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."

8 of 741 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... aaand the fact that he is, amongst other things, also a religious loon who wants to remove the separation of state and religion and that he wants the US government to establish an Official Religion (it would be one of those few very critical remaining functions his much-much-smaller government would perform) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it ... its just all us lazy slouches here trying to avoid "responsibility!" Its a conspiracy of the hippies, I tell you!

  2. Body scans for good bodies by PPH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A few weeks ago, I flew out of Lihue, Kauai. They have one 'scanner'. I guess thats what it is. A fancier version of booth then the usual metal detector that they optionally put people through. As I waited in line, the only person they subjected to the extra scan was one hot looking blonde lady wearing a flimsy blouse, cutoff shorts and flip-flops.

    Where do I sign up for one of these TSA jobs?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  3. Israeli Airport Security folks are professionals by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My employer has a lab in Haifa, and I know a number of folks who have traveled to Israel on business. They have also traveled to the US, post 9/11. They all state that the Israeli security folks are really detectives, who are very intelligent, ask misleading questions and evaluate the responses. All very "human / personal based." They all felt safe when entering the plane.

    The US security seems to be base on technology. You have security folks, who are only capable of identifying a terrorist if the machine beeps.

    This reminds me of how despite all the high tech satellite surveillance of Iraq, the wrong conclusions came out of the US intelligence agencies. Allen Dulles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Dulles ) was much better at recognizing the higher value of "human intellegence" (HUMINT).

    So what am I ranting about? I would rather be grilled a Inspector Columbo at a security check, than scanned by a machine operated by some doofus.

    That would make me feel much safer.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  4. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    John Pistole (head of TSA) tipped his hand when bragging about the effectiveness of the screening.

    His brag is that he has thwarted terrorists, by siezing terror tools such as marijuana and a heroin needle.

    Now, marijuana and a heroin needle will not bring down a plane, so what's really happening here?

    A DEA agent, or police officer, cant run around shoving his hand down everyones pants looking for drugs. Without cause, that would be an illegal search, and the evidence obtained would be useful.

    However, when the illegal search is made privately (I shove my hand down a strangers pants, then call the cops when i find a baggie of weed), the evidence is admissable. I may be charged with assault or something, but the point is the DEA has now made an end run around the 4rth amendment.

    That is what this is. The TSA are *not* police, the search is obstensibly for security purposes, but when they find that baggie of weed, it's turned over to the cops and DEA who do their whole civil forfeiture routine.

    You might remember a scheme to have postal employees 'on the lookout for terror' right after 9/11. Same thing there. The dumb old constitution limits police power, and they fucking hate it.

    The country is bankrupt. They need to sieze more houses, cars, and boats. This is just a loophole through the constitution, and a brand new (illegal) battlefield for the War on Drugs, which is much more profitable than the War on Terror. More people die in a day crossing the road than have ever died of terrorism in the USA. They know there's no real threat.

    So, once this is accepted, the TSA will move the road show to train and subway stations, and then start random roadside searches of cars. Look to see more bullshit agencies created by executive order, to illegally search - i mean safety screen - you in other venues as well. After all, a Phish concert certainly is a decent terrorist target, right? We want all those people to be safe, after all.

    IANAL, and perhaps a real one could clarify what I'm saying, or tell me why I'm wrong.

  5. Searches are a net loss by redelm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The TSA searches are causing greater loss of useable lifetime than terrorists ever could. Each year, about 800 million people have to arrive one hour earlier at the airport to wait in lines and now suffer increased humiliation. Human beings only live for 700,000 hours. The TSA is wasting over 1000 lifetimes each year.

  6. Employer liability - traveller job description by peterofoz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If an employer requires you to travel as part of your job, and it can be argued that the TSA is taking nude photos and utilizing inappropriate touching during pat downs, what liability is an employer exposed to for making regular 'sexual assault' part of your job description?

  7. Re:Wants US government to establish Official Relig by sir1real · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This article is a joke. The writer twists Ron Paul's words around. Ron Paul has never supported government imposed religion. He recognizes that the First Amendment is an injunction against the government. Show me a quote where Ron Paul says, "I want the government to impose religion on people." You can't because it does not exist.

  8. Women are targeted more than men by Dee+Ann_1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On the ABC Evening News they ran a story about how now, women that wear skirts will be taken aside and physically STRIPPED.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4GP_qlJAIA&hd=1 (pay attention starting at about the 2min mark)

    Women with large chests get "special attention" too. I know this as fact from friends.

    I have to fly next year. I have metal implants in my body, broken bones in an accident.
    I set off metal detectors from half a mile away. I also happen to have a large chest.
    I prefer to wear skirts. Though I think I would rather not when I do fly next year.

    I have been warned that because of the metal in my body I will be made to go through enhanced screening which will likely include a PORNO SCAN and a GROPE UP by a thug with a gun and a badge. When they grope you now, they squeeze and manipulate your breasts and they take time to feel your female parts. Each and every little detail of your girly bits, you know, just in case they are like, a bomb?

    With the metal setting off the metal detectors and my chest setting off the, um chest detectors, I know they are going to more or less do the same thing to me a rapist would do, short of penetration.

    This has gotten way out of control.