or, rather, have it detachable from the seat.

      It's utterly impossible to hold anyone hostage with that, (Or, at least, it offers no benefit over just threatening to punch them or holding them by the throat.) but it sure as hell is possible for a group of people to beat the shit out of hostage takers with it.

      Incidentally, for all the money we spent on security at airports, we could have given police officers and whatnot permission to fly armed and just hired thousands of rentacops for any extra flights.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    11. Re:Feels awfully Venusville in hurr. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Considering they are rebranded tax collectors, I would say yes. Even if they do work at the... ahem... border.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    12. Re:Feels awfully Venusville in hurr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Many of the people working for TSA are not rocket scientists

      The most important thing to understand is that it is an entry-level federal job. Most of them are in their first job after high school, or after vocational rehab. They probably set out for a police career, were rejected, and ended up as front-line TSA agents during their initial staffing boom. The leadership of the TSA is largely drawn from the ranks of returning military.

    13. Re:Feels awfully Venusville in hurr. by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I will remove my knee joint if you remove yours. You first.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  63. Don't forget the employees by warprin · · Score: 1

    So now everyone who works at one of these airports with body scanners needs to be scanned themselves. Every time they leave and reenter a secured area. Everyday they show up for work. I hope their insurance covers repeated exposure to low-level backscatter x-rays.

  64. Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How all the people speaking up for our rights are Jews... And Jews are the ones responsible for 9/11. What a bizarre bunch.

  65. Re:Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! by schon · · Score: 1

    Come on, what real proof is there the rule change is to be more "embarrassing"?

    Occam's razor.

    It's utterly stupid on the face of it if you think AT ALL

    Exactly - the utter absurdity that this could be in any way about security is the "real proof".

  66. What about children? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Are they really going to touch a 6 year old boy or girl?
    If you tape you son getting molested as evidence , is it child porn?

  67. Headline: Cop cops feel by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    The people who smuggle explosives up their a**es still won't be detected by the new pat down, so the whole purpose is to either force non-terrorists to be violated by being naked on a scanner or to be violated by a more aggressive pat down (or should that be feel up). Don't get me wrong, I think we need to be on guard against terrorists, but this doesn't seem to do anything towards adding additional protections, only additional harassment.

    But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe some TSA agent copping a feel of a man or woman's genitalia will somehow make flying safer.

  68. You misunderstand "simplicity" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    "Occam's razor."

    Right, so instead of some devious plan where making patdowns slightly worse in order to drive people to use a scanner even though they don't know the patdowns are worse before they happen...

    INSTEAD, why not the simpler explanation of a bureaucracy just making changes because that's what large organizations do?

    Thanks for making my point.

    Exactly - the utter absurdity that this could be in any way about security is the "real proof".

    Exactly, proof it is unrelated. Oddly you sounded like you thought I was wrong even though you agreed with what I was saying.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  69. Well you know which line by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 0

    all the gay men are going to opt for right? this is hilariously stupid and par for the course for anything involving DHS.

  70. awkward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Theres a certain population that might find the naked scanners double extra uncomfortable
    "Excuse me sir ( or is it madam? ), but your penis appears to be detachable. Please remove it and placing it on the x-ray scanner for further screening."

  71. You're fucking retarded by Joebert · · Score: 1

    Right, because the guy who's about to suicide bomb a fucking airplane is going to have second thoughts when he discovers that the "infidels" might lauch at him before he gets on the plane. I hope someone sues the shit out of these stupid bastards. All they're doing is keeping the channel that lets terrorists though while adding fuel to the fire by subjecting them to ridicule I might add, as well as making the people that pay their fucking salary more uncomfortable than they already are. Fuck you airports. This type of shit makes me hope the terrorists beat you, if it weren't for the innocent passengers involved.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  72. Oh, woe is me... by cooperaaaron · · Score: 0

    But, I have huge junk, what am I to do ? Have 5 or 6 of em' holding me up and 2 or 3 of 'em doing the searching ? Just to jump on a plane ? Oh well.... let them play...lol !

  73. TSA and abuse of power by xanadu113 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I had a member of the T.S.A. (Steve at the Port of Seattle) posting death threats to me on my message boards on my website.. So anything this organization does, no longer surprises me.

    We actually traced the I.P. back to the Port of Seattle!
    Unfortunately, one of our moderators thought he was doing the right thing by deleting it when we should have preserved those messages as evidence.

    --
    -Myke
  74. i choose option three by Truekaiser · · Score: 1

    not to fly at all. of course then the airlines will bemoan further lack of business due to the so called business climate and demand further tax payer funding..

    1. Re:i choose option three by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      I choose Amtrak whenever I can. I can work on the train, get up and move around, and even enjoy a nice meal (compared to airline food). The only drawback is that it takes longer to get where you're going. On the other hand, I don't have to arrive two hours early, I don't have to pay extra for my luggage and I don't have to get felt up by a lonely TSA employee.

      While not every trip is practical by train, it beats driving, saves fuel, saves money and you can get quite a bit of work done in route.

  75. I will not use the body scanners by wwphx · · Score: 1

    I have an immune disorder that flipped in to high gear February last year, resulting in having pneumonia four times in five months. It's a genetic disorder, and I will not expose myself to those scanners for two reasons. First, I've had more than enough x-rays and diagnostic radiation in the last year, and I'll be having more, so I'm not going to casually go through things like this. Second, because this is a different kind of tech, they really don't know what repeat exposures can potentially do to your genes, and mine are screwed up enough.

    Nope, they're going to have to pat me down. Maybe I'll skip showering for a few days before I fly next.

    --
    When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  76. Maybe by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    I think it's actually a ploy to irritate the general public to drive more.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  77. I worked for the TSA by AnAdventurer · · Score: 1

    Worked there until I knew it was a waste of...well everything. I had to pat down combat vets in wheelchairs and baby's in strollers.

    --
    6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
  78. Why aren't people organizing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So where's the protests? Who is organizing a campaign to end this? Where is the EFF, EPIC, ACLU?

    A whole bunch of whine, not one fucking plan of action. We're doomed.

    How about this: Write a letter to every airline you've ever done business with saying "fuck you I ain't gonna fly no more, blame the TSA and congress losers!"

    It's lame but it's a start.

  79. Another example of useless security theater by Sara+Chan · · Score: 1

    Governments do not seem to mind that these measures do nothing. A recent example in the UK concerns the power of the police to search anyone on suspicion of terrorism. Last year, the police searched over 100,000 people that way. Those searches did not lead to any convictions or even charges. In fact, they didn't even lead to any ARRESTS for terrorism-related offenses.

    Because most of the people being searched were Arab Muslims, the searches aggravated those people and thus might have increased the chance that they would assist in a future terrorist attack.

    Full story in The Guardian:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/28/terrorism-police-stop-search-arrests

    Governments are obviously using the security theater for something other than real security.

  80. It sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does suck balls, traveling into and through the good ol USA. All I want to travel with is is some weed, which used to be NBD until crotchbomber came along.

    I guess it's good one of my flying destinations is Amsterdam.

    1. Re:It sucks by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      It does suck balls, traveling into and through the good ol USA. All I want to travel with is is some weed, which used to be NBD until crotchbomber came along.

      I guess it's good one of my flying destinations is Amsterdam.

      Nope, no ball sucking yet. Just ball fondling. The TSA hasnt gone that far yet...

  81. Customs in Denver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FWIW, I just returned from Amsterdam, and customs in Denver was simply no big deal.

    I can assure you I smelled bad, looked bad, and had drugs/alcohol in my system (hence the AC). Waited on the line (they were serious about this part) but then I just chatted with the customs guy for a minute or so about my trip and I passed on through, kind of confused that it was over.

    I have no idea if anyone examined my bag, which contained a ton of tulip bulbs and a load of REALLY smelly clothes, but if they did look through it, they took the time to put everything back exactly where I placed it when I packed. There was a department of agriculture dog hitting on some old lady's bag that had had an apple in it, which I think was long gone. I made sure to grab my bag as it fell onto the carousel and avoid that dog, as I didn't want to unpack and repack my unpleasant belongings.

  82. children? by ecorona · · Score: 1

    What about kids? If a parent does not want his kid to go through the naked-scanner, will the parent then be forced to watch his kid be groped? They grab on to the buttocks now and go between the legs until they feel "resistance" aka testicles.

  83. Things NOT to Say While TSA, Thinks? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    "ARE YOU SNIFFING ME?"

    "i'm thinking of a magical place, lets GO THERE! yes Yes YES!!"

  84. New lows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    George Orwell is SOO proud of his children! They have surpassed his wildest expectations.

  85. Political Fear by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    Our elected officials are too afraid to take a stand against anything proposed in the name of "security," especially if security translates to political patronage controlled by them.

  86. TSA employs child molesters by aztektum · · Score: 1
    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  87. Re:Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! by tomz16 · · Score: 1

    From wikipedia :

    The typically exposure for a bacscatter x-ray scan is 0.005 mrem
    The typical exposure for a 6 hour flight is 2mrem
    The typical annual exposure for a human is 360mrem (mostly from natural sources)
    The occupational safety limit (as set by the NRC and EPA) is 5000 mrem/year, or 2000 mrem/year if averaged over a 5 year period

    The backscatter x-ray machine exposes you to 400x less radiation than the flight itself, and constitutes 1/70,000th of your NATURAL annual exposure. Even if you went through the machine EVERY SINGLE DAY of the year, you would still be under the annual occupational hazard limit by a factor of 3,000... phrased another way, you could go through the machine every 30 seconds, 24/7, for a full year without hitting the annual exposure limit!

    There are many good reasons to refuse the backscatter x-ray. However refusing it on "medical grounds" is being purposefully ignorant of the facts, and immediately deflates your credibility with anyone that has access to the internet and passed second grade math. If you are THAT concerned about radiation exposure, you would be far better served to wear a paper hat whenever you are outside in the sun!

    That being said, the backscatter x-ray machines, and "pat-downs" are bullshit symbollic measures. Neither can detect materials stuffed into orifices, and you better believe that someone motivated enough to bring down a plane will not hesitate to outdo goatse (not that they would even have to, a few grams of plastic explosive attached to the bathroom wall is all you need). Furthermore, as any police officer will tell you, a pat down of everything EXCEPT the "private regions" is absolutely worthless. It's all just part of the theater, citizen!

  88. Re:Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is telling some of the very same experts who green lighted their use *did not* expect them to be used on every single person traveling thru a checkpoint and in this context have since publically objected.

  89. We need crotch sniffing dogs... by kimgkimg · · Score: 1

    My brother's dog would qualify, no problem. Nothing more embarrassing than having the crotch missile at family gatherings or when trying to talk to that hot chick at the dog park...

  90. Re:Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! by voop · · Score: 1

    Emminent scolars in the field of radiation and medicine do not agree with the conclusions that the wikipedia information that you present asserts. See, for example, this letter from UCSF faculty in bilogy and medicine, here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35498347/UCSF-letter-to-Holdren-concerning-health-risks-of-full-body-scanner-TSA-screenings-4-6-2010

    With all due respect, I would assume the sigtanators to this letter to certainly not be "purposefully ignorant" on this matter.

    --
    -- "Life is a bitch - and she hates me..."
  91. Erection by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm *VERY* sensitive, and I "suffer" from premature ejaculation. What happens when I get an erection an shoot my hot sticky load of love juice from my fire hose all over a hot uniformed TSA stud?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Erection by shess · · Score: 1

      I think that every male should ask for the pat-down, and then make little moans as the officer reaches the promised land. Non-violent resistance indeed!

    2. Re:Erection by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      does this mean you are finally coming out?

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    3. Re:Erection by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Funny

      If I say I'm gay can I insist on having a female TSA hottie?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Erection by Otter+Popinski · · Score: 1

      I know parent is joking, but according to the leaked TSA screening guidelines from last year, passengers do have the choice of a male or female screener for the pat-down, regardless of sexual orientation.

    5. Re:Erection by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the TSA is short on hotties. Looks like you get to be patted down by Gertrude, the 300 pound 50 year old former circus bearded lady sideshow. And (s)he's awfully handsy.

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

      In all my years of flying, I haven't seen that many really attractive TSA screeners. What airports are YOU flying through? *Readies pen and paper*

  92. This one time at Schiphol airport in Amsterdam by Phizzle · · Score: 1

    Customs guy asked if he can get into my pockets and pad my inseam after I didn't want to get scanned, I told him to knock himself out and feel free to give me a hand-job while he was down there. He was WAAAAAAAY more uncomfortable than I was. Don't underestimate the human element, turn the tables on the tools of tyranny and get into their heads.

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
  93. Re:Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! by PsyberS · · Score: 1

    This is not true -- my travel companion was once stopped for a pat down for no reason at all, right after walking through the metal detector without setting off anything.

    I recently flew with several co-workers, and one of them managed to get patted down (after passing the metal detector, without setting it off) both going and returning. The fact he is Iranian probably had nothing to do with it.

  94. Re:Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish the topic of the effects of human radiation exposure was as simple and straight forward as you suggest.

    With backscatter the system is imaging not much past the layer of your skin yet the dosing figures used are calculated as full body including internal organs, brains, blood, bone..etc. This is a rediculous comparison because virtually nothing pentetrates past your skin. The skin is getting the full concentrated exposure. This matters significantly from a dosing and biological effects perspective and cannot be compared apples-apples with natural radiation exposure.

    With natural increased radiation exposure due to there being less atmosphere during your flight it is a full body exposure much more evenly distributed throughout your body.

    You are also looking at backscatter from a personal perspective rather than seeing the bigger picture. I agree with you by all accounts the personal risk is low but there is a significant potential when you throw in millions of people each day.

    If I somehow knew I had a one in a million chance of dieing today I would not much care or loose sleep over it. However when you extend the analogy to the scale of millions of people then a few random people killed each day as a direct result. Why take the risk of killing random people for no benefit/reason?

  95. was wondering how long before the anal search by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    guess not too much longer. Before long you will need an anal search to go see a movie. The TSA needs to start publishing stats on what they are actually catching with this screening. My guess is nothing, it is all a big money waste (especially the boon dongle body scanners)

  96. Taken seriously? by CaroKann · · Score: 1

    Was this article supposed to be taken seriously? It sounds like an attempt at bawdy humor to me.

  97. All this time I've been battering people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who knew?

  98. Said a friend: "No worse than a doctor seeing it." by Thangalin · · Score: 1

    Respectfully, I disagree.

    1. You can screen your doctor for trustworthiness.
    2. You can choose to visit a doctor of a gender you prefer.
    3. Doctors are bound by the Hippocratic Oath: I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know.
    4. Doctors rarely take, much less retain, nude photographs of your body.

    Collection and use of personal information, including digital photographs, paves a road for government with inscrutable purposes: using information about people while denying them the ability to choose how that information is used. This is a severe tilt in balance between the power of the people and the power of the state. A tilt, to emphasize, that is unfavourable to the people.

    In Smith v. City of Artesia, 1989, the court said, "Privacy is inherently personal. The right to privacy recognises the sovereignty of the individual." What is more private than our private parts? What can the general public be subjected to, en masse, that is more personally invasive than a pat-down or nude photo?

    More blunt? Can do.

    The choice: allow an anonymous agent to take nude photographs of your child, or let strangers grope your child until their hands meet "resistance": a euphemistic way to say, "touch their testicles, penis, or vulva."

    Any job that forces someone to feel a child's crotch so as to encourage parents to usher their children through a machine that takes nude photographs--without probable cause of having committed a crime--is a job that aught not to exist.

    Systematic violations of our private areas must be countered with outrage and utmost resistance (!) against corporations and governments alike. The TSA are not police and North America has no Police States, yet.

    Add to this the uncertain health risks. Terahertz waves have resonant effects that can unzip double-stranded DNA, which, ultimately, could significantly interfere with gene expression and DNA replication. Think children, pregnant women, or sperm. And guess what wave frequency x-ray backscatter machines use? Hint: THz. http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

    My emotions surge at the thought of people speaking or acting out against tyranny. People must express themselves vehemently and eloquently against the infractions that governments permit to be made on our freedoms. Sometimes one voice, or one courageous action, is enough to inspire a nation. http://i.imgur.com/cfifB.jpg

    Martin Niemöller foretells of what happens when people--even those who prefer to drive than fly--keep quiet: They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.

    John Dewey stated, "We cannot separate the idea of ourselves and our own good from our idea of others and of their good." When we protect the rights of individuals by forcing Corporations and Governments to sit at the same table as Respect, Dignity, and Decency, we protect all of our society.

    I implore you to read: http://davidjarvis.ca/dave/letters/nothing-to-hide.pdf

  99. I will call that bluff by gelfling · · Score: 1

    And fake an orgasm.

  100. forgive me for taking the TSA's POV by cavePrisoner · · Score: 1

    This is pure FUD. The search, which I know as the credit card sweep, (which I've both done and received numerous times) doesn't involve fondling the balls. It's a light brush with the outside of the hand. You aren't even checking the balls, you're checking the inside of the thigh. Depending on the garment worn, it can be quite easy to tuck away a full sized pistol in that area. If you don't search that area, you might as well not do searches period.

  101. It's all fun and games. . . by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    Until video of you walking into the scanner with a woody gets posted to your facebook page for all your friends and family to see. . .

    1. Re:It's all fun and games. . . by DMoylan · · Score: 1

      but weren't we promised that they don't save the image!! don't you believe what your government tells you?? /sarcasm :-)

      if that were to happen a few times i think it would be the kiss of death for these systems. somebody somewhere would think it funny to get a politicians/famous persons naked image.

      fingers crossed!

  102. Never has been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the, cough, "success rate" of the TSA efforts it's brutally evident the TSA is more about employing a bunch of bullies for security theater, conveniently removing some people from the jobless number at the same time.

    It's not the theatre that is the problem - it's the waste of resources which could be used for better things..

  103. This is going to get interesting ... by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

    the first time a 16-year-old girl decides to take a stand against the scanner. A few cries of "Child molestation!" in a crowded airport would certainly draw general attention to this issue.

    Which slogan would win, "If we don't do this, the terrorists win" or "Won't someone please think of the children"?

  104. It's not meant as a pun dummy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Read the definition of "faux", that's the point.

    Now you should follow your own advice:
    I'd try to come up with something more clever if I were you, right now you just look ignorant.

    Ouch.

  105. Solution: regimental kilt and pride shirt by Mark+Atwood · · Score: 1

    I have already discombubulated the TSA agents with my utilikilt. Maybe I will start wearing it more often, "regimental" style, and while wearing a gay pride t-shirt and a big grin.

    If they are going to be thugs, I'm going to make it funny.

  106. I KNOW many BD/SM people will get sent through... by crovira · · Score: 1

    to get publicly humiliated by the TSA. That would be AWESOME slave training and public humiliation. (Its for reals peeps.)

    I'm just waiting for the first internet porno shot at a TSA line to come out (complete with moaning, groaning, [Sleepless In Seattle style,] and "shamefaced with embarrassment" done for FREE courtesy of the airlines and the TSA. It can even be shot in 720P video for nothing with a Flip HD video cam. WOW. What has the TSA wrought?)

    If I should ever fly again, I'm personally going to go through making as much loud moaning, crying, histrionics and really weird whimpers as I can manage (trying not to burst out laughing right in the video camera.)

    Luckily, for the TSA's officers, I'm planning to take the train.

    Its like the "No Agenda" [ http://www.noagendashow.com/ ] song: "Trains good, planes bad..."

    Ass wads...

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  107. I normally have to pay extra by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    to receive this kind of treatment at the club in San Francisco. SFO here I come!

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  108. How about we make it compulsory for senators & by crovira · · Score: 1

    congress critterz.

    No more running through a privileged line to get where ever.

    That should take care of a lot of problems. Just make it THEIR problems too.

    I can guarantee the TSA would be shot down before the next congress adjourns.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  109. This doesn't sound wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they want to grope my balls... will they also be wanting to tweak womens nipples to make sure they aren't hiding weapons in their bra next?

  110. this is my plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are a guy, ask the servant if he wants meet for a drink afterwards. Also, make lewd noises and comments while you are being patted down. Statements such as "I wish my wife still touched me like that" or "you have nice strong hands" should suffice. Call him sweetheart or cupcake, pass some gas too...Accuse them of being homophobic and/or racist if they object....

  111. Abolish TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will settle the lawsuites.

    And all of the "F" students that were hired will be given employment cancelled slips instead of having to give testmony in Courts about there perverted activites both on and off theii TSA "hand" job.

    A clean slate.

    1. Re:Abolish TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mean IQ of TSA employees is ... 38.

      When approached by a TSA employee keep this in mind.

      The will have a difficult tme with complicated questions or responces.

      The TSA employee will beceme visibaly agitated when this occurs.

      Try to calm the TSA employee. Ask about ... Football or ask about ... Baseball.

      Perhaps ash the TSA employee about .... Car Racing.

      These are the things that TSA employees value.

      Delve into their values ... learn the person you're talking to and understand their fears!

      Ounce you understand their fears, then defeat their fears. Defeat them.

  112. 500 dollar damages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My first thought would be to wait until dead of winter and attack the electric grid. Go to the rural high voltage towers near a back road and take it down. Do a few of those and you'd cause some serious damages. No power means no heat for most people and a total disruption of life as you know it until they get some new towers put up. Even if people went to places with warmth their houses with broken pipes would be unlivable.

    Although the cross country natural gas pumping stations, at least in my part of the world, are protected by no more than a chain link fence and are devoid of people. With a bit of a drive you could wreck havoc over a large area.

    This being /. I expect a lot of users have browsed through the anarchists cookbook, or watched enough mythbusters, to know how to make things go boom cheaply.

  113. Bite me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    South Laguna, CA -> Sterling, VA = 40 hours

    Includes:
    3 hour nap outside Amarillo, TX
    1 hour detour around Interstate 40 bridge over Mississippi
    half-hour nap outside Knoxville, TN

  114. JustSomeGuy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The answer, of course, is to make it even more embarrassing for the employees than the customers.

    Remember the fake orgasm scene from "When Harry Met Sally". I can see a lot of that going on in the near future when people are patted down. The employees will soon learn to make their pat downs a lot more superficial.

  115. Fixed that for you by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    If a terrorist could exploit a loophole in the pat down procedure, then he wouldn't care whether it was anymore embarrassing.

    If a terrorist could exploit a poophole in the pat down procedure, then he wouldn't care whether it was anymore embarrassing.

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  116. Re:Article is Troll **AND** Flamebait all in one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been patted down after passing the metal detector with no beeps. My hunch is that having a decent tan (half Native American) and a shitty beard (half German) made me look like one of those dirty brown people that carry bombs in shampoo bottles.

  117. Cavity Searches? Why I insist upon it! by dogzdik · · Score: 0

    Here I even bought my own elbow length glove for the occasion!

    --

    .

    Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.

  118. IDF PR as fake concern for our wellbeing by akayani · · Score: 1

    "When I served as a military policeman in an Israeli army prison."

    Would we actually be submitting to anything at airports if the Zionists hadn't upset the whole Arab and Muslim world? Was not the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by the Zionists the first major terrorist incident in the world? If the Israelis hadn't spent the last 62 years terrorizing the Arabs, lying to the world, building illegal nuclear reactors for the sole purpose of producing weapons, disrespecting the UN and the ICC, didn't engage in blowing the crap out of Gaza, didn't insight the US to bomb Iraq etc etc... isn't it about 99% likely that none of this would be necessary, that terrorism would not have become the only means left to grab world attention.

    Stuff Israel and its catalysism of terror, boycott Intel, Starbuck, Coke and the rest of the supporters of the 'God gave us this land' so we can create an apartheid state and abuse the native population team. http://www.inminds.com/boycott-israel.html

    The whole world has to suffer because of a fundamentalist claim of 'God gave us this land 3,000 years ago'; loopy and insane. Jeffrey Goldberg rubs our face in a world where privacy has been stolen because of spoiled brats from the Jewish community, the ones that participate in the largely unfair imprisonment of Palestinians, something he is proud to announce he contributed to.

    Internet Kills Israeli PR - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME_NpnH7jDc

    Send a message to the Zionists to get off their arse, stop blaming everyone else and resolve the ongoing and appalling abuse of Palestinians which has brought us to this point in history. The way to eliminate terrorism is to eliminate the frustration that is at the core of why terrorism is practiced. Continuously beating people up with a stick is never going to make them love you.

  119. Authoritarian definition of choice by dugeen · · Score: 1

    A classic example of authoritarians offering a spurious choice in the hope that everyone, including the victim, will see the process as legitimate. The Atlanta, GA police force would be truly proud.

  120. They already have us by the balls... by arshadk · · Score: 1

    when we want to travel far. Now they've just got us a little more literally.

  121. Re:I KNOW many BD/SM people will get sent through. by GooberToo · · Score: 1

    If I should ever fly again, I'm personally going to go through making as much loud moaning, crying, histrionics and really weird whimpers as I can manage

    To make it to such a degree where is actually makes a difference, expect to be charged with creating a public disturbance. Furthermore, others waiting in line are then more likely to refuse the pat down and be scanned. So its a win-win for the TSA. Which is to say, they get to make an example out of your while using you to encourage others to do exactly what they want in the first place.

  122. Nuclear Launch Detected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All i know is if they decide to pat me down with this new 'procedure', i'm going to be demanding a police officer be present to observe the sexual molestation that occurs. Here comes the lawsuit.

  123. TSA Patdowns by thesquire · · Score: 1

    they are cocksuckers.

  124. Petition to Stop the use of Body Scanners by anexkahn · · Score: 1

    For those who are fed up with these Body Scanners, please sign my petition to have them stopped. I will be sending this petition to our representatives in Congress. Please spread the link around. The more signatures we get, the more effective the petition is. Post it on your facebook, website, email your firends.

    http://www.petitiononline.com/BodyScan/petition.html

    --
    Curious about Storage and Virtualization? Check out