Slashdot Mirror
National Opt-Out Day Against Virtual Strip Searches
An anonymous reader writes in about a protest called for the busiest airline travel day of the year. "An activist opposed to the new invasive body scanners in use at airports around the country just designated Wednesday, Nov. 24 as a National Opt-Out Day. He's encouraging airline passengers to decline the TSA's technological strip searches en masse on that day as a protest against the scanners, as well as the new 'enhanced pat-downs' inflicted on refuseniks. 'The goal of National Opt-Out Day is to send a message to our lawmakers that we demand change,' reads the call to action at OptOutDay.com, set up by Brian Sodegren. 'No naked body scanners, no government-approved groping. We have a right to privacy, and buying a plane ticket should not mean that we're guilty until proven innocent.' The US Airline Pilots Association and other pilot groups have urged their members to avoid the scanners and have also condemned the new pat-down policy as humiliating to pilots. They've advised pilots who don't feel comfortable undergoing pat-downs in front of passengers to request they be conducted in a private room. Any pilots who don't feel comfortable after undergoing a pat-down have been encouraged to 'call in sick and remove themselves from the trip.'"
Please provide a list of all terrorists caught by TSA to date. Thanks.
Keeping what safe? A gaggle of meekly surrendering sheep, or a nation of free people?
I have friends on both sides of the political spectrum, far to the left and far to the right. Everyone can (and should) agree that this is a gross violation of privacy and should not be tolerated. The only people that I have heard even come close to defending this procedure are the faux conservatives that put "security" (read: invading the privacy of citizens to expand the power of the state) over liberty.
Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
As soon as you provide a list of terrorists discouraged from boarding planes in the first place because of elevated security policies.
and take off your belt while going through the scanner, my plan is to wear loose pants and go commando.
Best Slashdot Co
This article by Jeffrey Goldberg is both sad, hilarious, and informative. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/ "We have to search up your thighs and between your legs until we meet resistance," he explained. "Resistance?" I asked. "Your testicles," he explained. "That's funny," I said, "because 'The Resistance' is the actual name I've given to my testicles."
Why just do this on one day only when you can make this your default choice? I'd rather be safe than sorry when it comes to cancer. And I dont much like being treated like a naughty child by the TSA or whoever either.
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
Most people have a "grab there, get hit" policy (well, less formally acknowledged than that) in their daily lives. I don't think there'd be too much fuss if people applied it to the manual search.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Opting out of the body scanner is opting in to the invasive pat-down. "Opting out" merely validates the false dichotomy put forth by the TSA.
I don't think its the lack of a terrorist attack as much as the utter uselessness of this technology relative to the risk of attack. I think people are tired of being treated like criminals just because they want to take their family on vacation. I think people of tired of having their children treated like criminals and then having to explain to them why it's okay for the government to touch them inappropriately. Furthermore, if we were serious about security we wouldn't be so lax about it everywhere else. In October 2001 you couldn't cross a bridge or tunnel into NYC by truck without having the contents of the truck searched by police. I can't remember the last time I saw one truck stopped traversing a river crossing. I guess the threat of dirty bombs just magically went away, right? Terrorists only care about airplanes I suppose. I ride the commuter rail and subway every day. Do you know how many times I've seen even one cop on a rail platform in the 4 years I've been commuting? ZERO. There are times in Penn Station that the subway platform is lined with cops. Do you know what they do? They poke their head into the subway car, look both ways, and then back away and it proceeds to the next stop. That's security? This country is a fucking joke when it comes to security yet for some reason the airport is treated like the holy grail. If we don't give up our rights and dignity a great calamity will befall us. Give me a fucking break. I'll take my chances getting on a plane with just a metal detector. If it's my time to go, then it's my time to go.
Trying to annoy the TSA for a day will do absolutely nothing. If you want to end these policies, refuse to fly until they're gone. If airlines see their bank accounts turn red with no hope of them being profitable unless the TSA is removed, you better believe they'll start doing everything imaginable to get rid of the TSA.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.
This is a prime example of where "if you do nothing wrong; then you have nothing to worry about" is shown to be bullshit.
These airport scanners and pat downs dishonor our troops and everyone who has ever died fighting for our country!
We are supposed to be the home of the free and the brave, let's act like it! The Europeans don't do this. They don't even allow the scanners! Are they braver and more free than we are?! It sure looks like it!
I think everyone on both sides can agree, this is just too much!
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
I'm willing to bet that list is smaller than the list of terrorists who didn't get on a plain for fear of having their ass kicked by Joe Public when they attempt something.
Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
Who is making money on not installing body scanners at the airports ?
Who is making money on not installing cameras everywhere ?
Who is making money on not waging wars ?
Also known as "National Get-Added-To-The-No-Fly-List Day"
People from simply removing all of their clothing when they are "hand searched"? Or demanding that a LEO be present at the search? Or demanding that the search be video'd? If the search is "public", then can someone tape it? Or getting the name of the employees who search you?
By the way, where did that 'bagger come from from up thread? What a parrot.... Prove a negative, indeed....
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
Discouraged from boarding planes and encouraged to bomb subways. Bombing subways can in fact be even more harmful since it can disable an entire subway line until the damage to the subway can be fixed and the train removed. And with the high volume of traffic that subways get, any kind of security (beyond fare control) is impractical. Given this, protecting planes seems like reinforcing the door with steel while the windows are open.
Although I am against the full-body scanner and more "intimate" pat-downs, your argument does nothing to strengthen our case. Suppose that on Sep. 8th, 2001 a new directive would have gone out telling all the pilots to lock the cockpit door at all times (during the flight, obviously). Would any terrorist be caught by such a measure? Would we see any benefit from it directly? Would people raise hell over it?* OTOH, in retrospect, we know that such a directive would have prevented a major terrorist attack that still affects our life today.
Who is more of a hero, the person who catches a terrorist in the middle of an attack (AKA Rambo) or the unknown official that wrote directives that prevented the terrorist attack in the first place? Or to put it differently: Smart is someone who gets out of trouble; Wise is someone who does not get into trouble in the first place.
I know, if we give up freedom for temporary security, etc. etc... And I agree with that sentiment, I just don't agree that "list of terrorists caught by TSA to date" is a useful endpoint.
* - BTW, the answers to these questions are no, no and yes, respectively.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
I'm a student. I write iPhone apps.
Keeping what safe? A gaggle of meekly surrendering sheep, or a nation of free people?
It's flock you insensitive clod.
Hello. I have no fear of terrorists whatsoever. The country I live in have never been a target of terrorists.
We also do not make war on other contries, that might have something to do with it.
In about 10-20 years there will be people in Iraq and Afghanistan who saw their friends/parents/family killed by foreign soldiers. Many of them will want revenge, some of them will be willing to die for it.
I think the best way to protect oneself against terrorists is not to create them in the first place.
Hope this helps.
Keeping what safe? A gaggle of meekly surrendering sheep, or a nation of free people?
I'd feel a lot safer if every passenger was given a sap or a combat knife and instructed to deal with any terrorist by everyone rushing them at once. Of course that doesn't follow the pattern of passively waiting for government to rescue you which is why no media outlet or authority figure is ever going to promote it. So punches and kicks it is then.
I'd just like to point out that the last post of yours that got down-moderated was a "The State knows best" - type post, which is probably more associated with the Far Left than the Right. My own feeling is that Slashdot moderators tend towards individual responsibility and freedom from excessive regulation, rather than any right/left dichotomy. And really, what do you expect of people most of whom have built their careers on the Internet? That's exactly the attitude you would expect.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
If they're terrorists they should be arrested, not "refused permission to fly".
It shows the system is bullshit. Strip-searching or groping all passengers offends millions for very little if any gain. If the terrorists were discouraged from boarding planes with bombs, they haven't stopped being terrorists and they will find some other way to cause terror.
The problem is the existence of the terrorists. The police, FBI need to be looking for and catching them before they blow up shit. Strip searching everybody at the point of entry to a plane will only cause the terrorist to move their attack to something else. Traditional police and FBI work is geared toward finding the terrorist no matter what their plot is, while the TSA's "enhanced" pat-downs and full body viewing of passengers works only against a single plot, and the terrorists know it. The passengers know that terrorists may want to destroy the plane, so the passengers will fight back. The terrorists know this too.
As Bruce Schneier said, the only useful airline security innovation since 9/11 was the reinforcement of cockpit doors.
When traveling this holiday season, opt out of any porn scanners. Opt out LOUDLY. Say “I OPT OUT” while you smile at the nearest TSA agent. Be polite and move on to step two, the Pat Down. Getting a hand pat down. Teach your children to shout LOUDLY, “STOP TOUCHING ME in a SEXUAL MANNER!”. Adults shout LOUDLY, “Stop TOUCHING ME in a SEXUAL MANNER!”. Smile and be polite as you do this. Children are allowed and encouraged to cry. Video the whole escapade with sound and as clearly as possible. Post to youtube.com Behold the power of the Internet. Game on Janet!
I believe what truly created the environment of American resentment in Iraq and Afghanistan was our abandonment of both countries after the Iran/Iraq wars and the Afghanistan/Russia sovereignty conflict in the 80s. This created poverty and despair, which in turn lead to extremism.
I always assumed it was the way we like to use our secret agencies to overthrow democratically elected leaders and replace them with dictators favorable to our interests, something the USA has a *long* history of repeatedly doing especially in the Middle East but also in South America and elsewhere. But no, they hate us for our freedoms, yeah, cuz we feel noble and innocent when we say that.
You're correct. That it what it would meant to _most_ people.
To _rational_ people, it means the TSA approach is not working, We should try something else, like psychological screening. Israel uses it with relatively great results. I have no problem answering a few questions about where I was and where I'm going
http://www.japantoday.com/category/commentary/view/psychology-not-just-technology-needed-for-airport-security
Here's one: replace "random" searches with "searches of people most likely to be terrorists".
Heaven forbid!
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
I think I'll start manufacturing a line of undergarments that have metal threads woven into them with sayings like "I do not consent to invasive searches", "TSA scanners are a violation of my 4th Amendment rights", etc.
I wonder what the TSA response would be if they started seeing people wearing underwear, etc. that effectively blocked the scanners from seeing ones "naughty bits" and possibly also included slogans like these?
Make it more uncomfortable for him than it is for me. Just some suggestions for those who have to go through this bullshit.
When you come back from your "pat-down" be sure to tell all the other passengers to ask for *that* particular screener, because he give excellent hand-jobs. See how red you can make him turn.
I'm willing to bet there are no terrorists whatsoever, this is all just mass hysteria, induced by opportunistic politics, grabbing of attention and votes, selling tons of security equipment, services, jobs, contracts, news, etc. And much of the world is just laughing or terrified of the dangers of the spiraling growth of such mass insanity, based on mass fear, encouraging state violence, the erosion of rights, and reactionary, aggressive politcs on all levels and numerous countries. I left the US, and although I miss many things, the news often reminds me I am relieved to be far from this utter madness.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
"We haven't had a genuine terror attack in a long time".
A genuine terror attack is one that fills you with terror. It has very little to do with the convictions of the perpetrator.
There's no such thing as a "terrorist".
Not a single one on the planet.
Terrorism is a stratagem, not a political philosophy.
It's like calling the WW II Germans "Blitzkriegers", or the Americans "Amphibians".
"respecting laws that were put in place to keep us safe"?
But what if I think these laws address the wrong issue's, and only serve to create an illusion of safety against an ill-defined opponent?
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Yes. They have another word for that; it's also known as "racial profiling."
Thought crime?
So you're saying we need another false-flag op to bring the masses back under the whips of the bourgeois elite? We can make that happen...
This is not about breaking the law. The law says you can "opt out" of going through the x-ray scanner and be hand searched. The hand search is very time and labor intensive so it might slow down the lines at the airport on the busiest flying day of the year.
It's called a protest.
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
Hey it doesn't have to be by race, they could also do it by lets say beards, search everyone with a facial hair covering some part of their lower face. or everyone wearing hats, there are more ways to profile for terrorists than just race.
1) Stop flying. I realize this may be hard, but in most cases it is possible. If it is truly impossible, like your work requires it, ok fine but then you just kinda have to roll with what happens. However for just about anyone else you can stop flying. Doesn't mean you can't vacation or visit family, just means you will have to drive. It'll work, really it will. When I was a kid, my parents almost always drove us out to the grandparents place because of cost. I didn't enjoy it, but it was fine.
2) Let the airlines know you have stopped flying, and why. You may have noticed the government thinks the airline industry is rather important. They have bailed them out in the past. This could be because they consider it of strategic importance, could be because the airlines have good lobbyists, etc. Whatever the reason or combination of reasons, they listen and that's what matters. So if you make it clear to them that you are refusing to fly because of the TSA, they'll take notice. One person won't do anything alone, but if more than a few do it, they'll care. Make sure to include things like your frequent flier number and dates you traveled last year so they know you do use their service, and can see you aren't.
3) Write your senators and representative and let them know you find this unacceptable, and that this is an issue that will decide your vote. Write a well reasoned letter explaining why this is not ok, and ask what they intend to do about it. You will very likely get a reply (from a staffer of course but it is still their position). Again, what one person says doesn't matter a whole lot but a bunch of people will make them take notice since politicians have to care about being reelected first and foremost and if their constituency is pissed, they have to deal with it. Goes double if they have pressure from the airlines as well.
4) Actually vote on it. If your representatives say "We think the TSA is fine we aren't doing anything," vote for their challenger. Perhaps when they are running even make a campaign contribution, doesn't have to be large $20 should suffice, along with a letter expressing your support for them so long as they will work to fix/get rid of the TSA.
You cannot expect change over night. However if people who are pissed off start doing this, change will come, one way or another. The TSA gets away with its stupidity due to apathy more or less. People just go along with their shit so it is an issue congress doesn't have to care about. If people tell congress it is a problem, then it will become a problem for congress.
Congratulations, America.
Osama Bin Laden has won.
Read the ridiculous treatment of this upstanding citizen who stood up to the TSA. He wrote a very interesting account of the abuse the TSA is doing.
An excerpt: 'I looked him straight in the eye and said, "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested."'
http://www.object404.com
The best thing to do is to have two sets of flights. One set where no one gets body scans, and other flights where everyone get body scans. Let evolution solve this problem.
I don't see why there is a security check for pilots at all. I mean we want to carefully check their identity, we want to make sure that they are who they say they are of course. However after their ID has been established, they should be allowed to go on about their business with no more check. Why? Because such a check is totally worthless. Pilots have hands on the controls of the aircraft, they could crash it and kill all aboard if they wanted. Further, many of them have guns that they carry. Since 9/11 they have been allowed to get certified and have a gun in the cockpit. Many opt to because you get paid a bit extra if you do.
You have to trust the pilots, that is just how it goes. As such once you've identified them as the pilots who should be on the flight, other security checks are worthless.
That pilots are subject to the same arduous security checks as passengers just proves that it is security theater, and nothing that is really useful. They aren't concerned with actual security, just a theater that justifies their jobs, and that they like being the tough guys who get to be in charge.
So they take their hats off and shave off their beards. In fact, I clearly remember hearing that the September 11 hijackers shaved before they boarded the planes...
people start getting indignant about security again
People aren't indigant over security - They're indignant over "security theatre," with billions spent for questionable returns.
For me, the big deal is not that some poor security guard has to look at my fat gut or grope my privates. For me, the issue is that this is a *tremendous* waste of money for little return - Money that desperately needs to be spent elsewhere. The days of terrorists smuggling explosives onto planes on their body is over. The recent "Yemen" incident points to this - The threat to airlines is the same issue that security experts have been telling us about for 20 years: Air freight. If you're on a plane, chances are you've been screened 100X more than what may be in the cargo hold under your feet. These nude-o-scopes do nothing to address that. However, addressing the issue of air freight is very complex and expensive and doesn't easily demonstrate to Ma and Pa Kettle that goshdarnit, the government's doing something - Whereas visibly putting a brown man in a turban into a scanning phonebooth thingamajiggy does.
Finally, if you *are* legitimately concerned about items being smuggled onto a plane on a passenger's person, you only need to talk to a prison guard or Israeli security expert to learn how useless these nude-o-scopes are, as they don't look *inside* the body, which is where most contraband is hidden these days anyway.
scapegoat alert.
easy excuse but its bullshit. the muslims can't even get along with themselves; they don't need to (and should not be) blaming others when they need to fix major problems in their own culture.
its just too easy to blame 'the outside'. their leaders use this excuse to their own people but we're supposed to be more enlightened in the west and more free in our thoughts. why, then, do we also fall for the obviously-bogus exuse of 'its all israel and the jews' faults!' ?
muslims have been taught to hate jews. its somewhat like southerners back 100 years ago in US history. we know race hatred in the US. just think of this when you hear about arab countries blaming 'the infidels'. its just another version of scapegoating just like the deep south did in the US.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I carry a magic yeti-repelling stone around with me. I haven't seen a yeti in years so that proves it works!
No sig today...
I agree that there are more troublesome procedures than "locking the door", but it was just an example for something that does not appear to have any direct benefit, can annoy (some) people and only with the knowledge we have now do we understand its importance. I was just illustrating the point that the OP's request for a "list of terrorist captured by the TSA" is not a useful benchmark for the effectiveness of a procedure, because, as you pointed out, the "lock the door" directive is very helpful while not catching any terrorist.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
How will anything they're currently doing prevent somebody stuffing their rectum with C4 and boarding an aircraft?
Seems to me like they're really training the population to get used to government invasions of their intimacy.
No sig today...
Flying isn't a right but being secure in our persons from unwarranted and intrusive searches is.
All of the people who have ever died on a plane, from mechanical problems and pilot error as well as terrorism, doesn't even add up to a single years worth of drunk driving fatalities. I would bet that you still willingly get in a private car so you're only fooling yourself. Airline security is already good enough that further encroachments to our actual, enumerated, rights are not necessary.
Flamebait, seriously? This is the only logical comment I've read so far!
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
I general I agree with what you say and your point make sense. However, your analogy is not apt. You do not catch anyone by locking a cockpit door, but the claim is that pat downs WILL/do. Thus asking the TSA to quantify the voracity of this statement seems very sensible as it is certainly quantifiable. If your point is that this will discourage people from taking any such action instead of stoping such action then I fail to see how where the end point of such a line of argument. If those in power assert that this stops terrorist acts and we blindly accept those assertions then we get what we deserve. But I would prefer to sacrifice a little safety on a plane for a great bit of personal freedom on the ground.
"Uselessness of the technology relative to the risk of attack ..." you got it. Well said, and someone mod this guy to +7.
One problem is that the government has to do something to appear proactive. The second problem, though, is that it's limited
1. By intelligence -- most government drones aren't the brightest lights, and politicians are even worse (background concept: imagine that we've placed the guy who thinks the Internet is "a series of tubes" in charge of security). (Or here's a better one, ideal for Slashdot readers: we've put the US Patent office, who can't even decide whether clicking a Web link is a "new and unique invention," in charge of it.)
2. By thousands of restrictions on what it CAN do -- for example, profiling is out, selecting "likely" passengers to be dangerous based on statistics, etc., etc.
My wife works for the government, and we don't know whether to laugh or cry. Every time there's an incident (shoe bomber, underwear bomber, or the most recent, the toner attempt), they go into Code Orange. They have a guy watch me as I wait for her out front at the end of each day (she's unable to drive due to her vision), even though they know me. Why? Because he was Told To Do So(sm). They are Taking Steps(r). They are proving that they are Serious About The Terrorist Threat(c).
(I've often said that, if the government bureau-crazy really had its way, they could stamp out terrorism overnight: they'd simply choke it with paperwork. "Before you may crash this plane into that stadium, you must fill out these forms assessing the environmental impact ...")
Better yet, whenever we go to Code Orange, security carefully checks credentials at the employee's entrance.
At the EMPLOYEE'S entrance. Even though they recognize each other. "Good morning, sweetie! How's your husband?" "Just fine" [hands over id card, puts purse on belt to go through the scanner] ...
Meanwhile, a milling mass of ordinary citizens wraps around the block, waiting in line at the public entrance, some wearing backpacks and carrying large suitcases .. . .. but no one dares do more than a cursory check of these folks, because they'll start screaming and next thing you know, you'll have An Incident(tm) that makes the news.
There you go. A Crisis occurs, government hurls paperwork, makework and completely (and inexplicably) ineffective procedures in place to give the APPEARANCE that they're doing something. They're the drunk who looks for his keys a block away from where he dropped them because "the light is better" -- writ large.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
I wonder how well this would've gone over in October 2001. We haven't had a genuine terror attack in a long time, so people start getting indignant about security again. Do we really need to have another international calamity for us to start respecting laws that were put in place to keep us safe?
Do you know anything at all about 9/11? The hijackers did not carry their weapons (boxcutters) through airport security. Someone (whose identity has never been determined) smuggled the boxcutters onto the planes for them. So these scans and patdowns would not have helped AT ALL. Learn some history before you start taking my freedoms away from me.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
How about instead of restricting and violating our own citizens over this, we go out and find al Queda wherever they happen to be, and kill them all? I mean, supposedly the US is this horrible imperialistic country which thinks nothing of killing poor innocent foreign civilians... how about we start taking advantage of that? Quit tiptoeing around the Pakistani government and send the entire US army into the border area with an ROE of "shoot anything that moves that ain't ours". If there's caves, fill 'em with poison gas (remember supposedly the US violates the Geneva conventions all the time ANYWAY). If there's objections from the Pakistani government, nuke Karachi. Same for anywhere else terrorists might be hanging out, and that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria.
No? There are some things that the US government shouldn't do, even for the laudable goal of stopping terrorist attacks? Well, then perhaps invasive airport security scans are one of them too.
Have you traveled in Israel? The security procedure works perfectly (so far), but it requires at least 45 minutes more than the US system and would cost a lot more. The questions are also extremely probing and personal.
If you can't handle the thought of someone seeing you nude, then I'd fully support having the option of an Israeli-style interrogation. I have a feeling you'll feel a lot more "invaded" after the interrogation than the body scan, though. You'll forget the body scan in a few minutes, but you'll never forget your travel through Israel.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The TSA has yet to catch a single terrorist before they attempted to commit a crime. Shoe-tosses, liquid bans, enhanced pat-downs, body scanners, and all the other reactive measures implemented by this agency ignore the simple fact that the FAA red teams still have no problems whatsoever to penetrate airport security zones at will. Why would a determined terrorist be any less able to do so?
Given that neither scanners nor pat downs can detect body-cavity contraband, the argument that terrorists cannot carry enough contraband into aircraft at this point to be dangerous is simply absurd. Plus, the TSA has not allocated any additional space to open up more parallel lines of entry into airports. So, all these scanners do is slow down the rate of passage to the point where massive security lines have become more inviting targets than aircraft themselves (Remember Rome/Vienna 1985?).
Lastly, please consider the very real situation in most airports where the so-called porno-scanners are regularly shut down during peak travel periods for the reasons given above. If it's that simple to bypass a scanner, then having the scanners there in the first place is completely pointless. Any terrorist worth his/her salt would simply observe the usual travel/security patterns and plan accordingly.
I always elect for a pat-down screening simply because I do not trust the statements made by the TSA re: the radiation levels being safe and some radiologists seem to agree. What I found particularly interesting in the context of one screening experience is the language used by the TSA - "opt-out". No, I didn't opt-out of security screening, I opted for an alternative screening procedure that is arguably safer since the gloves that the TSA folk wear are also tested for explosive residue. Language is important and the way the TSA is using it is contrary to what is actually going on.
Given the extremes that the TSA has gone to lie to the public (example: we don't save the pictures, except for the 35,000+ we sent to a private contractor), the arrogance that they treat the flying public with (the constant yelling at checkpoints), and the sheer ineffectiveness of the agency at meeting its objectives makes me conclude that the better approach is to scrap the agency, return its employees into the pools of privately-contracted companies that used to do airport security, and accept that 100% safety in flying is simply not possible.
For my job, once I was charged with putting together war game scenarios. In one imaginary game I created, I had a 'terrorist' group completely controlled by another 'imaginary country'. In the situation, the terrorist group destroyed a target of supreme U.S. importance. Our country spent the next 10 years fighting this 'terrorist' group. In the process we virtually bankrupted the country, and eroded all the freedoms that we were supposedly fighting for. In the end it was revealed who the real country controlling the terrorist group was. However at that point the imaginary country in question had just had 10 years of incredible economic and technological expansion. It was literally too strong to fight. The scenario planned to be kind of like the "Kobayashi Maru" scenario in Star Trek 2 the wrath of Kahn, where our little ship puts up a last ditch noble fight in the face of sure death in the hands of overwhelming odds.
However, at the time my superiors decided that my scenario was too unrealistic. Instead we had to keep fighting the imaginary terrorist organization.
--All wars are at their heart economic wars, and sometimes the enemies are not always overseas.
Please provide a list of all terrorists caught by TSA to date. Thanks.
The UK head of Terror. That's all I know offhand.
This has nothing to do with the constitution. A good few people died in a little town called Lockerbie, a hundred miles away from where I'm typing. It was a US aircraft flying from England (different legal system to Scotland), over Scotland, brought down by what appears to have been a Libyan originating bomb. That's outside the influence of the US constitution on almost every count. Bringing an aircraft down does not just affect the country that the flight originated in. If the US removes security scans and planes start coming down then they may find themselves unable to fly through foreign airspace...again, the system evolves around the problem.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
I just want a list. God I love lists!
If a terrorist successfully impersonates a pilot, they don't need to have anything on their person. They have hands on the flight controls and thus can crash the plane. Your life is, in a very real way, in the hands of the pilots on a plane. If they steer the plane to crash, it'll crash the automated systems can't override them. As such it doesn't matter if they also have a knife or something like that because they have control of the plane anyhow.
So the security check for pilots isn't the same as regular people. For them it is an identity check, you need to make sure they are who they claim they are. That makes sense, and is done as far as I know, probably by the airlines themselves. However once identity is established, further checks are stupid.
It would be like the Secret Service checking the Marine guards for weapons. Of COURSE they have weapons, that's the point. What you check isn't if they have a gun, you check to make sure they are who they are supposed to be.
So check the pilot's identity in any way useful, do whatever is needed to make sure they are the person they claim to be. However don't be stupid about the rest. They are the pilot, you have to trust them. If they cannot be trusted, I don't want their hands on the yoke no matter how sure you are they don't have nail clippers or shampoo on their person.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but checking an employee's ID even if you recognise him or her is good practice. When someone is laid off or quits they should have their ID taken and will be removed from the database of employees; checking ID therefore allows you to avoid letting people in who have been allowed in in the past but are no longer allowed, possibly for a reason that would make them a potential threat.
Someone here suggested that "people need to get over being seen naked". I can't find that comment to respond to it because it has (rightfully) been modded into oblivion, so I'll post this as a general response: some of us don't care about being seen naked. Hell, if people are so concerned that I might be smuggling a bomb under my penis (it's not *that* big), I'd go naked all the time; I don't care. The only thing that would bother me is the cold. What *does* bother me is that there are serious health concerns with the scanning machines. I don't know about you, but I've known cancer patients. I've seen some die. It's not pretty, and we shouldn't have to sacrifice our liberty or our health just to FEEL "safe". If anyone needs to "get over" something, the original poster needs to grow a pair and stop being so scared that he's willing to sell out his own country and sacrifice his health to FEEL "safe".
Nathan's blog
An Israeli security expert like Rafi Sela, who told the Canadian Parliament that the strip search machines are "useless".
"Sela, former chief security officer of the Israel Airport Authority and a 30-year veteran in airport security and defence technology, helped design the security at Ben Gurion."
"checking an employee's ID ... is good practice."
Of course it is. I never said otherwise. What I was contrasting, though, was the treatment meted out to employees and their families vs. ordinary "folk" coming in through the public entrance. They pass through scanners, of course, and are told that certain items are prohibited, but that's about it. But the government can't do truly invasive searches on these people because it would cause an outcry.
That's why I used the example of the drunk looking for his keys "where the light is better." Government boffins take the path of least resistance.
There are a number of ways in which security could be enhanced at airports, but many of them are Politically Unacceptable. As a result, honest, ordinary folks like yours truly must suffer. These invasive scanners are a good way to demonstrate that the government is doing something. Obviously, someone (perhaps Napolitano herself) ruled that they were Politically Acceptable -- certainly far more so than stopping and searching a passenger named "Achmed" from Yemen or Iran.
On the "path of least resistance" principle, by the way, it should come as no surprise that Napolitano and her boffins seem to be genuinely puzzled and dismayed by the outcry. I guess they routinely subject themselves to high-radiation scans that render them naked, and figure, "what's the big deal?" :)
By the way, the best example of political correctness run amok is the idea of completely random searches. Every "nth" entrant must be stripped to the bone, regardless of the likelihood that they might actually be carrying something nefarious. I guess the idea is that terrorists (who doubtless are capable of instant, high-level math calculations in their heads) realize that there is a small, but finite, chance that they'll be searched. In real life, what happens is that Richard The Shoe Bomber makes it onto the plane, whilst granny is spread-eagled on a steel table being probed by government boffins wearing latex gloves.
(In case you missed that, the intelligence of the average terrorist is approximately equivalent to that of a small pet. If the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting a different result, then they truly are insane. One almost wishes they'd try something different; the "attack the air travel industry!" angle has been worked to death by these geniuses.)
So, even though my wife and I will be flying over Thanksgiving, I just take all of this in stride. I'm Hawkeye, jibing and joking with Trapper John when the next batch of government lunacy comes down from above. My life goes on, and one's best response is just to laugh at it. (When possible. If they start groping my wife, however, I shall become famous. You will read about ME on the evening news.)
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
...Bush put in place these policies...If Obama or Clinton were in office in 2001 they would have done the same thing...
And that's precisely why there is no "left/right" issue outside of mass media propaganda. Also note there is no "left" in the American government. There is only power and authority and various methods of acquiring it.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Actually,THE law says that they can't make a law like that at all. I really don't understand why everyone seems to think the constitution doesn't apply if you have a long way to go and a short time to get there.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
IMHO involved parties in a conflict should be named after their goals, not (one of) their of tactics.
Your definition applies to almost every participant in armed conflict in history, and
certainly to the armed forces of all the major powers. As a mental exercise, imagine asking everybody in the world (anonymously/confidentially) if they considered themselves to be "terrorists".
I don't think anybody would consider themselves so.
External labeling and over-simplification will lead us no nearer to real solutions.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Careful when you throw such statements around eg "muslims have been taught to hate jews." I certainly wasn't. I also know plenty of Muslims who grew up in jewish neighborhoods of Brooklyn. Maybe you could be more specific, such as "Saudis have been taught to hate jews" rather than imply that the billions of Muslims are all that way
Only if they can figure out after the plane comes down, exactly how the explosives got on board.
We seem to be concentrating on the threats that failed.
> I have no problem answering a few questions about where I was and where I'm going
I do.
Where I've been, where I'm going, and why; are my business, not yours. And unless I, myself, am a suspect of a specific crime; it's no business of law enforcement* either. And if I AM a suspect in that crime, they damn well better cough up a lawyer for me before asking their questions. You remember things like "probable cause" and "presumed innocent until proven guilty" and your Miranda rights?
(*And let's not forget that the airport security goonsquad aren't even real law enforcement officers. They're just glorified rent-a-cops wearing a fake uniform.)
Imagine all the people...
A dermatologist might very well need to see every inch of you.
Although when I went to a new dermatologist and he asked me to strip my response was, "I'd prefer not to."
He shrugged, said 'ok', and just examined me above the waist.
(don't ask what I was wearing below the waist.. lets just say I hadn't planned on a full body examination for a neck issue)
I'm not scapegoating anybody. I'm not trying to start a flame war. I am not trolling. I stated a simple, objective fact in neutral, non-judgemental terms. Many Muslims resent the US because we are perceived to be the friend of their enemy. In no way does that mean it is the Israelis' fault, or in any way judges their actions.
This predates the Afghani/Iraqi causes of resentment that the GP refers to. My point was simple - our relationship with the Islamic world has been poor for a long time, for reasons that existed prior to the Soviet-Afghan and Iran-Iraq conflicts.
As for your statement that they can't even get along with themselves, consider the Christian-on-Christian violence in Northern Ireland which is only now subsiding. Political violence along sectarian lines is nothing unique to Islam.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Yes, and all those terrorists saw the TSA policies, and decided to instead live out the rest of their lives peacefully, instead of simply plotting to commit terror in other ways against the thousands of other possible targets.
Come on, really, imagine you were a terrorist, and wanted to destroy the infidel, do you really honestly think you'd be incapable of imagining anything other than an aeroplane as a target? Really? You would just give up, and say "oh dear, the TSA has foiled us completely, praise Allah"?
The fact is there aren't that many terrorists. If there were, there would be trains and malls and e.g. tourist hotspots exploding every other month in the US. But, terrorists do exist and always will. The primary question is finding an appropriate balance of safety (true additional safety, not security theater) versus the cost (both financial, and in terms of public inconvenience and humiliation etc.). If money were infinite we could have the luxury of adding as many security policies as we want, the reality is not only is money not infinite, but we are in difficult times.
Why? Because the hole in our security that the terrorists identified and used was that heavy aircraft make excellent kinetic strike warheads. In order to exploit this, they must obtain control of the aircraft. If we isolate the flight crew, this is no longer possible. The button further ensures that no relationship with the pilot can be used to leverage control, even to the point of flying over a certain area at a certain time.
The end result would be a security state not unlike that prior to 9/11; very low risk of hijacking, because the rewards are also very low.
What pisses me off the most is the government's presumption not that the best solution would be found in crushing the liberties of US citizens, but that their idea is that any solution was to be found there.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I do not fly anymore, because from what my friends tell me, if a TSA agent did some of the things that are patently criminal to half the guys crotches and ladies breasts, I would give the individual a knuckle sandwich.
After which they arrest me, I would try to do the same to the pompous judge who fined me.
There is absolutely no way I am going through a body scanner, unless they put a bullet between my eyes.
Then they can willy nilly my corpse through the thing as many times as they want.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
We need volunteers to:
1) stand at the TSA line and hand out leaflets explaining why the TSA is sucks.
2) get interrogated by TSA officers and removed from the airport.
3) try to fly and find they're on the no-fly list.
4) sue.
And people to fund this effort.
How we know is more important than what we know.
But until dubya decided to get his jollies by launching himself a couple o' wars
Bush invaded Iraq on the information he had at the time. That information turned out to be false (my money says someone grabbed the warheads and bolted before/during the initial invasion given the ridiculous amount of warnings they were given, but the fact is I don't know). 9/11 was a rude awakening for him and made him take a good look at the world's preeminent threats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_Massacre
http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/iraqfocus1.pdf
http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/hrdossier.pdf
Let's hope those will convince you what an evil scumbag he was and how the world is better off without them. And if you're still wondering about the al-Qaeda connection, they had a base in Anbar province.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Anbar_Governorate
If I were him, I'd have invaded sooner, with or without WMDs. Nevertheless, I believe that Bush is a good and honorable man and I will defend him until I'm dead.
The American public just bought into what the terrorists were selling, and the country will take many years to recover its senses.
Liberty is risky! Freedom is dangerous! Embrace the consequences, because the price is more than fair.
I really wish people would stop saying "America has succumbed to fear!" when in reality it's not the majority of Americans, it's just the elected and unelected officials in the Federal government that have succumbed to fear, the fear of responsibility. Airlines are afraid of being sued into the ground by families of airline-related terror attacks, and so the Government puts these security theatrics in place to allay those fears. Most Americans are now of a mindset to take out anyone who tries to take over a plane, even if it's only because they don't want to be held up from getting to their destination any more than they already are. We won't get any change in the security theatrics anytime soon, at least not until we start electing adults to the governments, Federal and state.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
We will never know the answer to that.
Let's look at the major terror attacks that has been carried out and see if the new screenings would have prevented them.
Let's start with the biggest one of all: 9/11. The answer is 'NO'. Neither backscatter screening, nor metal detectors, x-ray machines or enhanced pat-downs would have stopped the carbon fiber box cutters which were used to kill the pilots on the four 9/11 hijacked airplanes. Sure, the air marshals and the locked cockpit doors would make it harder to take over the planes but it is still possible, especially if you are 4 hijackers.
How about Lockerbye? - A bomb in the cargo hold? - Well, sure they screen checked luggage but do they screen the airport employees well enough? - Here's an example: Heathrow in London did an extra screening and found no less than THREE employees who were illegal aliens, i.e. working without proper papers and permits. None used false documentation; they just didn't check anything when they were hired. All three had access to both checked luggage and the secured areas around the planes. It would be childsplay for one of them to place a bomb on a plane. Oh, and all three were from 'high risk countries' in the muslim world... Oh, and recently Al-Queda tried the simple thing of sending the bombs as air freight and it worked like a charm...
So much for the security theater at the airports...
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --