Slashdot Mirror


EPIC Files Lawsuit To Suspend Airport Body Scanner Use

nacturation writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a petition for review and motion for an emergency stay, urging the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to suspend the Transportation Security Administration's full body scanner program. EPIC said that the program is 'unlawful, invasive, and ineffective' (PDF). EPIC argued that the federal agency has violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment. EPIC cited the invasive nature of the devices, the TSA's disregard of public opinion, and the impact on religious freedom."

89 of 559 comments (clear)

  1. another Obama disappointment... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Add the embrace of these devices to my list of disappointments in the Obama administration. Not that I'm surprised -- he telegraphed himself very plainly on civil liberties when he backtracked on FISA -- but I'm still disappointed.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, they MIGHT make a change. If they do it will be because they are afraid of Obama wielding more power, not because they have suddenly decided to embrace civil liberties. Such is what passes for "checks and balances" these days -- we don't check the other branches of Government but we do check the other political party because by god they are out to destroy America as we know it.

      Think about all the Republican ranting and raving about Bill Clinton when he was in office. Then Bush came into office and they rolled over and played dead. GOP Congress-critters accused Clinton of wagging the dog when he took us into the Balkens. Those same Congress-critters were silent when Bush took us into Mesopotamia....

      Washington was dead on about political parties.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:another Obama disappointment... by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Me too, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere on that without voters really being outraged about it. Seems like everyone outside of slashdot regards them as no different from the metal detectors.

      One time when flying with a friend, they had the backscatter machine. I decided to take a stand for privacy and said I didn't want to be scanned and submitted to a patdown. Everyone looked at me strange, and my friend loudly commented "Dude, you must have an embarrassingly small penis." Which was just plain mean and hurtful and totally not true at all (my gun collection is for defense, not compensation). But anyway, I don't think most people care about this. Naturally we're not going to get a politician shutting it down if no one cares abougt it

    3. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The (R) and (D) don't care about civil liberties. They pay lip service, but when push comes to shove, both sides are the same. Obama is just like Bush, Clinton, Bush before him. If you don't like the power of the Bush's but you like the power of Obama and Clinton (or visa versa) you're just a tool for those seeking more power.

      The best defense we (the citizens) have is to limit power of ANYONE in office.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

      do you think the president makes all the decisions in all departments?

      You know it was a Democrat that said "The Buck Stops Here", right?

      How about he discuss thinks Obama does that's in his realm or responsibly?

      TSA comes under Homeland Security which is a part of the Executive Branch the last time I checked. Guess who is in charge of the Executive Branch?

      OMG, my school board made a decision I don't like, that damn Obama!

      That's a stupid analogy. My school board is a local agency that's independent of the Federal (and State, for the most part) Government. TSA is nothing of the kind. Obama could fire the director of TSA tomorrow and end this bullshit policy if he was so inclined.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The (R) and (D) don't care about civil liberties. They pay lip service, but when push comes to shove, both sides are the same.

      That's not true. By voting for (R) or (D) you are expressing a preference for WHICH civil liberties you want to lose first.

      Want to lose your 1st and 2nd amendment rights? Vote Democrat.
      Want to lose your 4th and 5th amendment rights? Vote Republican.
      Want to lose your 10th amendment rights? Vote for any of the above....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Department of Homeland Security is a Cabinet level department, which means President Obama personally picked Janet Napolitano to be Secretary and she answers to him.

      On November 5, 2008, Napolitano was named to the advisory board of the Obama-Biden Transition Project. On December 1, 2008, Barack Obama introduced Napolitano as his nominee for United States Secretary of Homeland Security, she was confirmed on January 20, 2009. Janet Napolitano assumed the office of Secretary of Homeland Security on January 21, 2009.

      This isn't some minor functionary of the Federal Government deciding this, she has been pushing backscatter X-ray since the day she got her job.

    7. Re:another Obama disappointment... by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's because Republicans and Democrats are a difference without distinction. For starters, a two party system is beyond idiotic. Anyone who believes we ONLY need two parties is a certifiable idiot.

      The sad, sad truth is, everyone moans and groans about their pet project and party x or y not supporting it but the real problem is, neither party cares. They only care about what issues who pay them the most. The ONLY way you can hope to begin to change things to is drastically change election laws, change lobbying laws, strike down the recent anonymous campaign and advertising laws, and stop allowing companies to be represented twice (company and the people of the company).

      As a starter, until we stop empowering a system which gives companies twice the political clout of every day people, there is zero hope for any real change; no matter how much the word, "change", comes out of their mouth. So everyone get that through your head. Any politician who isn't seriously talking and working for serious reform in Washington, by default, is doing nothing but pandering lip service which promoting the status quo. Period.

      If your candidate talks about change and improvement but does not *actively* work to change lobbying and election laws and rules, he's lying to you. Period. The sad fact is, this is literally, almost everyone in office today.

    8. Re:another Obama disappointment... by hedwards · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's a sad state of affairs when the Republicans can gridlock congress intentionally, then get rewarded for it the next election by morons that are doing it because politics in D.C. has gotten too partisan. With Sen., McConnell openly stating that he's going to intentionally gridlock the Senate so that a Republican candidate has a better shot at the 2012 Presidential elections, you really have to wonder about these guys' patriotism.

      It's a really neat trick to refuse to engage in bipartisan politics then attack the guy that went way out of his way to work with you. Then have the voters reward you with more seats.

    9. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't be an idiot. Do you think Obama ordered these? do you think the president makes all the decisions in all departments?

      Here's a small lesson in American government for you: the TSA reports to the Department of Homeland Security, which is a cabinet department of the Executive Branch. For anything under the Executive, the buck stops at the person residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. If the President makes an order not to use full-body scanners, the TSA would have no choice but to obey.

      While Bush was responsible during his term, don't pretend that Obama has nothing to do with current policies of TSA/DHS. He's been in charge for the past two years.

      --
      Sigs are for losers
    10. Re:another Obama disappointment... by speroni · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Vote 3rd party.

      Send the message that the status quo isnt going to cut it.

      --
      Eschew Obfuscation
    11. Re:another Obama disappointment... by twistedsymphony · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's only a DE FACTO 2-party system... I still don't understand how any person can be a cheerleader for either major party with the BS that has gone down over the last CENTURY.

      I vote straight ticket 3rd party every election just out of the hope that a 3rd party candidate gets enough votes that the next time around they might get equal footing in a debate, or news coverage and maybe some other people might wake up and realize that there are more than 2 choices.

    12. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Since 3rd party voters are the most likely to vote based on the actual platform instead of the party, they are the one group that can be influenced to vote for you by doing what they want. Democrats will generally vote Democrat. Republicans will generally vote Republican. There is no point in either party doing the will of the people registered to their party. 3rd party voters on the other had, they can be swayed with a good argument, or good track record on service. They are the ones that politicians must cater to.

      So, voting anything but third party is "Throwing away your vote".

    13. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Entrope · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Voting for a third party is (unfortunately) a pretty ineffectual protest move. Due to the majority-vote ballot system generally used in the US, there is a chicken-and-egg problem for third parties: People tend to vote for someone they think might win, but the only way a candidate has a chance to win is by getting a significant number of votes. Plus, people remember Ross Perot (and to a lesser degree Ralph Nader) as a third-party electoral spoiler.

      If you want to make a real difference, get out and organize like-minded people, protest, knock on doors or mail letters to make your point to the public, and do other visible things. Casting votes and writing letters to the editor (or blog posts) are not going to convince many people.

    14. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Nimey · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't see how you're thinking the 1st Amendment rights would go away first under the Dems.

      Remember that it was under Bush that we had "free speech zones" so that he didn't have to see people that disagreed with him.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    15. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Name me a 3rd party that puts up candidates worth voting for and I'll consider it. The Libertarians are the ones that would appeal to me on paper but they always seem to nominate idiots. I remember their 2008 Presidential candidate best for waging a campaign against Wiccans in the military. Hardly seems compatible with the notion of limited Government and respect for civil liberties.

      I looked for the "none of the above" option in 2008 but I could not find it. More's the pity.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:another Obama disappointment... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Plus, people remember Ross Perot (and to a lesser degree Ralph Nader) as a third-party electoral spoiler.

      The problem is that third party candidates are seen as spoilers at all. They are the only candidates not spoiling everything. I saw an article about the governor race in Illinois, and how it went to a republican, and the author of the article blamed Green party voters for letting the republican take office. Well fuck you, Mr. Political Analyst guy, the Green party voters were the only sane ones. Maybe if the democratic voters had voted for the Green candidate, then the republican wouldn't have taken office either, huh?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    17. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't see how you're thinking the 1st Amendment rights would go away first under the Dems.

      See Citizens United. The mainstream of the Democratic Party thinks that I have no 1st amendment rights when I band together with like-minded citizens to further a political objective.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:another Obama disappointment... by element-o.p. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These scanners were initially installed during the Bush administration. How is it Obama's fault?

      Because Obama was elected in 2008, 2010 is almost gone and he has taken no steps to remove them during the intervening two years? No, implementation wasn't Obama's fault, but since he has left them in place -- and he has had ample time to remove them, if he really believed they were ineffective and/or a violation of civil liberties -- then I'd argue he shares the blame for the fact that they are still in use.

      I didn't believe all of Obama's "Hope and Change" campaign rhetoric in 2008, but when he was elected, I hoped I was wrong. Unfortunately, I've never been so disappointed to be proven correct.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    19. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I didn't know any better, I'd say that the whole system of government is set up to ensure that nothing happens fast

      That's the general idea.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:another Obama disappointment... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Informative

      I vote straight ticket 3rd party every election just out of the hope that a 3rd party candidate gets enough votes that the next time around they might get equal footing in a debate, or news coverage and maybe some other people might wake up and realize that there are more than 2 choices.

      The number of votes isn't going to get anyone into a debate. On their website, the Commission on Presidential Debates describes themselves as a non-partisan non-profit organization. Somewhere along the line, the definition of "non-partisan" changed from "not associated with any political party" to "associated with both republicans and democrats, as opposed to only one". The Commission decides which presidential candidates debate each other on prime time TV. The wiki page on them includes a little history:

      The Commission sponsors and produces debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and undertakes research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988. The Commission has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD.

      In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."

      At a press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Kirk said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.

      You're not going to see third-party candidates in the debates, because republicans and democrats pick who gets to debate.

      It's a nice little system they have set up, isn't it?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    21. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're not going to see third-party candidates in the debates

      I seem to recall Ross Perot and Admiral Stockdale being involved in the 1992 debates.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    22. Re:another Obama disappointment... by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, most infringements on civil liberties are bipartisan.

      1st Amendment: Both major parties have embraced "Free Speech Zones", both have regularly beaten up and arrested protesters at their conventions since at least the 1970's, both have at various times suggested that saying or writing certain things is aiding and abetting the enemy. Also, the people targeted in violation of the 5th and 6th Amendments were universally adherents to a particular religion, which falls afoul of the Free Exercise clause.

      2nd Amendment: On this one, you're right that Democrats are primarily behind bans on assault weapons and the like.

      4th Amendment: Clinton started spying on Internet traffic, Bush increased it to a massive scale, Obama continues the practice and defends it in court. John Ashcroft captured people (including US citizens on US soil) and imprisoned them without ever showing probable cause to a judge. And of course the National Security Letters and other nonsense in the Patriot Act had massive support from both Democrats and Republicans.

      5th Amendment: Both Bush and Obama have deprived people of liberty and sometimes life without due process of law by locking them up in Gitmo or sending them to foreign countries to be tortured. Both Dick Cheney and Barack Obama have targeted civilians for killing by the CIA without any sort of trial.

      6th Amendment: Both Bush and Obama deprived "enemy combatants", including several US citizens, of the right to a speedy and public trial by a jury of their peers. In the BS military tribunals, the enemy combatants are not presented with the evidence or witnesses against them, have no access to witnesses in their defense, and no protection against double jeopardy.

      7th Amendment: Both Democrats and Republicans are enthusiastic in their support for binding arbitration, replacing jury trials for civil matters by arbiters who are paid by one side of the arbitration. Judges regularly throw out lawsuits due to binding arbitration agreements.

      8th Amendment: Gitmo prisoners, as well as prisoners in Abu Graib, and prisoners sent to foreign countries via "extraordinary rendition", all have received what any reasonable person would term cruel and unusual punishment.

      9th and 10th Amendments: Might as well forget about those, since any other rights the people had are long gone.

      So suffice to say, we the people are screwed, unless EPIC, the ACLU, and other groups like them start getting some legal successes. With one exception: If the government tries to force you to quarter troops in your home, you can probably win that case.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    23. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Tenth amendment is about government powers, not people's rights.

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      Perhaps you meant the Ninth?

      No, I did mean the 10th, but the 9th certainly qualifies as an amendment that both parties ignore.

      Or perhaps you've been confused by the "tenthers" out there who don't comprehend that taxing, spending, and regulating interstate commerce are explicitly Constitutional federal powers.

      All of which have grown way outside of the Federal Government's original mandates. Do you honestly believe that the interstate commerce clause was intended to grant the Federal Government the power to criminalize the growing of cannabis for personal consumption?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    24. Re:another Obama disappointment... by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That just shows your political inclination. A liberal would say the opposite.

      The simple fact of the matter is that people tend to remember disappointments much better than they remember successes. Your excitement is quickly forgotten over the campaign promises that the Republicans actually kept, and you’re similarly not going to be too enthused over the ones that the Democrats have been prevented from pushing through.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    25. Re:another Obama disappointment... by Defenestrar · · Score: 2, Informative

      No - the way to really make third party vote extremely effective is to reform our voting system to make better use of game theory to make decisions. As it is we tend to throw away about half of the information provided by our citizens votes (give or take depending on the election). Systems like instant runoff, approval voting, ranking, and etc... put to use much more information to come up with a (mathematically) better selection. Some are more "accurate" than others and some are "simpler" than others.

      This is something that can happen, but it will have to be from the bottom up (because it's a big threat to the two parties in control - they can agree on that at least). Start local at the city or county governments (or even the PTA). There's already several communities in the country which use instant runoff (Google it). States which allow voter ballot initiatives would probably be the easiest places to implement it (That may be how South Carolina adopted it, but I don't know the history there). With increased adoption of vote counting reform, pressure on the big two will increase until they look really bad if they don't implement the system in their states.

      Write up a quick email and send it off to your local state legislators asking them to introduce the legislation - it's more likely to happen there than it is in DC (although that's a good place to write letters to also). Ask for a response and see what they say.

    26. Re:another Obama disappointment... by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obama could have easily prevented this January 21, 2009. Anyone claiming "he hasn't had enough time" for fixing the DHS/TSA is either lying or ignorant of how the office works.

      Yeah. Its one of those two things. Only liars and idiots would ever say something is more complicated than a snap decision for the president.

      The bureaucracies have a lot of momentum, and while sure certain key people in key places do have the technical authority to direct something. Its rarely that simple.

      Closing guantanamo bay turned out to be more difficult... where do all the prisoners go. Giving them trials is controversial and is causing debate. We can't set the actually dangerous ones free. Nobody wants them in their local prison... that would invite local terrorist acts... blah blah blah.

      Full body scanners were floating around in 2005, they were aready installed in airports in 2006/2007... orders have been placed, contracts signed, contractors hired, training done, policies and protocols written, multitudes of careers exist around these infernal things... you don't just step in and undo all that with a snap decision.

    27. Re:another Obama disappointment... by EdIII · · Score: 2, Funny

      Everyone looked at me strange, and my friend loudly commented "Dude, you must have an embarrassingly small penis."

      You know how to take care of a friend like that? You should have instantly replied, "At least I am not smuggling a key of heroin up my ass". Be really indignant for a second, but then instantly switch to shocked and terrified when you look back at the TSA agent. Then mouth, "I'm so sorry", to your friend.

      Good chance he will be walking really funny onto the flight.

  2. Congrats! by bchickens · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm glad to see not everyone is taking this issue laying down. Seems like technology is getting more and more invasive as time goes by. Pretty soon everyone is going to be tracked even in there own home. Some already are!

    --
    ~Bchickens
    1. Re:Congrats! by aztektum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Technology isn't becoming more invasive. The use of technology by people in power is become more invasive.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    2. Re:Congrats! by raddan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My opinion runs contrary to most of Slashdot on this matter, so I don't expect this post to be visible for very long, but-- what's the big deal? I don't think you could make the case that airports don't have a legitimate interest in screening passengers. I usually agree with EPIC, but I don't in this case.

      Clearly, what offends people here is the invasive nature of the screening. But is it really all that invasive? They get what's essentially a contour map of your body. Big deal. The really invasive alternative is the pat down, or worse, the strip search. With these screeners, you just walk through, no clothing removal necessary.

      The problem is that you have an extremely low-probability event which causes a large amount of damage. This is where most Slashdotters have their heads in the sand. You are right that the amount of physical damage is minimal, but actual physical damage is not the goal of terrorists: spreading the message is the goal, and the spreading of that message is greatly heightened by a dramatic delivery, such as the deaths of innocent people. I think it's understandable that people would want to prevent that from happening as much as they want the physical harm from happening. In that light, I think a non-invasive (as in, you just walk through it) scanner is a nice technological solution. It's not perfect, of course, but it's a heck of a lot better than hoping something won't happen.

      I eagerly await your civil responses.

    3. Re:Congrats! by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      so I don't expect this post to be visible for very long

      I think your opinion is foolhardy but if you get modded down it's an abuse of the system. If I had mod points I'd toss one your way just for being brave enough to share your thoughts on this matter.

      I don't think you could make the case that airports don't have a legitimate interest in screening passengers.

      That legitimate interest needs to be balanced against individual rights and liberty. At what point do we decide that we've tilted too far against individual rights and give up on the notion of playing whack-a-mole with the people that seek to harm us?

      It's not perfect, of course, but it's a heck of a lot better than hoping something won't happen.

      But even when something has happened it's been halted by the efforts of the passengers. No attack on an American airline in the post 9/11 world has been successful. The question I would posit is why do we respond like frightened little children to failed attempts at doing us harm?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Congrats! by Stargoat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The 4th Amendment would seem to answer your question. A person has a right to no unreasonable searches. Removal of clothing (electronically) is unreasonable. The invasive pat-down is worse. Both are unconstitutional.

      Further, there is no evidence that these intrusive (and they are intrusive) searches makes the fliers any safer. This makes an unconstitutional act further unconstitutional, as it is even more unreasonable. The Federal invasion of privacy is unconstitutional and unconscionable.

      Most importantly, America is not and was never meant to be a safe country. It was meant to be a free country. Don't forget, had there been a Texan with a pistol on each of those airplanes on 9/11, there would have been no terrorist attack. We gave up the 2nd Amendment and the terrorists killed 3000 of us. How many will die from giving up the 4th?

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    5. Re:Congrats! by chad.koehler · · Score: 2, Informative

      The long term health effects of the backscatter are not known.  This is effectively a low dose of radiation, applied over your entire body.  For someone who frequently travels, this could be a legitimate concern.  Also, the effects of radiation on bodies still in development is unknown.  If it became necessary to travel with my kids, I would absolutely not allow them to go through the scanner.  However, as it stands this means that I would have to subject my kids to a very thorough pat down by some screening personnel; someone with whom I am not familiar, and have no knowledge of their qualifications.  Unacceptable.

    6. Re:Congrats! by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't forget, had there been a Texan with a pistol on each of those airplanes on 9/11, there would have been no terrorist attack.

      Too bad that position is regarded as so extreme that most people won't get behind it. Personally I would support it in a New York minute.

      Now we can cue up all the FUD about depressurization and 0.45" holes growing into man sized holes that suck everybody out of the plane, make pigs fly and turn cats and dogs into friends.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:Congrats! by KagakuNinja · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Give me a fucking break. Had there been a "Texan on board with a pistol", there would have been 4 armed terrorists on each plane (and most likely, they would have exploited security flaws to ensure they had more and better guns than your hypothetical Texan Freedom Fighter)

      The terrorists exploited a flaw in how we dealt with hijackers. It wasn't about a lack of guns at all.

  3. It's either full body scanning by Omnifarious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    or having you genitals felt up. Seriously that's their policy. They think if they subject everybody to public humiliation that people will opt for private humiliation instead.

    Personally, I'll go for the public. If they're going to be obnoxious, authoritarian jerks, they should be forced to do it where everybody can see them. I'll act like I'm gay and I enjoy it. I will act like I think they're gay, and they enjoy it. I will turn the humiliation tables around and ask them if they like feeling people's balls and vaginas up in public, if it turns them on.

    If enough people take my stance on it, they will quit this garbage in a hurry.

    Yeah, all you scaredy cat cowards people who think that somehow this will come back on me and make my life miserable. You know what, up yours. It's people like you that've gotten us where we are, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. For once in your life, show a little backbone and self-respect.

    1. Re:It's either full body scanning by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've gotten around every single pat down without having my genitals felt up by simply making eye contact with the security guard, eyeing him up and down once, and cocking an eyebrow.

      I'm sure one day I WILL come across a homosexual security guard and that will eventually backfire, but to this day I haven't had them reach more than 6 inches above my knees.

    2. Re:It's either full body scanning by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      or having you genitals felt up. Seriously that's their policy [marco.org]. They think if they subject everybody to public humiliation that people will opt for private humiliation instead.

      I loved the guy around here (and I wish I could find his post) that said something like: In 200 years we've gone from "Our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor" to "Sure, you can pat me down, I don't want to miss my connecting flight."

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:It's either full body scanning by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've gotten around it by not flying anymore. Road trips for the win. Drove all the way to Salt Lake City last year. Drove all the way to NOLA this year. Sure, it limits me to visiting Canada and 49 of the 50 US States but it's better than the alternative, IMHO.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:It's either full body scanning by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, your a smart ass, the remove you out of the public areas for holding, and the social service to take care of the child you were traveling with. You're not allowed to talk to your child or call a lawyer. You might be held for 72 hours.

      Think about that a bit.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:It's either full body scanning by boristdog · · Score: 4, Funny

      I want to make a pair of pants where I can make the fly pop open automatically. Then I'll go commando so my wing-wang will flop out when they touch my crotch.

      I can scream "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING!" at that point.

    6. Re:It's either full body scanning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My planned response is to say "You can play with my balls all you like, but you can't take a picture of them."

    7. Re:It's either full body scanning by devitto · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I haven't had them reach more than 6 inches above my knees."

      Well, that might be fine for you, but I'm still outta luck. :-)

    8. Re:It's either full body scanning by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This often happens in oppressive regimes like governments... you offer a new taboo practice / a majority of people will be extremely uncomfortable with at first as an "OPTION", so the majority who would resist authority will not object.

      For example... voting, jury duty, institutional schooling, legal representation, keeping money in the bank, alimony/child support, charitable donations, armed forces recruitment (draft), auto insurance, social security, full body scan, health insurance / gov't health care public "option", abortions, filing 1099s for people you pay money to, . Our history is full of things becoming mandatory or de-facto mandatory that were at first snuck in as something else, using it's actually just optional as an excuse to introduce it to placate any objectors, until the thing becomes well-entrenched. This isn't even the tip of the iceberg, it happens over and over and over again, reliably. Options can easily be made the only way with some simple manipulation; it can be fought, but it is an uphill battle and a long fight... I hope EPIC succeeds, but you know, they are fighting a gov't who believes they have a legitimate security interest in their policies. The gov't think they are security experts, and picks arbitrarily oppressive policies, even though they are obviously not using sound mathematics and science to evaluate the risk VS cost...

      Presumably if body scanning is accepted, the message is clear there will be little the gov't cannot do. It would be almost impossible to fight "backscatter machines", since that is just a furtherance of the 'body scan option' which can become mandatory.

      The way these things get introduced is the gov't answers any objection with "You don't have to submit to X. You can opt for Y instead." Where Y is less invasive, but less convenient for authorities.

      At first Y may be on equal footing, but is increasingly and intentionally made less convenient, discouraged by officials, OR officials [unofficially] are directed to implement things counter to policy -- for example, refusing option Y, but doing so in a way that will diffuse or deflect criticism away from the government... such as denying it in private, and in public denying that they denied the option.

      The less convenient option Y becomes, the greater the portion of the population will opt for the uncomfortable but more 'convenient' or faster option.

      This means, that eventually the societal norms are adjusted. So many people opted for the convenience over time that full body scanning is considered "the norm", and is therefore socially acceptable.

      Now all the government has to do is take option Y away, by making it unpallatable.

      All they have to do is ensure anyone who picks option Y is embarrassed or harassed, and the people who see it will learn a lesson to never pick option Y.

      The final stage is to make option Y socially unacceptable, and then do away with it altogether.

    9. Re:It's either full body scanning by BassMan449 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Personally I want to see a woman wear sweat pants through the checkpoint and wear fake silicone balls under them. I would absolutely love to see the look on the guards face when she runs into those.

    10. Re:It's either full body scanning by eleuthero · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't forget, there's always boats and space folding... err, wait, you don't know about that last one yet... boats... definitely still boats... and ultralights.

    11. Re:It's either full body scanning by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That thought is precisely what went through the head of that dude in the front of that tank column in Tiennemen Square, no doubt...

      I mean, whole 72 hours!!!

      Such abject cowardice as you exhibit is how all the despots of the world came to power.

      It is also the fundamental idea behind terrorism: that whiny "but what will happen to my lifestyle!?" or "but they will break my family apart!!!" people will always outnumber those who bleed and suffer in the fight for their freedom and that majority with the mentality of a sheep herd will trample the few steadfast resisters in their panic induced brainless stampede to whatever pen has the least cattle prods.

    12. Re:It's either full body scanning by nege · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know you are trying to be funny, but what about transgendered persons? If a trans-female walks through one of these things (pre-op), should she be subjected to the questions that will bring up? It seems like an unnecessary and humiliating search.

    13. Re:It's either full body scanning by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If a trans-female walks through one of these things (pre-op), should she be subjected to the questions that will bring up? It seems like an unnecessary and humiliating search.

      It seems humiliating because it is humiliating, and transgendered people shouldn’t get any special treatment. It wouldn’t help anyway...

      “Excuse me, why do I have to go through this and she didn’t?” “She’s transgendered.” “Oh...”

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    14. Re:It's either full body scanning by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Advertent or not, it was a red herring... the muckety-mucks in charge will likely handle that sort of complaint with “okay, we’ll write in a special exemption for them... but the rest of you whiners still have to submit to our screening!!”

      They shouldn't do this at all, of course, for so many of the reasons others have posted.

      Exactly. Best just to leave it at that. Or, when you do point out that it’s particularly embarrassing for certain people, follow up with that caveat. Invasion of privacy is equally wrong for everyone; it’s just particularly harmful to some.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    15. Re:It's either full body scanning by AndOne · · Score: 2, Funny

      I went through security wearing a kilt once. Never have I seen a TSA agent so loathe to touch someone. His boss had to force him to pat me down higher than my knees.

      Kilt + come hither smile == security breach 9/10

      --
      I don't care what you say, all I need is my Wumpabet soup.
    16. Re:It's either full body scanning by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, your a smart ass, the remove you out of the public areas for holding, and the social service to take care of the child you were traveling with. You're not allowed to talk to your child or call a lawyer. You might be held for 72 hours.

      Think about that a bit.

      Think about that, indeed. We now live in a country that uses the threat of the things you mentioned to get us to allow them to treat us like criminals and curtail our rights.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  4. 4th Amendment by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Took long enough. I though it would be the ACLU but they seem to have really dropped the ball when it comes to the TSA. Here is the problem with all airport security theater. A dogs are better bomb sniffers than any machine. And B you can put a bomb up your ass. I suspect that the ACLU didn't go after the TSA because they too are turning into a bunch of ass covering bureaucrats and worried about the optics of them shutting down half this airport crap and then some dickweed blowing up a plane and their getting the blame.

  5. Re:Where can I sign up? by pla · · Score: 3, Informative
  6. Full body scanners up in the club by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This Friday night, come on down to Club Big Brother! We got a full body scanner, some disco balls, strobe effects, and some kickin' bass! The crowd will go wild when you step into the full nude scanner and it's shown on our 2 story high video wall! No cover for ladies and half-price drinks! Club Big Brother-because privacy violations are one big party!

  7. My plan.... by wiredog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Salon and the Atlantic report that you have to take off your belt when you go through these things. And that you have to raise your hands.

    So my plan (which all slashdotters should copy) is to wear loose pants and go commando.

  8. ALERT by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Funny

    The GRAMMAR BOT 9001 has determined you have confused the words "their" and "there". An infraction has been added to your permanent record and your mother has been notified.

    1. Re:ALERT by zero_out · · Score: 3, Funny

      GRAMMAR BOT 9001 didn't recognize the laying vs. lying error. It must be time to update the database of lexical errors in GRAMMAR BOT 9001.

  9. Chamberlain by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He may look like Wilt, but he plays like Neville.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  10. EPIC WIN! by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Funny

    ,,,

  11. the ACLU has been calling for a ban since 2002 by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

    /. is broken and I often can't paste into the text box, so no link. However go to ACLU.ORG and search for TSA.
    IN fact, they have been calling for a ban of this kind of scanner in airports since 2002

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:the ACLU has been calling for a ban since 2002 by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Fellow chrome user!

      See this bug here: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=60057

      Based on comment #10, I made a little bookmark in the bookmark bar called "Fix /." with the site

      javascript:document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('div'));

      And now I can click that whenever I want to reply.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:the ACLU has been calling for a ban since 2002 by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's how it starts. you call for a ban. You don't jump straight to sue. They sue for immigrants because an immigrant comes forward with a complaint.

      Maybe after you are refused to board a flight after refusing to use one of these device you should go to the ACLU?

      Did you go to the ACLU and search to see all the things they have been doing? no, of course not. That would require rationality.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  12. Re:Flying is a privilege, not a right. by NetNed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even the Air Marshall on planes have been shown to be a over priced ineffective program that is nothing more then a ego feed for people like you who feel the need to have a false sense of security. The full body scanners are the same. Cost a lot and don't really have any effect on security.

    Your right, flying is a privilege, but your argument is straw man at best. That is like saying if a restaurant want people to take off all their clothes to enter it should be done because it's a privilege not a right to eat there.

  13. Re:Flying is a privilege, not a right. by cobrausn · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Hijackings won't work anymore. We (as passengers) are all well too aware of what could happen if they do.

    Hijackings used to be about money. Passengers would sit them through and get let go when it was all done with a pretty good chance of making it.

    Nobody holds to that illusion anymore. Myself (and I'm sure many others) would curb stomp to death anyone who tried to hijack a plane I was on, or die trying. That, and the staff and pilots are better prepared for this now.

    These things are just unnecessary.

    --
    How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
  14. Re:TSA guards not at fault here by canesfan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How many "Guards" have you met, known, dealt with? Most are just twisted enough or suck at lying to the point they fail the psychological or poly or background check for any Law Enforcement position. The pay is McDonalds grade, the job is boring, most of your co-workers have sub standard personal hygien and as a bonus the public pisses on you every chance they get. When you fail to present them the opportunity they create one for themselves. Another words only a sick twisted sociopath with an authoritarian complex works in the Guard industry. Want to guess what I do for a living? Muah Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!

  15. Re:There is a religious law against body scanners? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are modesty requirements for several religions, including forms of Islam (well-publicized) and Judaism (not as well-known). Any sort of display of the flesh other than face or hands (and sometimes limits on those) is a violation of the religion, with narrow exceptions for family and doctors.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  16. NO. Flying is a right, not a privilege. by X86Daddy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The framers of the Constitution of the US had a lively debate on whether or not to include the Bill of Rights. They felt that such an enumeration would lead to damaged thinking about how people get a specific set of rights, listed by a government, and anything else is "not a right." Your post is evidence that the concern was well founded.

    I have the absolute and sovereign right to conduct transactions with any other party as I see fit. That includes paying an airline to provide travel services... or a boat company, or a train company, or gasoline vendors so I might power my car. These are my rights, just as providing those services are the rights of those individuals or entities.

    The US federal government and its child governments have made decrees that our rightful ability to make such transactions should be hindered or outright prohibited (see drug and prostitution laws).

    A free people, in a free country, could easily go about choosing to purchase travel services from whichever entities they choose, and be subject to agreed upon security arrangements with those entities. Some airlines could specialize in extensive strip-searchy, genital-feely security theatrics, and some could specialize on a more distributed "hand every non-drinking passenger a little baseball bat as they board" approach. Then you could exercise your "right to feel" safe, while the rest of us exercise our rights, sans conflict.

    What you seek is less and less respect from government, in exchange for absolutely nothing other than a baseless "feeling" of security. Plenty of cowards felt the liquid ban made them safer... until the wannabe crotch-bomber showed them it meant nothing... Plenty of cowards will feel safer now that everyones genitals are felt or photographed, until the next elevation in this arms race. Then the cowards will be ready for the next bit of demeaning, useless, costly garbage, further hindering our freedoms and rights, such as travel at will within the borders of "our" supposed country.

  17. Better than National ID card by mlippert · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd rather walk through a body scanner before boarding a plane than be required to give them my name and other irrelevant information that only helps the government and the airline to track my personal travel and also helps the airline to continue to restrict transferring of tickets.

    As a side note, I've always thought it was just "wrong" that the ticket did not just entitle the holder of said ticket to a particular seat on a particular flight regardless of who originally was considering sitting in that seat.

  18. Re:Nobody is forcing anyone to fly against their w by OzPeter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you dont like it, then dont fly.

    "Hey boss, rather than take the 5 hour flight across country to meet with that critical customer in person and sign off on that that big $$$ deal, I'm going to take about 50 hours to drive one way and about the same back. I won't be able to do any work during the trip, but hey, you'll pick up the expenses for this won't you?" .. Yeah as if that will work.

    Oh and by the way, you may not have noticed but there are some places you can't get to without flying .. pro tip - take a look at a world atlas and look for all those places separated or surrounded by water

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  19. Re:Wrong charge by OzPeter · · Score: 2, Funny

    Good for a laugh, sure, but we all know that if they were actually charged along those lines, MSNBC would have Chris Hansen conducting entrapment operations at every pediatrician's office across the country.

    For $deities sake please don't encourage him.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  20. Re:Transsexuals by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um, *everybody* has a right to privacy, not just some special cases.

    PS: The machines won't stop anything, explosives fit inside body cavities just as well as heroin/cocaine does.

    --
    No sig today...
  21. Re:But... by speroni · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll whip my junk out for the security guards before I go through the scanner.

    --
    Eschew Obfuscation
  22. Not so cut and dry by rsborg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Want to lose your 1st and 2nd amendment rights? Vote Democrat.

    You do realize that, under Obama we signed into law the expansion of gun rights in national parks (was outlawed, now legal)?

    Don't paint with too broad a brush.

    Now if we could only also vote for those appointed positions that hold so much power (SoS,NSA,CoS, etc).

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Not so cut and dry by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You do realize that, under Obama we signed into law the expansion of gun rights in national parks [rawstory.com] (was outlawed, now legal)?

      You do realize that, under Obama we've appointed two anti-RKBA justices to SCOTUS while blocking the re-importation of WW2 era firearms into the United States?

      Besides, I wasn't specifically thinking of Obama when I made that statement. If you think Democrats are friendly towards the notion of the 2nd amendment I invite you to relocate to New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey or California. Come and see what Democrats do to the 2nd amendment when they have unchecked power.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Not so cut and dry by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realize that, under Obama we signed into law the expansion of gun rights in national parks [rawstory.com] (was outlawed, now legal)?

      BTW, not to reply twice, but I visited Mammoth Caves National Park a few weeks ago and that policy really isn't all it's cracked up to be. They've got huge "No guns allowed" signs on all of the buildings, cave tours, etc. Hooray for the 2nd amendment, I'm now legally allowed to carry my gun in the parking lot at a National Park.....

      Of course they don't actually enforce this policy with metal detectors so in reality it's a victim zone not a gun free zone. I'm sure the guy planning on committing a crime is going to be deterred by that sign on the front door.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Not so cut and dry by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you think Democrats are friendly towards the notion of the 2nd amendment I invite you to relocate to New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey or California. Come and see what Democrats do to the 2nd amendment when they have unchecked power.

      Funny you should mention California there and blame the Democrats for gun control. Check your history about Ronald Reagan and the Mulford Act.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  23. Re:Hardly any fuss over the democrats? by couchslug · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Surely they do wrong things, too?"

    No.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  24. Re:Hardly any fuss over the democrats? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Wall Street Journal is generally fairly Republican-happy; it's a lot less free-to-view, though. The Drudge report is Republican-happy most of the time, but they're about this close --> <-- to being a tabloid. (Ever-so-convenient, though.) The media at large is not infrequently accused of being "liberal" Democrat-huggers, but some parts are more so than others (e.g. the New York Times.)

    If you want a balanced view of the politics in America, you're not going to get it from just one news source, one way or another.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  25. Agreed by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some rights are so obvious the protection thereof just did not occur to the Founding Fathers. They just never imagined the right to vehicular travel could be infringed, would become licensed, and subject to for-all-practical-purposes strip searches.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
  26. Oh My God. by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You do realize that determined terrorist will put something up his ass or her vagina, don't you? The only way to be completely safe is to do full cavity searches and head to toe X-rays because you never know when they'll surgically insert something into their abdominal cavity.

    It's also MY RIGHT to feel some assurance that the guy sitting next to me isn't planning on hijacking the plane.

    No it's not your right. So, this is your reasoning:

    "Oh NO! I want to feel safe! Please government, go ahead and search me and make sure I don't have any weapons so that I'll be safe! Take my Fourth Amendment rights away."

    It's that sort of attitude that makes terrorism so effective. Yes, I'm saying people like you allow terrorism to be effective.

    Thank you so very little.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

  27. Re:Transsexuals by realityimpaired · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think part of the concern the GP was expressing is because it isn't just a privacy concern for cross-dressers and pre-op transsexuals, it's a safety concern. Those individuals' personal safety depends on their ability to pass as their preferred gender, and forcing them to submit to what amounts to a strip search destroys that ability.

    Having read the article posted on the subject a week ago (that I won't link because somebody else already has), I think it's a legitimate concern. It mentionned one person having been arrested after taking a swing at a TSA officer who made a joke about the size of his penis as he walked through the scanner. That isn't exactly the level of professionalism I'd trust for a significantly more sensitive situation like a transsexual....

  28. 9th Amendment by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Flying on an aircraft isn't a right...

    Groundless stripping & groping normal innocent citizens who just want to fly isn't a power granted government.

    Had the Founding Fathers imagined infringement of the right to vehicular travel, no question they would have included it in the Bill of Rights - and realizing they may have missed some, they DID include the catch-all 9th Amendment.
    And they DID include an explicit denial of warrant-less searches by government agents, which is what this case is about.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
  29. Re:I would prefer these to other types of screenin by NevarMore · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not against these types of screenings at all. I would prefer them to pat downs or strip searches.

    Lets face it. People have to be screened before the board a plane and I prefer the safety that these provide vs being a victim of someones terror. (being blown up, or being touched by a security officer)

    Then refuse to be a victim YOURSELF. The authorities cannot (some would argue will not) stop every possible threat. If we can't keep drugs, shivs, shanks, cellphones, and zip guns out of prisons what makes you think we can stop threats with less than prison level security at airports?

    Chap next you tries to light his shoes on fire? You punch him in the skull holler for help and don't stop until he stops being a threat.
    Achmed starts acting funny and pulling something out of his ass? You do what you have to do to stop the threat.
    Someone mugs you and seems to want more than your wallet? You fight, stab, kick, and shoot until he stops being a threat.
    Fall down and get injured? You had damn well better be able to patch yourself up enough to get to where you can get professional help.

    You may be comfortable being a victim and relying on centralized services to be there all the time and be omniscient. I am not.

  30. Fly Naked by tekrat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just you wait until someone does blow up a plane and went through the body scanner. Sooner or later they will make a bomb from threads of C-4 or whatever, sew it into a set of pants and shirt, and then we'll have to fly naked because the TSA is scared of clothing.

    They are already scared of shoes, toothpaste, hair gel, nail clippers, bottled water, yadda-yadd, ad-infinitum.

    Here's what I don't get. We had the "shoe-bomber" which in turn, made the TSA remove and inspect our shoes. Then last year we had the "underwear-bomber"... So how come the TSA doesn't make us remove and inspect our underwear?

    Just wait till some guy detonates a bomb he shoved up his ass. Then it's cavity searches for all.

    And the airline industry will slowly crumble from pissed off passengers refusing to fly. Or we'll just accept it by that time, just as we now accept the humiliation we currently go through.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  31. Re:Give it a break.... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually he didn't do what he said he would do with regards to health care. Candidate Obama condemned the notion of a mandate to buy health insurance and effectively leveraged the issue against Clinton during the primaries. President Obama signed a bill containing such a mandate into law.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  32. Let your dollars do the talking... by WidgetGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The political system in the U.S. is FUBAR. The only "vote" we have these days is with our dollars. Don't like being treated like a criminal or a porn star at the airport? Stop flying. Or, if you're running a company, cut back on corporate air travel by 50%. Use teleconferencing. Plan ahead and take the train. I haven't flown anywhere since 2000. But, I've traveled all over the country by train. When you decide to stop flying, make sure you tell them why you're not flying. Their response can be quite entertaining.

    When I canceled my cable TV subscription back in 2006, they (Time/Warner) asked why I was leaving. I told them I was sick and tired of paying over $100/month to watch commercials. I was particularly outraged at the (usually animated) self-promotion ads that ran at the bottom of the screen during the show or movie I was trying to watch. The T/W customer "support" person's response was, "Well, sir, we don't have any control over that. Those are decisions made by the network." To which I replied that Time/Warner owned TBS and TBS was, at the time, one of the biggest (ab)users of this type of TV spam. Her response? Dead silence. Made my day.

    If the airlines (big corporations) start feeling the economic heat (sometimes just the well-orchestrated threat of economic heat), you will be amazed at how fast things will change in Washington. And at the airport. But, you have to make sure you tell them why you're leaving and taking your dollars with you.

    --
    One "Aw, Shit!" is worth 100 "Ata boys!"
  33. Re:Very easy solution... by element-o.p. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since when did your right to that comfy, warm, snuggly, "big-brother is watching out for you" feeling trump my right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable search? Don't like the risk of someone sneaking a weapon on board the airplane? Don't fly. Flying on an aircraft isn't a right...

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?