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.'"

49 of 647 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please provide a list of all terrorists caught by TSA to date. Thanks.

  2. Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. by kobotronic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Keeping what safe? A gaggle of meekly surrendering sheep, or a nation of free people?

  3. A non-partisan no-brainer by jhigh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:A non-partisan no-brainer by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe I'm just shamelessly immodest, but I support these scanners if they can be shown to speed up the process of checking in. People need to get over being seen naked - do they avoid the doctor's office as well?

      You are shamelessly immodest. For a lot of people, being naked is an emotional thing, and while they can suck it up when it needs to happen with a doctor, they should not be forced to disrobe for some random TSA employee who really has no job qualifications at all.

      We live in a world where airplanes attract way more than their fair share of terrorism - we need to accept that fact

      Really? When last I checked, terrorists were also attacking federal buildings, abortion clinics, and meat packing plants, right here in the United States. Worldwide, terrorists seem to be attacking markets, schools, government buildings, and so forth. Airplanes are a bit rare in terms of terrorist attacks, probably because of the large amount of security and the difficulty in pulling off a successful attack.

      We can't pretend that people won't try to bomb airplanes, even if there are much easier ways to kill people

      You know what would be a really easy target? That giant line right near the security checkpoint at the airport. A terrorist looking to kill a lot of people would probably choose that target over an airplane, we practically handed it over to them. Attacking security checkpoints is not exactly unheard of; it happens in the middle east fairly regularly.

      Terrorists don't go after low-hanging fruit... they go after the spectacular.

      Completely false, take a look at the reports of attacks in Israel, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Afghanistan, and any of the other of dozens of countries that have problems with terrorists. Take a look at the terrorist activities here in the United States some time, and see how much low hanging fruit is attacked.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:A non-partisan no-brainer by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's only a "gross violation" if you are forced to do it. There is an opt-out.

      Yeah, and in some cases opting out means being ejected from the airport without being allowed to board your flight, and even threats of $10,000 civilian fines. Here are just a few recent reported incidents:

      TSA encounter at SAN

      Woman Says She Was Cuffed And Booted From Airport For Questioning Body Scanners

      Pregnant Traveler: TSA Screeners Bullied Me Into Full-Body Scan

      Even pilots are being ejected from airports for refusing to submit to the scanners:

      Pilot who refused body scan at Memphis International blasts TSA security

      Sorry, but if even a pilot can't opt out of going through the scanners then either something is severely broken in the system or the whole opt-out argument is complete bunk.

    3. Re:A non-partisan no-brainer by jhigh · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was managing the campaign of a United States Senate candidate that actually read the health care law and was a rabid opponent of it, holding town hall meetings all over the state educating voters about how bad the bill was. Why, what were you doing, complaining about it on Slashdot?

      --
      Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
    4. Re:A non-partisan no-brainer by mother_reincarnated · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's only a "gross violation" if you are forced to do it. There is an opt-out.

      Your opt-out is to have someone actually touch you in a way that anywhere else (save while under arrest) would result in punching or macing the attacker. This isn't because you failed a non-invasive screening procedure, it's because you don't want to take your clothes off.

      Maybe I'm just shamelessly immodest, but I support these scanners if they can be shown to speed up the process of checking in.

      It is literally an order of magnitude slower than standard screening. You have to stand still with your arms raised for at least 15 second after they start the scan. Then you need to stand and wait for the "all clear" over the radio. Or you need to wait for someone to take like a minute to make a rucus about you opting out and then explain the procedure you're about to go through.

      We live in a world where airplanes attract way more than their fair share of terrorism - we need to accept that fact. We can't pretend that people won't try to bomb airplanes, even if there are much easier ways to kill people.

      Nobody has proved that an undergarment bomb can be effective at bringing down an airliner. Besides what stops an up the ass or breast implant based device?

    5. Re:A non-partisan no-brainer by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Informative

      do they avoid the doctor's office as well?

      If you have to strip naked when you go to the doctor, there's something wrong and you should get another doctor.

      We live in a world where airplanes attract way more than their fair share of terrorism - we need to accept that fact

      The US hasn't really had any significant experience of terrorism. We had it for decades in the UK, thanks to the Irish Republicans (and indeed the various loyalist groups, although they mostly kept themselves to NI without going into the rest of the UK). We didn't find it necessary to strip-search everyone who went into a hotel, or onto a train.

    6. Re:A non-partisan no-brainer by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We live in a world where airplanes attract way more than their fair share of terrorism..

      No we don't. We live in a world where cowards like yourself believe that despite the massive weight of evidence.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    7. Re:A non-partisan no-brainer by lbgator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But I'm glad you brought up Israel. Israel is perhaps the only country more despised in the Arab world than the US, and yet Israel has never had anyone blow up an airplane. Have you ever been through Israeli airport screening? There is a very good reason for it, and it has (so far) worked flawlessly.

      It sounds to me like you are using Israel as an example of why we should use the scanners. I've read in various news outlets that Isreal doesn't use the "naked scanners" because they don't work because they are ineffective and invasive. I've been through the Tel Aviv airport three times this year (and twice in through land crossings); I can say without a moment's hesitation that they are far less physically invasive than our TSA. No doubt Israeli security is very good... they absolutely do not fuck around with security, and they don't use the standard TSA tactics. That should tell you something.

      I think you're right though - we should emulate Israel as they are far better at security than us. Step one: get rid of the kabuki dance and employ measures that are actually effective.

      Bonus quote: "I don’t know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines (they are useless). I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747, that is why we have not put body scans our airport." - Rafi Sela, Israeli security expert who designed the security in Israel’s largest airport.

    8. Re:A non-partisan no-brainer by rainmouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No one is forcing you to go through a scanner but yourself.

      That's hardly true. If it was one specific Airline that had the scanners then I would agree with you, but it not, it is the actual airports meaning you have no choice.

      For example: If I wanted to travel from London to New York the options are a 300 pound flight taking around 7 hours or a trans-Atlantic ferry which taking 8 days and costing 1500 for a shared cabin or 2000 pounds for a single cabin. Are you seriously going to tell me me this is a viable and competitive alternative transport arrangement?

      I hole heartedly disagree with you, people are indeed being forced through these scanners.

    9. Re:A non-partisan no-brainer by RobNich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...the TSA is a government agency, but you are electing to travel by air on a private carrier.

      This has nothing to do with liberty, as any true Libertarian would tell you.

      As a true Libertarian, I can tell you that you're wrong.

      Neither I, nor the airline, hired these goons. If I'm flying a on a private carrier, through locally-owned airports (usually owned by the county or city, NEVER owned by the Federal government), the airline should be free to hire their own security force and institute their own procedures. They are not.

      It's entirely about liberty. And the TSA is destroying those private airlines' business by making it unpleasant to fly.

      Doesn't the Federal government own the majority of Amtrak (only passenger train company left in the US)? Interesting that they're making it hell for the airlines to exist. (The conflict of interest reminds me of the Federal government owning a large stake in General Motors and then causing a huge PR problem for Toyota, their largest competition, almost immediately. And it's not about foreign or domestic: both are manufactured in the US.)

      How long until a terrorist targets a train? For that matter, a terrorist wouldn't need to get past security, all they'd have to do is target the airport itself, including the enormous line of people waiting to get through security. This entire fiasco is a waste of money, and it's destroying both our citizens' expectation of privacy and the airline industry at the same time.

      --
      Hello little man. I will destroy you!
  4. Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. by windcask · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As soon as you provide a list of terrorists discouraged from boarding planes in the first place because of elevated security policies.

  5. Since you have to raise your hands... by wiredog · · Score: 4, Funny

    and take off your belt while going through the scanner, my plan is to wear loose pants and go commando.

    1. Re:Since you have to raise your hands... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm leaning towards wearing a kilt.

      I have done this. Not in the US, but the are a couple of practical issues:

      1) kilt pins, stow them in your luggage and make sure to stay out of wind until you can out it back on. Three inches of pointy metal won't make you popular, and the pin weighs down the apron part of the kilt, so, use your imagination
      2) the buckles, most of my kilts have 2-3 buckles made of metal
      3) the sporran, mine has a chain and metal snaps
      4) sitting in an airplane seat in a kilt is a tricky issue, especially if you are a little rounder like me and want to be sure not to give a show
      5) don't even think of the dagger in your sock, and even the kilt flash on your socks have buckles
      6) depending on what you wear for footwear, unlacing your shoes/boots could be tricky. I wear Doc Martens with my kilt, so there is some work involved.
      7) my utilikilts have about 10 snaps. All metal.

      However, the pat down procedure could be hilarious ... Just hoist up the kilt and show the whole damned airport. Of course, that will get you arrested for a different reason.

      Happy kilting.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  6. Meet "The Resistance" by BadEvilYoda · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."

    1. Re:Meet "The Resistance" by garcia · · Score: 4, Informative

      Their counter resistance is a threat of a $10,000 civil suit after their own agents tell you to leave the airport: http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

  7. Be safer than sorry when it comes to cancer by kaptink · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Be safer than sorry when it comes to cancer by dcollins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agree with all of that. But the point of civil disobedience is not to make life immediately more comfortable for yourself. Home of the brave, indeed.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  8. False dichotomy by michaelmalak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Won't work by Totenglocke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Won't work by dcollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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."

      Totally disagree. Organized public action is necessary to get results.

      The point isn't to annoy the TSA so much. The point is to get the other passengers thinking about and discussing the issue. (Website's 1st line: "OptOutDay.com is an educational outreach campaign, designed to get people to better understand what they are now consenting to when they purchase a plane ticket.") Private, invisible, personal non-purchases will not serve to publicize the issue among the electorate.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  11. Conservative issue too. by AnonymousClown · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Hello Teabaggers and my fellow Government conservatives! These scanners are just one big pile of stinking pork AND it's a violation of our beloved Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>The Fourth Amendment:

    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

    1. Re:Conservative issue too. by Alioth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps the new motto ought to be: Land of the sheep, home of the scared?

      US paranoia has reached an incredible level. Yesterday I was in Madrid Barajas airport to travel to Liverpool, and there were automatic announcements advising passengers should turn up at the gate for US-bound flights an hour and a half before the boarding time of the aircraft to make it though enhanced security. If you have luggage to check I suspect you now have to turn up at the airport 3.5 to 4 hours before the actual departure time for a US bound flight.

    2. Re:Conservative issue too. by tick-tock-atona · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At this stage, most democracies around the world are more free than the US.

      This cognitive dissonance of declaring yourselves the "land of the free, home of the brave" is quite astonishing given that:

      How the hell are you people not making a bigger noise about these three egregious violations of your liberty?

    3. Re:Conservative issue too. by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Europeans don't do this. They don't even allow the scanners!

      Actually the Europeans do allow scanners, and claim that 95% of passengers approve of them:

      Manchester Airport body scanners in all three terminals

      Besides, if an international airline flight originates abroad and lands in the US, then the TSA forces the originating airport to jump through all sorts of security theater hoops. Back in 2004 I flew to New Zealand & Australia. My flight back was from Brisbane to San Diego. At the Brisbane airport the flight departed from the very last gate in one of the concourses. I got there a couple hours early due to the timing of my connecting flight, so I went to the gate, sat down, and started reading a book. About 2 hours before the flight a group of about 5 security agents showed up and had everybody leave the departure area - moving to the next-to-last gate in the concourse. Once our departure area was vacant they roped it off, put on rubber gloves, and started searching the entire area. They searched under the seats in the departure lounge, inside the trash bins, around the gate agents desk, etc. Once they had swept the gate area all but one went on board the aircraft and I assume did a fulls sweep of it as well. After that was done they allowed passengers back into the waiting area, but they screened our passports as we returned. I asked one of the screeners what this was all about, and they told me that it was solely because the destination of the flight was inside the USA and therefore USA regulations required the additional screening.

      Anybody with even a tiny bit of intelligence could see how useless all this security theater was. If I was a terrorist and wanted to hide a bomb in the airport I'd simply hide it in the waiting area of the next gate and detonate it when the security sweep is going on since all the passengers would now be in that waiting area. Or if I was going to smuggle weapons or anything else on board the plane then I'd have them hidden elsewhere in the concourse for me to pick them up. Unless the screeners search the ENTIRE concourse then a sweep of just one departure lounge is a complete waste. But it was a requirement forced on them by the USA.

  12. Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. by gantzm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  13. Also known as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Also known as "National Get-Added-To-The-No-Fly-List Day"

  14. Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. by selven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. You are on a limb by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I moderate quite a lot, perhaps because I try to be fair and presumably get good meta-moderation. I've reviewed your posting history, out of curiosity, and the moderation looks quite normal to me.

    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."
  16. Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. HOW TO END TSA NONSENSE AND BE A GOOD AMERICAN! by Greymoon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

    1. Re:HOW TO END TSA NONSENSE AND BE A GOOD AMERICAN! by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Children are allowed and encouraged to cry.

      You mean sort of like this?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TCHSGvNwRY

      I seriously doubt too many parents will let their children get traumatized like this when they realize what a TSA pat-down of a small child will likely result in.

    2. Re:HOW TO END TSA NONSENSE AND BE A GOOD AMERICAN! by grumling · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Put your children in T-shirts that say "The Federal Government is afraid of me" or "The government thinks I'm a terrorist."

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  18. Re:Security Theater Showdown by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  19. Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. by h00manist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/
  20. Yep, there are four things to do by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  21. Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. by naz404 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."'

  22. The pilot thing shows how stupid it really is by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The pilot thing shows how stupid it really is by robot256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My kingdom for a mod point, this is probably the most obvious stupidity of the TSA. Why the fuck would a pilot need a bomb? He has one already! The only reason it could possibly be a problem is if he was in cahoots to take down a *different* plane--hand off the bomb itself to the suicide freak after the checkpoint, and he could do a couple of them before getting caught. But even so, it's a lot of work to become a certified pilot--a lot more than showing up and asking "how to fly a big plane, no worry how to land". I think it would be easy to argue that the pilots should be trusted MORE than the TSA agents themselves.

  23. Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
  24. Re:Flying != basic human right. by burris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Flying isn't a right but being secure in our persons from unwarranted and intrusive searches is.

    Personally, I would rather fly on an aircraft where I know that everybody, myself included, had been scanned. What about my rights?

    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.

  25. Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. by smpoole7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.
  26. Please Scrap the TSA and start over by Constantin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  27. Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please provide a list of all terrorists caught by TSA to date. Thanks.

    The UK head of Terror. That's all I know offhand.

  28. But how would that matter? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  29. ALWAYS OPT-OUT - for your health by npsimons · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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".

  30. Re:The privacy/security scale tips again. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > 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...