Slashdot Mirror


Bruce Schneier vs. the TSA

An anonymous reader writes "Bruce Schneier has posted a huge recap of the controversy over TSA body scanners, including more information about the lawsuit he joined to ban them. There's too much news to summarize, but it covers everything from Penn Jillette's and Dave Barry's grope stories, to Israeli experts who say this isn't needed and hasn't ever stopped a bomb, to the three-year-old girl who was traumatized by being groped and much, much more." Another reader passed along a related article, which says, "Congressman Ron Paul lashed out at the TSA yesterday and introduced a bill aimed at stopping federal abuse of passengers. Paul’s proposed legislation would pave the way for TSA employees to be sued for feeling up Americans and putting them through unsafe naked body scanners."

49 of 741 comments (clear)

  1. Biggest legal issue, IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    how is scanning teenagers not considered manufacturing CP?

    we all know the images will be saved, they have to be. After all, what kind of security outfit would not want the capability to go back and look at the images after a future terror attempt happens? Of course they'll want to go back and review surveillance footage and these images, to see if they need to change thresholds or procedures, to see if/what they missed.

    So given that it's a given they are saving them for forensics purposes (and perhaps for evidenciary purposes if a terrorist was brough to trial), isn't this the outright manufacture of child porn?

    1. Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm more concerned with the reports of "enhanced patdowns" used on underage children. Having an image like that on some government computer is nasty, but unlikely to cause any lasting harm to the kid as long as it never leaks out into the wild (which is a real possibility, I'll grant).

      However, what does it tell the child when a government employee is allowed to touch them in areas their parents have been telling them all their lives no one but the doctor is allowed to touch them? While the parents stand by powerless to do anything about it? In full view of hundreds of other people? Are we supposed to amend what we tell our children to "no one can touch you there, unless they happen to have some kind of perceived authority over you or if they're wearing a uniform"?

    2. Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not with regards to child pornography. Possession, period, is 100% of the law.

    3. Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean like the case where a mother was charged with child pornography for taking pictures of her infant/toddler child taking a bath?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      how is scanning teenagers not considered manufacturing CP?

      For the same reason that the "pat-down" isn't considered sexual assault: because the government is doing it.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    5. Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please do not use the "think of the children" defense. It is as bad as the "think of the terrorists" excuse they are using.

      I am of legal age. I do not want to be felt up by a stranger. That should be enough to NOT do it. No need to use children as an excuse to stop something that is bad.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope. In reality, the damage is done before the Jury even gets their say.

    7. Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO by Nethead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The funny thing is that Nixon, the bane of the 70s era Democrats, would have be branded a socialist by today's GOP.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    8. Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO by sfkaplan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "think of the children" defense is perfectly applicable here. It is not just a superfluous use of children's issues to misdirect people from the real issue; here, patting-down children causes real harm, and draws people's attention to the primary issue itself. I agree that the groping of adults should be enough to stop this behavior on the part of the TSA, but the role that children play in this situation is different and compelling. As the GP pointed out, not only are these pat-downs useless when used on children, but they also monstrously undermine healthy efforts to teach children to protect their own bodies. The practice on adults is offensive and useless; on children it is perverse, reprehensible, and cruel.

      Moreover, be practical: The hardest part of fixing this problem is getting the attention of beauracrats, which means getting the attention of the public and media for long enough for those beauracrats "care". Highlighting that children are being needlessly affected here, and that the TSA is removing children from their parents' control, are real problems that get the attention needed to fix the problem.

    9. Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO by Psychotria · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And why shouldn't she have pasted it on facebook? In my parent's photo album there are heaps of photos showing me as a child naked in the bath. They've shown these photos to heaps of people. Not on facebook, but facebook didn't exist back then. Are they child pornography? Of course they're not fucking pornography. They are photos of me as a child in a bubble bath with my brother taken by a parent who loves us both. I was never molested or treated badly. If you choose to view innocent photos in a sexual manner than that is your fucking problem. There is and was nothing sexual in these photos of me and surely to be considered "pornography" there has to be some sexual intent. The fact that you consider that putting them on facebook immediately makes the photos pornographic in nature just says to me that you're as stupid, ignorant and downright idiotic as the rest of the people who think it's pornographic. Fuck you. Thanks.

  2. What is wrong in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is that a country founded on the ideological rejection of tyranny is creeping ever closer to the text book example of abuses of power?

    1. Re:What is wrong in America? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's like with Ancient Rome...it becomes stale and one day you have to reboot. Any volunteers to board Juneflower?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:What is wrong in America? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is that a country founded on the ideological rejection of tyranny is creeping ever closer to the text book example of abuses of power?

      Why? That's an easy question to answer: because we're human. They're the classic reasons: greed, power, money, etc. There are a lot of people getting paid for the TSA to be so big, and a lot of people in a lot of positions of power. Because people are people, corruption comes out of that.

      The question isn't "why", because the answer is always the same. The question should be "is anyone doing anything about it?" Thankfully, it appears that finally this major issue is receiving the type of response that it should. This is obviously a breach of fourth amendment rights, and the Israelis have proven that it's possible to have a higher level of security with a minimal level of interference, without simply outright violating people's rights in the name of security. Everyone needs to continue pressure to figure out a way to make air travel secure while not violating everyone's rights, because it's obviously possible and just not happening.

      It seems to me like "grope them" is the reaction you get when you can't think of anything better, so there might be some problems with the people making these policies.

      The fact that people are at least starting to stand up against those policies and for their rights is the right reaction and it's reassuring to see it finally happening. That's what makes this country strong: not the fact that we can stop everything from happening, but the fact that we change it if it does.

      Ben Franklin said it best:

      "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  3. Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's been a while since the 9/11 attacks, and maybe later updated information was hidden back in the classified ads of my newspaper - but I thought that the consensus was the 9/11 hijackers did not bring their boxcutters onto the plane with them. So these increasingly intrusive TSA make-work tactics would have had zero effect on the worst terrorist attack in US history.

    Not to mention that, post 9/11, passengers and crew realize now that modern-day hijackers are mainly interested in killing everyone on the plane. So in the attempts that have followed, passengers and/or the crew have successfully thwarted those attempts. That's the real solution - an aware public.

    These silly "solutions" the TSA keeps rolling out don't seem to be accomplishing anything other than annoying air travelers. If any of these measures had actually demonstrably stopped even one attempted attack, don't you think the TSA would be crowing it from the rooftops?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "in the attempts that have followed the passengers and/or crew have thwarted attempts"

      Exactly. Arm everyone. In Vermont we can carry hidden weapons. We don't need no stinking government permits. You never know if the person you're confronted is carrying a hidden handgun and will whip it out to shoot you. That knowledge makes you a whole LOT more respectful and it means that we have the weapons to take on a terrorists, bank robber, home intruder, etc.

      Lastly, get a dog. Get a lot of dogs. Nobody messes with my dogs. If everyone took a full pack of dogs on the airplanes then we would not have any terror attempts. Merely dog food.

    2. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) by element-o.p. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've heard that old saw so many times before, and it still makes me puke when I hear it. One of the classic examples of an unarmed society with a much lower crime rate is Japan. I *lived* in Japan, for seven years (unlike a lot of the people who parrot that example), and I will guarantee that the lower crime rate in Japan has much, much less to do with whether or not the average citizen is allowed to own a gun, and much, much more to do with culture. The Japanese *do not tolerate* those who break with tradition or societal rules. We Americans practically worship the rebels. The Japanese also don't muck around with criminals. When a suspect is arrested, they are guilty unless proven innocent, and once incarcerated, it's not a trip to the country club (albeit with Bubba in the shower and iron bars in the windows) -- it's sit on your knees on a concrete cell until you are allowed to move, then back on your knees again.

      If you really want to know how disarming the population affects crime rates, compare the crime rates before and after in a single location before and after gun laws are changed, or compare crime rates in cities in, for example, right-to-carry and no concealed-carry states. For example, there is a very interesting graph of the crime rate in Florida before and after it passed a right-to-carry law in 1987 at http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp . In other words, I see your "...concealed weapons has surely made America one of the most respectful places in the world..." and raise you a "Indeed, and the handgun bans in Washington D.C., Chicago and NYC have certainly made them safe places to live!"

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    3. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) by gregrah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you asian or do you have asian relatives? No?

      Actually, yes. But I'm not really sure that matters. I would never be so presumptuous as to assert that having Asian relatives makes me an expert on all things Asia.

      I do have asian relatives who grew up in their native countries before moving to the US, so I'm aware of how they're expected to act

      Define "Asian" in this context. Do you realize that there is an enormous amount of cultural diversity between different countries in Asia? And within a given country as well? If a person in Japan had a *Mexican* relative, would that qualify him as an expert on *American* culture?

      and yes, it IS like a robot - someone who unthinkingly does what they're told by their boss / parent / spouse and "brings shame" if they dare to do what they want instead of what they're told.

      So you are making generalizations about all of Asia based on the few relatives that you know? This is a type of logical fallacy known as a Hasty Generalization. My personal experiences living in Japan directly contradict your claim that Asian people are like robots. I met hundreds of people who I would describe as rebellious, who were doing what they wanted rather than what they were told. Many were way more rebellious than I was growing up in America. So I would say that our personal anecdotes would cancel each other out.

      I would question whether you even understand your relatives as well as you think you do. Your "brings shame" quote sounds like something out of "The Last Samurai" rather than anything that anyobody would *actually* say. Is it possible that you are just projecting a popular stereotype of Asian culture onto your relatives instead of actually getting to know them? If you said to your Asian cousins, "Asians are like robots", what do you think they would say in response? Would they beep affirmatively and walk away? Or might they actually exercise some free will and disagree with you?

      And I've got news for you - Americans do what their bosses, parents, and spouses tell them to do all the time. How is it that when Americans follow orders it is "thinkingly" but when Asians do it, it is "unthinkingly"?

      If we all followed traditions, women would be stuck in the kitchen or relegated to only jobs like being a teacher, nurse, or secretary. Blindly following tradition is the exact opposite of thinking freely. A free thinker says "why" and rejects the notion of tradition for the sake of tradition. You don't understand this though and think that it's somehow possible to combine "no free will" with "free thinking".

      You are putting the word *blindly* in my mouth, and then attacking me for saying that we should *blindly* follow rules and traditions. This is an example of the Straw Man logical fallacy. In reality, I agree with you that we should challenge laws and traditions that are harmful to society. For example, I would support challenging the TSA's new laws requiring passengers to either pass through a backscatter x-ray machine or be pat down before boarding a flight - on the grounds that the law does more harm than good.

      I merely said that sometimes we might choose to *follow* a rule or tradition, without in any way sacrificing our ability to *think* freely.

      You cannot tolerate the notion that someone might choose differently than you do and thus try to insult them and call them moron's simply because they don't bow to your infinite wisdom.

      You just said that Asians are like robots, and your are calling me intolerant?

      I welcome opposing opinions - as long as they have some basis in logical thought. Your arguments do not. If you are going to respond to me again, please try to do so without committing any more

  4. Fear by Infonaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It all started on 9/11, when instead of reacting to the attacks as a matter for coordinated worldwide policing, we elevated those fuckers to the same status as a nation-state and decided to declare war on anyone and everyone who didn't instantly get in line behind us. We stoked our own fear to an insane degree, and it's already boomeranged back on us in so many ways. This is just one more self-inflicted wound in a long line of idiotic mistakes we've made over the last nine years.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Fear by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Terrorism was a police matter when it was Timothy McVeigh blowing up a federal building. The police investigated, tracked him down, and a jury of his peers convicted him. At no point did we put up checkpoints near buildings and grope anyone who wanted to get in. At no point did we have the government pull over and search every vehicle large enough to carry a fertilizer bomb.

      Terrorism is a criminal act and it should be treated as such. When we elevate it to an act of war we not only give the perpetrators far more legitimacy than they deserve, we also fight it with the worst possible tools for the job.

    2. Re:Fear by AnonymousClown · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So, THE only way to prevent terrorism is to have a police state. Search everyone - every where. Meaning, we need to search the vagina and rectum of every little girl because you never know when someone sticks explosive in there. We also need full x-rays to see right through the body because you never know when someone will surgically implant explosives.

      Get it?

      It is impossible to be safe from terrorism.and people really need to get over the idea that it's possible to be completely safe.

      In the meantime, I'm sure you don't hesitate to jump in your car and get on the freeway because that's probably how your going to die and if yo live long enough, it'll be cancer or heart disease.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    3. Re:Fear by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Terrorism is not a police matter. That's the mistake that people have been making for years.

      Of course it is a police matter. Murder was committed, and must be investigated by the police. When Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma, it was a police matter and was handled professionally.

      In 2002 and 2005, when some people used bombs to murder tourists in Kuta Beach (on Bali Island, Indonesia), the Indonesian police tracked down the perpetrators and brought them to justice. Indonesians didn't turn their country into a police state. They just brought murderers to justice. But then, Indonesia has intelligent police who use human intelligence, rather than quoting and following a textbook, to perform police work and interrogate prisoners.

      Calling murderers "terrorists" doesn't change that fact that murder, a criminal act, was committed. An act of war is between two nation-states, not a band of angry nutters and a nation-state. Otherwise, we would be able to send the US Army against the Montana Militia.

      Of course, if you want to argue that we should go after countries that give material support to murderous organizations, then we should have gone to war with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan.

    4. Re:Fear by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, THE only way to prevent terrorism is to have a police state.

      That doesn't prevent terrorism, it just puts the terrorists in uniform.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  5. Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course you have just presented yourself as a person who cares more about someone's party affiliation than the actual content of whatever they are saying. Did you even bother to read - never mind, I know the answer. Just keep voting for your party and hope that things will get better. They won't. What the hell is the point of giving someone a vote when they don't even understand or care what they're voting for? /rant

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  6. I'd feel safer... by MrQuacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would feel safer if we got rid of the TSA and just had one or two fully decked out marines on board each flight. Would be cheaper too...

    1. Re:I'd feel safer... by k2enemy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would feel safer if we got rid of the TSA and just had one or two fully decked out marines on board each flight. Would be cheaper too...

      Even that would be a complete waste of money. After 9/11 passengers know that if the plane gets hijacked they will likely die. The passengers and crew will now prevent a hijacking just as a Marine would. The other easy to imagine threat is that someone tries to blow up the plane. In that case a Marine isn't going to be much help. We would be better off devoting the money to intelligence and investigation.

    2. Re:I'd feel safer... by shimage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If that's the case, then why can't I bring a pocket knife on an airplane?

    3. Re:I'd feel safer... by lanner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Suggesting that passengers would stand up against plane hijackers is absurd. The American public at-large already crapped it's pants and bent over for the federal government when ordered to do so. Why would those same people not cower in fear when confronted directly with any other threat?

      Of course American's are terrorized cowards. They will do anything to have someone tell them that it's going to be alright, that their investments are safe, that their house is worth more than it is, that social security will be around when they retire, and that the plane will land safely if they just do as they are told.

      Want a direct example? Just look at these bus passengers do nothing as an old man is assaulted by some bully:

      http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/11/raymel_curry_sucker_punches_di.php

    4. Re:I'd feel safer... by element-o.p. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yeah, a scared untrained mob vs 4 trained individuals in a small space. Not going t stop a take over of the aircraft.

      Wanna bet? Flight 93, the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber prove otherwise. Yeah, Flight 93 crashed, but the hijackers already had control of the aircraft when the passengers found out what was going down. There are other examples of passengers taking out suicidal hijackers, but most Americans have never heard the stories because they happened elsewhere (I remember reading about a group of passengers who took out a suicidal hijacker in Africa in the mid 90s, but it wasn't CNN that brought the story to me).

      Secure flight deck doors...

      Yes, and we already have that.

      ...and a auto pilot code that can't be turned off is the real way to go. It would make any attempt useless.

      You do realize that the certification requirements for an autopilot state that the pilot *has* to be able to override it, because from time to time, they do fail, right? I will refuse to get on board -- or allow my family to get on board -- any airplane that has an autopilot that the pilot can't shut off, because the odds of a runaway autopilot are far greater than the odds of a terrorist hijacking.

      Mid flight explosion? get rid of the scanner and get a few dogs. Hell, just one dog people have to walk past on their way down the gang plank.

      Yeah, I agree with you there. My dumbest dog is a lot smarter and a whole lot more trustworthy than those goons at TSA -- especially the ones dictating policy.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  7. Oblig. Alpha Centauri quote (best Civ game ever) by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    link

    As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

    Commissioner Pravin Lal
    "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  8. Michael Chertoff needs to be investigated by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    look him up. He has abused and manipulated his relationships with Homeland Security to try and make billions for him and his friends with the naked scanners. Part of the groping is to try and force people to use the scanners so they can sell more of them. Chertoff and Rapiscan Systems need to be indicted.

    1. Re:Michael Chertoff needs to be investigated by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      look him up. He has abused and manipulated his relationships with Homeland Security to try and make billions for him and his friends with the naked scanners. Part of the groping is to try and force people to use the scanners so they can sell more of them. Chertoff and Rapiscan Systems need to be indicted.

      I imagine this will happen right after Bush & Cheney are sent to prison for their ties to Haliburton and other no-bid contract corporations. And *that* will happen right after Henry Kissinger is sent to prison for war crimes.

      In other words, don't hold your breath.

  9. Sadly it took me a while to realize by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your linked article is satire. But I didn't really know if it was satire until I read it through.

    The terrorists have won.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  10. I don't like Ron Paul for a lot of reasons by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but I don't let my dislike for him cloud my judgement of his individual ideas.

    This is a good one; even though his wording in trollish and flamebait worthy.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  11. Re:How is the TSA invasive? by glwtta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Knowingly putting yourself in a situation where your "normal" liberties must be compromised is your choice. You're welcome to take a bus, train, car or boat to your destination instead.

    And the TSA is welcome to go fuck off. They don't get to decide which liberties people must voluntarily compromise in order to fly, or at least that's not how it's supposed to work.

    The idea that anything that's not a fundamental human right can be taken away on the whim of any random government bureaucracy is, bizarre, to say the least.

    The TSA doesn't "own" flying. They are proposing measures that are invasive and fundamentally ineffective, and we're supposed to have a say in whether or not we want that.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  12. Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Upon what do you base claiming that the Austrian School of Economics is "scientifically" discredited?
    Personally, I find using the term "scientific" with regard to any economic theory suspect.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  13. Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He is a Republican who actually BELIEVES in smaller government, who has consistently acted on those grounds, and campaigns for it.

    Really? Then why didn't he introduce a bill forbidding the molestation of passengers and exposure to harmful and ineffective scans? Or better yet, if he really believes in smaller governement he would introduce a bill eliminating the TSA all together since they are a wasteful ineffective agency that has done nothing to make anyone safer.

    Instead he proposes a bill which says, in effect, "if you don't like how you are treated by the TSA you can spend a few hundred thousand dollars trying to sue the Federal Government. This is nothing more than political grandstanding and pretending to be "against big government".

  14. Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! by wolfsdaughter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So what if a corporation dumps waste in the river, exposes workers to a toxic environment, over harvests the ocean or destroys entire species, abuses monopoly powers to destroy competition, or any number of negative externalities?

    Cutting corners and not getting caught (or getting caught but the penalty being less than the gain) can be very profitable. Sometimes the damage being done is hidden long enough that a corporation flourishes. It's not hard for permanent damage to be be done on either a personal or a very large scale. Suing the corporation doesn't really fix the problem.

    Also, corporations have no conscience, no remorse, and basically act like a sociopath.

    Corporations don't have the rights of an individual, they have the privilege of acting as in individual in very specific ways.

    --
    "Are they made from real Girl Scouts?" ~Wednesday Addams
  15. Re:How is the TSA invasive? by Professr3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Honestly, I'm not sure why this is such a big deal - it's as if we (African-Americans) think we have a God-given right to ride at the front of the bus. Yet in everyday life, we must give up certain liberties; when I'm driving on public roads, I don't have the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure by over-zealous law enforcement. But that's OK, because I voluntarily put myself on a bus, or on a public road."

    The government doesn't give us rights. We have the rights inherently. Just because the government says driving on roads that I payed for isn't a right, doesn't mean their position is legally sound. Their unreasonable search and seizure of persons and property at airports is outright illegal under the Constitution. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. The reason it continues is that nobody in power will prosecute them, and courts won't hear criminal cases brought by the general public.

  16. Re:How is the TSA invasive? by iammani · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So how long do you think before, TSA would require a body scan before boarding a bus or a train or a ship? You would still be fine with it, if you were informed in advance, right? One can still take the car or walk or swim, right?

  17. Re:Libertarians are clueless by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They don't know what they want.

    They say they're against regulation, but then they say they want some government interference.

    Make up your mind already.

    The grown-ups have already decided that more government intervention is better than less government intervention.

    Uh .. .what? The "grown-ups" (who I assume you do not number yourself among) have decided that more government intervention is better? Are you nuts? The question is not whether or not we need to reduce the size of Federal Government ... but what parts to cut.

    Don't presume to speak for your betters.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  18. Re:Israeli security solution by loom_weaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have you every been through Ben Gurion?

    It's very effective but it's a pain in the ass compared to US Security.

    Last time it took me a full 3 hours from entering the airport to arriving at the gate to depart. They x-rayed my bags, then hand-searched them, and asked me grilling and misleading questions before I even got to the ticket counter to check-in! Then it was a long wait to get through immigration. Then I got singled out for another x-ray line that _crawled_ along. There was probably a dozen of us in that line and it took 30 mins to get us all through. I think they make you wait on purpose to see if you get nervous etc.

    Effective yes, but I'd hate to have to go through that everytime I want to fly.

  19. Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hey, better the Paulites blow their mod points on an intentionally provocative post than on a sensible, insightful one.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  20. Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! by EllisDees · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, if anybody at all in this thread were talking about having no government. Libertarians are not anarchists.

    --
    -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
  21. Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! by Raumkraut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Companies have the conscience, remorse and morals of those people who control them.
    Companies are not autonomous entities. To perpetuate such a preposterous idea is to absolve those who run companies of any responsibility for their decisions and actions.

  22. Full body scans don't work - body cavity by TheSync · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The full body scans are silly because Al Qaeda has ALREADY used suicide bombers with explosives in their BODY CAVITIES. These are not exposed by full-body scanners that stop at the skin surface.

    From the linked article "Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum." That was 2009.

  23. Re:Libertarians are clueless by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps you missed the whole "Socially Liberal" part, since you keep trying HARD to force libertarians into the tired grooves of either "neocon republican" or "limp wristed spend thrift liberal". Libertarians are not either.

    The libertarian would be FOR government regulation for such things as equal rights. What they are against is regulations saying which kinds of house you can own, or what kind of shirt you can wear on the subway (or what kinds of games you can buy for your kids.)

    It's simple-- Libertarian comes from "Liberty"-- for the most part, anything that increases the liberty of citizens is considered good; Biggotry is not a liberty that is good for the general citizen, because it de-facto implies obstructionism and lack of liberty to a portion of those citizens. Same with Gay marriage (concerning obstructionism being bad).

    If anything, the Libertarian is more likely to suffer the bias AGAINST big business, BECAUSE big business tries to keep people down in general (to prevent competition). Your assertion that Libertarians would support racial biggotry is horribly unfounded, and serves only to highlight your own ignorance of that ideology.

  24. Re:Well, multiple reasons by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "They are not at all clear representations with easy to identify anatomy. They are strange ghostly pictures that are recognizable as a human form but little else"

    This is false. For the one doctored image there are hundreds of real images you can view and the only thing indistinct about them is color.

    "First is because it is not sexual in nature."

    That literally varies from one examiner to the next. Unless you are going to claim that $10/hr barely trained employees with no significant qualifications maintain a perfect professional disassociation from the innate instincts in every human. Even doctors only pretend this and some of them poorly.

  25. Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry, if you are making north of 200k and "have a harder time providing for our family", you ain't doing it right. Cell phones, every cable channel, the new lex in the 3 car garage. If you adjust for inflation that 20k is nice. I make less than half of what you make, and I am living high on the hog. I honestly don't know what you are doing wrong, but you are doing it.

    --
    Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
  26. Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You said the same things I wanted to say, but better. For once, the "Think of the children" mantra is actually reasonable here, and it might actually help to snap people out of their complacency and make them realize how degrading this latest security theatre is. It's one thing to meekly give up all of our privacy and liberty just because the government asks us to, but even BEYOND that, they are now trying to take away our basic dignity. People need to draw the line somewhere and make the TSA realize, enough is enough.

    Imagine you have a teenage daughter. Would you rather: (1) have her be irradiated by a medically-unproven scanning device which will show images of her naked body to the sleazy TSA guys behind the counter, any one of whom might capture that image with his cell phone to wank off to later, or: (2) have her be physically molested by a same-sex TSA employee who will touch her breasts and crotch, in public view in front of other passengers, or (3) have her be physically molested by a same-sex TSA employee who will touch her breasts and crotch, in a private room out of sight?

    All three of these are grossly invasive and unacceptable options. Of course they're grossly invasive and unacceptable for adults too, but it might be easier to make people realize this if they happen to be a parent and you can explain it to them in terms of what is going to happen to their child. After thinking this through, I think any decent parent would be quite angry at the TSA.