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."
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I would be okay with it under the following conditions:
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.
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