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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
...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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
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.