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."

48 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 Stregano · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am legal, and if they want some naked pictures of a fat man, I will hand them stuff from my portfolio personally. They don't need to try and trick me to get them

      --
      The world is how you make it
    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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The scans have no Pedobear seal of approval.

      They do now.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      In this case, the "think of the children" defense is actually relevant - an adult can legally consent to another adult touching his or her genitals, but a child can't. (Which is not to say that adults should consent to the TSA's groping.)

    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?

  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: 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.

    2. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) by sl149q · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually as the fourth 9/11 plane demonstrates, once the passengers know what the score is they are not going to worry about box cutters. Remember that prior to 9/11 passengers where instructed to play it safe if planes where hijacked. That WAS the safe thing to do until 9/11. After 9/11 it is NOT the safe thing to do and passengers no longer do so.

      Locked cockpit doors and passengers willing to go to the mat are the ONLY two safety measures that increase your safety when flying. The rest is security theater.

    3. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

      It's already happening. Recently a Grateful Dead cover band had their property seized because they failed to provide enough security. I've been there several times and it was, without a doubt, the safest concert environment I have ever been to. There were no friskings because there was no need for it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  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. 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?

  6. 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!

  7. 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.
  8. Catholic priests flock to join TSA by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the wake of Transport Security Administration staff forcing a "full pat-down" on a three-year-old child, Catholic priests have been clamouring to work for the government department.

    The TSA, which has apprehended only slightly less than one terrorist in its nine years of operation, welcomed the new recruits to the fold. "We need people with experience in dealing with young people," said TSA head John Pistole, "in telling people what to do and in making the innocent feel guilty. And the enthusiasm! They're not your typical bored minimum-wager, no way! Also, they have better uniforms."

    Mr Pistole reiterated the patriotic duty that drives the TSA in their work. "Fondling little girls' genitals is vital to protecting America from TERRORISTS. Remember: if TSA staff can't finger your daughter, the TERRORISTS have won!" He then strangled a kitten for our photographer.

    Cardinal Bernard Law returned to America from the Vatican especially for the opportunity to create government-funded child pornography with the new "naked" scanners. "It's top quality stuff, too. The tears, the pain — the things that make this sort of thing really worthwhile."

    "They were nasty men," said three-year-old TSA molestee Mandy Simon. "But it clearly demonstrates the iron necessity of the holy Jihadic destruction of the West. Allahu akbar! Daddy? I done a boo-boo."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  9. Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! by schon · · Score: 4, Funny

    bet they didn't even think to talk to Teller about this.

    I'm pretty sure he wouldn't say anything.

  10. 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!
  11. 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
  12. 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.

  13. 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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
  16. 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?

  17. 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
  18. Libertarians do believe in government by perpenso · · Score: 5, Informative

    You seem quite misinformed regarding Libertarians. Most libertarians do believe in government, regulations, police, fire departments etc. Their complaint regarding government is often that the wrong level is addressing an issue, that state or local levels should be handling a particular issue rather than the federal (national) level; that the causes of various problems vary from region to region and are better addressed at a more local level. They often believe in regulation to the extent that it creates a level playing field and ensures safe products and services. Their complaint regarding regulations is often targeted against overregulation where the goal is societal engineering (for example: more people should own houses rather than rent) or political grandstanding (violent video games for example). They believe law enforcement should prevent one person from harming another (smoking pot while driving ?), but if a person is engaging in some activity that harms no one else they should be left alone (smoking pot at home ?). They also believe that some things are best handled at the national level. For example national defense and interstate regulation and infrastructure. The typical libertarian doesn't seem very deluded.

    Keep in mind that the folks you see on TV are not there because they represent the typical. They are usually there because they represent the most entertaining, or if you prefer the cynical then because they represent the stereotype the producer wishes to portray.

    1. Re:Libertarians do believe in government by deblau · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apparently I'm a Libertarian then. I assume fiscal responsibility is part of the package as well, right?

      Yes. In fact, many people mistake us Libertarians for Republicans because we spend so much time harping on fiscal responsibility.

      Of course, the truth is that we're socially liberal, sometimes extremely so. It's just that issues like rights for gay couples seem so obvious that there isn't much to debate, and complex issues like the national debt are much more fun to argue.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
  19. 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".

  20. 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.

  21. 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?

  22. 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.

  23. Re:Israeli Airport Security folks are professional by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

    Scale doesn't matter. There's no shortage of proven interrogation techniques that work, and they're very easy to learn. I learned the Reid Technique in the span of about a month. Saying it's impossible to train people is a plain copout, and excuse making.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  24. Child porn in my photos?More likely than you think by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.dallasobserver.com/2003-04-17/news/1-hour-arrest/
    http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=14089
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32904451/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts ... oh wait, that last couple wasn't arrested, just had their kids taken away for a month while they decided whether or not to arrest them.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! by jcr · · Score: 4, Informative

    I can see that you haven't read the bill.

    Here's the text of H.R. 6416:

    No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimetre waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual’s body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual’s parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.

    Since this bill explicitly forbids any kind of immunity for the TSA goons, if one of them grabs your crotch, you call a real cop, and file a criminal charge just like you would against anyone else who committed a sexual assault.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  28. 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.

  29. 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.