Slashdot Mirror
A Nude Awakening — the TSA and Privacy
DIplomatic writes "The Oklahoma Daily has a well-written editorial about the current state of airport security. Though the subject has overly-commented on, this article is well worth the read. Quoting: 'The risk of a terrorist attack is so infinitesimal and its impact so relatively insignificant that it doesn't make rational sense to accept the suspension of liberty for the sake of avoiding a statistical anomaly. There's no purpose in security if it debases the very life it intends to protect, yet the forced choice one has to make between privacy and travel does just that. If you want to travel, you have a choice between low-tech fondling or high-tech pornography; the choice, therefore, to relegate your fundamental rights in exchange for a plane ticket. Not only does this paradigm presume that one's right to privacy is variable contingent on the government's discretion and only respected in places that the government doesn't care to look — but it also ignores that the fundamental right to travel has consistently been upheld by the Supreme Court. If we have both the right to privacy and the right to travel, then TSA's newest procedures cannot conceivably be considered legal. The TSA's regulations blatantly compromise the former at the expense of the latter, and as time goes on we will soon forget what it meant to have those rights.'"
will give up any freedoms because they are "supposed to" in order to "be safe".
Other people will argue that speed limits and income tax are a violation of their natural born freedoms and need to be abolished.
Most people just want a sane middle ground. Too bad the noisy people get all the results.
Nothing to see here.
Do not pay attention to the man behind the screen.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Hopefully this TSA stuff that is now coming into the public news is enough for people to start wondering about privacy and act on it in the USofA.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. - Benjamin Franklin
and has always been about making people feel secure.
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, John Pistole said they can't profile because it might not be Constitutional. As opposed to all the other things they're doing which might not be constitutional.
Senator Chuck Schumer proposed a bill to make it illegal to redistribute porno-vision image. Wrong problem, wrong answer. How about: it is illegal and unconstitutional to generate porno-vision images or perform an enhanced patdown without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
It's not about anything other than money. Follow the money. EOM
Stoping a terrorist with a bomb at a crowded TSA security checkpoint is too late.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Directly because it benefit scanner mfgs. Indirectly because it continues to build a culture of fear that can be used for future control.
The TSA will NOT back down on this. The only way it'll stop is if enough people refuse to fly, and let them know why.
BTW here is a good blog from the movie commenter Roger Ebert on this, titled "Where I Draw the Line"
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/11/where_i_draw_the_line.html
A wise man once said..."Those who will sacrifice liberty to obtain security, deserve neither liberty or security."
This wise man happened to be a founding father of the United States of America, Benjamin Franklin.
How far has American society fallen where we choose to travel and enjoy our nether regions being fondled or our bodies being X-Ray photographed leaving nothing to the imagination? This is all based on the unlikely perception a terrorist attack is imminent every where, at any time.
There is *no* explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, or any other doctrine that the USA was founded on. There is a limitation on unreasonable search and seizure, but no explicit right to privacy.
Check out Caroline Kennedy's "The Right to Privacy". A bit dated, but still relevant.
Marco...that was Portugese.
Benjamin Franklin said it best, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It's really bothering me, that in all these things people keep bringing up "the risk of a terrorist attack being so low" as an argument against security measures.
Being against them because of privacy concerns or basic rights, that makes a ton of sense and is a great argument. But to me it's absurd to claim that we should drop security measures that may be preventing terrorist attacks because of the rate of said attacks being so low. As in, we have no idea how likley they are wihtout these measures.
You can argue that most things are security theater and that is true. But even theater can be a deterrance, as in WWII when they used sets of false tanks and things to make the Germans think we had materials we really didn't have.
Similarily we all know you could probably slip something past security as it is today. But there's a chance to cannot as well because of all these measures, and why would someone attack if there was a decent chance they'd never get a chance to actually do anything?
Security measures have gone to far, no question. So lets make sound arguments for rolling them back to things that make the most sense. But don't pretend you know exactly what risks will be like after you change the whole system. There's no need.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It used to be that there were three different tests for determining whether some government action that, on the face of it, appeared to violate one's rights, was nevertheless permissable. There was the "rational basis" test, which allowed the government to perform the rights violation if it could show there was some rational basis for doing so. There was the "strict scrutiny" test which insisted the government have some compelling interest in doing whatever the law was doing, and that there be no better way to do it. This was applied to certain rights considered particularly fundamental, like freedom of speech, religion, and the press. And there was the "heightened scrutiny" test somewhere in between, which tended to show up in equal protection cases.
Now we have the "irrational basis" test, replacing all three, which says that if the government can come up with any scenario where allowing their violation might be good, or any scenario where protecting the right implicated might cause harm, no matter how implausible and farfetched, the government's action is allowed.
Personally I find strict scrutiny to be insufficiently strict, and prefer the "rights are rights" test, but I'm one of those wild-eyed radicals.
Just dump PC (Political Correctness) already. If you're from a short list of countries, or you're an American convert to Islam, you get a pat-down. Discrimination? No. It's just the profile of a terrorist. If middle-aged Caucasian Catholic men start lighting their underwear on fire, pat them down too.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
'The risk of a terrorist attack is so infinitesimal and its impact so relatively insignificant that it doesn't make rational sense to accept the suspension of liberty for the sake of avoiding a statistical anomaly.
Your fancy statistics and rational thought got no place in American politics and national policy. Not these days anyway. Right now Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are more popular than Stephen Hawking and James Watson. Good luck preaching about statistics to the populace that is justifying these privacy violations with fear!
My work here is dung.
Wil Shipley posted a (ficticious) interview with the TSA that I think covers the problem perfectly.
There was also a post on Reddit today that pointed out that the TSA would save more lives (statistically) if all they did was listen to people's hearts, check their blood pressure, and refer them to a doctor if it was outside the normal range.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Right to travel and right to travel by the most inefficient and unstable means possible are two different things.
If you want to argue about right to travel and privacy, get the border guards off our backs.
This is not about the right to travel; it's about the desire to make a month's journey in two hours and share the transportation cost with 280 other people (and get a snack and a movie cuz it's sooooo booooooringggggg otherwise).
Seriously. Don't presume freedoms you don't have. Your insistence on having them will allow your actual freedoms to be eroded by the same means used to erode your priviliges, only that will happen behind your back because you don't notice those freedoms are even there.
People seem to have picked an odd point at which to become suddenly outraged. This has been going on for years, and I've been hearing the "trade essential liberty" quote to the point that it's tattooed on my retinas.
This one seems to have provoked especial outrage, and I can't help but see it as politically driven. Your average civil-liberties-minded Slashdotter has been roughly consistent, but I feel as if for much of the population it was different when The Last Guy was in charge. Now that The Other Guy is in charge, gosh, those other civil liberties violations were Necessary to the Security of a Free State, but this one's too much.
Or maybe it's just the prurience of it all: oooooh... nekkid pictures and groping. Sounds like headline news to me.
I just don't feel like we've suddenly crossed some line, where the other rights we gave up weren't Fundamental, but these are. Americans threw a hissy fit when the Shoe Bomber and the Underwear Bomber and the Toner Cartridge Bomber managed to almost cause serious harm, but you've got two choices: either accept the occasional death-by-bombing, or the occasional massive personal intrusion. (There's also the Israeli option of spending ten times as much on security and standing in line while they quiz everybody, another unpopular stance.)
My point being... if all you've got to offer me is "I hate this", well, yeah, I knew that. When you've got an option that doesn't also generate "I hate this" from practically everybody, you've got News. Until then I feel like this story has been about biting dogs for way longer than is of any interest.
I was trying to figure out whether any of the safety claims (for or against) are true.
Guess what? You can't. The press, blogosphere, and government has made such a pigs dinner of the situation that it's impossible to make heads or tails of the safety claims.
Nothing is compelling either way. We could just as well use a Ouija board to assess the safety.
Here's my analysis.
If you agree or disagree [about safety claims] and have insight, I'd like to hear it.
Inasmuchas everything has to be built somewhere, saying things are pork is not sufficient to prove that's the only reason they're being done.
Wouldn't it be great if this whole TSA ordeal was the straw that broke the camel's back? People finally waking up and realizing how much freedom they have given up. It would be amazing for the US to do so where so many other countries just kept on heading down that road.
Just because something is statistically unlikely, doesn't make it any less stupid not to take necessary (which given the potential consequences of not having these measures, I'm inclined to view as more important than reasonable) precautions against it happening.
I'm honest enough to admit I lie to myself.
travelers are so pissed already, that they themselves stop terrorists....in order to reach their destination. Passengers already bitch and moan about the airplane landing 5 minutes late.
Remember, they were the ones who stopped the underwear bomber...shoe bomber...and countless other drunks and disorderly passengers. The TSA and air marshalls haven't done shit. It's the disgruntled passengers who did everything in order to ensure a timely landing.
"The risk of a terrorist attack is so infinitesimal and its impact so relatively insignificant"
9/11 was one of those tail-end events that proved this wrong. I totally agree with them that security has gone too far, but it's stupid to claim a risk and its associated costs are insignificant just ten years after we learned that they really aren't.
Some perspective: 9/11 cost at least 100 billion dollars in actual, immediate costs - this is over 10x the entire global airline industries' expected income this year. 100 billion dollars pales in comparison to the final price tag, which included massive loss of life, a fall in global markets, and the USA's misguided overreaction to the whole thing.
We are still paying the price, with higher security when we fly.
since when is traveling by airplane a right
The writer of the article -- which despite Slashdot's implication, is not in The Daily Oklahoman but in the University of Oklahoma student newspaper -- makes several valid points, and I fully agree with his conclusion. But he couldn't hide his bias:
I know I'm going to anger my fellow Green Party members with this, but a little bit of history is relevant. We were attacked from Afghanistan. They made themselves a target. The fact that President Bush was to afflicted by his ADHD to focus on one war at a time, causing massive failure in Afghanistan, doesn't negate the fact that we had the right (and even international support of that right) to invade the country.
Sure, it's not fair to paint the entire article by this one off-putting statement. But it diminishes the argument greatly -- it's a Godwin effect. If I were to, say, repost it on Facebook, its effect would be negated by a reply saying "This loser thinks we shouldn't have fought the terrorists in the first place".
It sounds like the student has been in a debate class at some point. He should have known better.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
"I'd rather go down in an awesome fireball of death" ... what a tard, you'll have plenty of dignity when you crap yourself as you plummet to the ground.
1. The security theater surrounding searches and detectors isn't primarily designed to make *us* feel safer. It's designed to make the people who are responsible for aviation safety feel safer, because if and when something *does* go wrong, they're the ones who get in enormous amounts of trouble. As such, the minimal loss of civil liberties that they personally experience because of the increasingly intrusive security procedures they come up with, is dwarfed by the reduction in their risk of being on the front page of the New York Times in a story that says "ignored all the obvious warning signs" and "didn't enact simple safety procedures" and other hindsight-is-20/20 statements from scads of scared and upset people. There is a tremendous incentive, and no downside, to the people coming up with MOAR SECURITY NOW! ideas: if they propose processes that are immoral, unethical, and unconstitutional, so what? it's not their problem, and an airplane blowing up IS their problem, so they keep pushing all the draconian stuff they can.
2. People, in general, are really bad at return-on-investment calculations for very low-probability situations. I was reading an economics book last night that talked about this -- "Sex, Drugs, and Economics" by Diane Coyle, that I think everyone should read. One of the things mentioned in there was that if you ask people about the amount they'd pay to reduce the risk of something really nasty happening from 1:1000 to 1:10,000, and then from 1:100,000 to 1:1,000,000, they'll pay very close to the same amount. That's particularly the case if the 'really nasty' thing is described graphically, like a vivid description of dying from cancer from carcinogen-contaminated groundwater.
So, we can yell all day about security theater and the Constitution, but if we're actually going to try to slow down the reduction in our civil liberties, we're going to have to come up with ways of addressing both these issues.
Any ideas?
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
It was the most relaxed flight I've had in a long time. I went from JFK to LAX and back. I was treated like a human being, everyone was nice, and it was fast and easy. Why was this so pleasant? They weren't using the backscatter machines. I guess I seriously lucked out.
The TSA searches are causing greater loss of life [time] 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 and/or irradiation.
Human beings only live for 700,000 hours. The TSA is wasting over 1000 lifetimes each year.
If young children's private parts can't be touched by minimum wage employees, then the child pornographers win!!!!!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I think we're ready to rename Newark Liberty airport which serves the NYC area.
Of course, the odds of getting killed by a terrorist are less than one in 60 million.
The TSA claim their searches are 'reasonable'. Then why do they say that congressman don't have to go through it? If it reasonable, then everyone should have to do it.
They consistently say things like "You give up your rights when you buy the ticket."
No. Our rights do NOT go away. The law is clear - the rights remain. The definition of reasonable is what changes. And no reasonable parent man would allow their 14 year old girl pictured nude or fondled. Similarly, no reasonable person would allow the searches the TSA has demanded. This includes the basic stuff and the more viable junk like harassing women for traveling with breast milk, or Armed US soldiers traveling with rifles (OK - let them go) and nail clippers (NO! YOU CAN'T HAVE IT. GIVE IT HERE.), stealing watches, cash from purses, etc..
The TSA has NEVER, not ONCE caught an actual terrorist planning on committing a hijacking that they were not previously given the name. Not once has any metal detector or pat down discovered a terrorist that we were not already looking for.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Please mod up insightful (since we have no "succint")!
Let's take this just a bit further, btw:
Say a terrorist for some reason decides to take over a plane with a bomb, either for traditions sake, or because he is misinformed.
If he manages to get on the plane, his death toll will be rather low - the chance of killing more people than are at the plane are miniscule.
If he is discovered, he can detonate where he is and kill more people.
So, the TSA procedures are far more likely to help the terrorist kill more people.
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
I'm astounded that these two issues are seperated, and yet, no one looks beyond the surface to see what it's REALLY about... Privacy.
I'm sure the same people calling for Assange to be hanged are the same people that also say "if you've got nothing to hide..." about going through an airport scanner. They want to have that nice cozy feeling that the nanny state is protecting *them*.
So, they don't want to hear about Wikileaks, and they want to be seen naked at the airport *if* they think that'll make them sleep soundly at night.
This is about privacy. And if the average citizen can't expect any at the airport, why the hell should the government think it deserves *any* privacy? When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares into you.
So Wikileaks and Airport scanners. Two great tastes that taste great together! Too bad the government doesn't get the irony of being so upset about Assange while they strip away our rights. Too bad the media doesn't get it either. These two events are happening at the same time and both are about an expectation of privacy.
Maybe if the government got rid of the scanners, Wikileaks would calm down.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
There are some very valid arguments for why the current level of security isn't worth its cost. My issue with the current hubbub is that's it's mainly centered on people's irrational aversion to having a TSA employee 'touch our junk' or see an anonymous, faceless image of our naked body. On one hand I'm happy that it's finally persuaded people to consider whether any amount of increased security is worth any amount of invaded privacy; on the other, I think it's more about our Victorian prudishness than any rational considerations.
80% of the people who are screaming bloody murder about these scans would be perfectly happy if the checks were much more invasive and much less beneficial but didn't involve simulated nudity.
You are incorrect. I didn't like it before but it was primarily a nuisance. Now they've instituted new policies that violate my mores. You can argue all day that I'm incorrect for feeling the way I do (it's already been done above) but the bottom line is that I experience these things on a visceral level. I'll take my shoes off, put my laptop in it's own bin, fit all my gel and toothpaste in a little bag, etc. It's stupid and annoying but I can deal.
When I'm told my choices are to either be photographed naked or be felt up, I start losing the ability to be detached and unemotional. When it's my kids that are facing this choice then I'm really upset. It's the culture I grew up in that these things are completely wrong. I've spent time explaining to my children that there are places where no one is to ever touch them, that if they do they are to tell me immediately. Now I'm supposed to let some flunky with TSA do it to me right in front of them, and to them as soon as they turn 12.
Feel free to mock my upbringing all day, I can't go back in time and grow up in a completely different culture.
And if anyone could show that any of it makes sense or is effective - I'd take a stab at trying to change the way I think about it. But since the whole things is a bad joke, I'll stick with trying to change the policy rather than myself.
So is it all because there's a democrat in the Whitehouse? No - that's ridiculous. I voted for that man. I voted for Napalitano when she ran for Governor of AZ. She did a good job. Is it "prurience"? If you want to put it that way but I'm not sure why that's something that should be thrown aside just because you have a different set of values.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
First we do have a right to travel but no right to travel by air is listed in the Constitution. We also have a legal history of severely limiting travel in times of emergency such as the Civil War. We also made travel very difficult in WWII due to gas and tire rationing and the use of rail and bus moving so many troops as to limit civilian access.
And believe it or not the best answer might be to close air traffic with the exception of certain types of business people and medical transport and rescue. Rights such as travel all depend upon us staying alive to enjoy those rights. Frankly anyone foolish enough to resent a pat down or even being required to get naked for inspection when the risk of death to themselves and many others by terror attacks is hard to take seriously. A nude beach might cure these prudes.
Well, it would be if the goal was actually to save the people. But if the goal is to save the aircraft, it's not. Now, consider all the things the government has not spent money on to save people: Highway deaths, smoking, fast food, avoiding foreign wars... now, what do you think it is they are most likely trying to protect here: You? Or the airline?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I would like to mod parent up. Sadly, I can't. :)
I am not from the US and I don't have that "don't touch me" mentality. Oh and yeah, I don't understand it either. What's the deal? I mean, ok, they're groping you. It's their job to do that, and ultimately they're doing it to enhance your chances to reach destination alive. At least in theory. Compare that to the following:
TSA employee versus gynecologist;
TSA employee gropes your junk or looks at your junk on a monitor; gynecologist feels your wife's pussy or stares deep into it; or both.
TSA employee does this because it's a job; gynecologist does that because it's a job.
Both categories have their weirdos (TSA employees masturbating on scanner images or gynecologists drugging women and raping them).
Both categories do what they do to help the general population.
Amazingly enough, people are all up in arms about TSA, but all would say gynecologists are OK.
Ain't it perplexing?
In the end, the TSA guy can only find a dick and a pair of balls dangling in my pants. Not like he ain't got any... Do you really think it's a pleasure for them to do it? Again, for some it might, just as well as for some travelers it might be titillating to be groped. Those categories cancel each other out, I'd say. So what's the deal?
I think people just are too bored and need something to stand for, or against in this case. And before you say "Well, let's see YOU stand there and be groped by a TSA dude", well, I wouldn't mind. he's doing what he's told to do. I'm probably more tolerant than others, but well, what can I do
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Low Tech Fondling/Pat Down=Sexual Assault? High Tech Pornography? TSA Scan=Nudity=Pornography? This just not make sense..
Yes. And the single best precaution against those attacks recurring is a nice solid locked door protecting the pilots.
The 2nd best preventive element is a cabin full of passengers willing to lynch the first person that makes trouble.
The rest is just security theater.
The INSTANT that passengers knew that the rules of hijacking had changed, the use of airplanes as flying missiles stopped.
A plane full of Minute Men trumps any security theater.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Stoping a terrorist with a bomb at a crowded TSA security checkpoint is too late.
I don't think that using a bomb to stop a terrorist at a crowded TSA security checkpoint is a very good idea either.
IANAL but this article seems to mistake the Right to travel between the States and the method involved. Nothing gives me the right to get in a car and travel across straight lines if I don't have a license to drive. Yet that is the same logic the article uses. My right to cross State lines freely is not infringed upon just because I (hypothetically) don't have a license, and a cop arrests me for attempting it. Similarly, just because I refuse to be groped up so I can fly, doesn't mean the airlines are infringing on my right to travel between states.
Further note:
I am very, very much against these grope downs and I believe they violate my rights against unreasonable search and seizure, but absurd arguments should be pointed out no matter which side you are on.
See there's profiling, and then there's racial/religious/ethnic profiling. The former is based on science and statistics and is effective, the later is based on fear and ignorance and is not effective.
True profiling is based on behavior, regardless of physical appearance. This is an overly simplistic example I'm about to give, but if there is an ethnically middle eastern man on one side of a room, dressed in some traditional outfit, sporting a well grown beard, looking calm reading a book and minding his own business, and there is a white guy in a business suit sitting on one side of the room alone, looking around the room, sweating nervously, looking at his watch and adjusting some object in his pocket every 3 seconds, there's a strong possibility that he's either a pervert or up to something. Yeah, sure, of course there's still a good chance that he's completely innocent. At that point, it all depends on your approach. You don't swarm him and then drag him off for a strip search at that point. There are ways at this point to approach the man and continue to gather information. Even then, there are going to be some false positives and some missed opportunities, but it will be far more effective than random screenings and more cost effective than screening everyone with technology that doesn't work.
The TSA is too chicken shit to learn what real profiling is. The cops at the mall of america use real profiling, and they are very effective. Real profiling is constitutional, and the TSA is needs to grow a pair and learn how to do things right. Either that or the TSA is getting kickbacks from equipment manufacturers rather than investing in training people properly. Given the state of training of people who work in airports for the TSA I bet they don't have a culture that cares about proper training. Yet another agency that needs a shake up but politics is in the way.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Mod: Funny/Depressing
it doesn't make rational sense to accept the suspension of liberty for the sake of avoiding a statistical anomaly.
A massive new agency, funding, private interests and new equipment, contracts to keep it all running and ongoing upgrades.
A new closed system with few new players. Make an issue about it as a contractor and http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3454/show Section 815 will see you blacklisted in other DoD contracts.
A few well connected people are going to get very rich, stay rich and move into other areas.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Please, bare with me (no pun intended!) as I'm not from USA.
a) If this is a blatant violation or your constitution as many of you say, why don't anyone takes this to the appropriate (supreme?) court that judges constitutional matters?
b) This may be harder but, I doubt things will keep the same if there is a *very* sharp decrease on flights. If the airlines start to complain very loudly that would add a lot of pressure over the government.
Scientia est Potentia
So I can begin a career in porn, of course!
There is no -1 Disagree.
There's no purpose in security if it debases the very life it intends to protect,
I'd like to take that and tattoo it on Lieberman's fat head.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
9/11 killed a few thousand people...far less than die every year on our roads. The property damage was signifigant...but less than we've been spending on the TSA and our nation building. Osama knew the American people had an absurd expectation that their government's foreign policy could never come home to roost in that way. Who knew that training killers to stir up civil strife and kill other people backed by our enemy in a third nation would come back to bite us in the ass! Everyone over-reacted after 9/11 and we've been punked like nobody has been punked before...by ourselves.
Blar.
You make a pretty stupid point ... poorly. The two have nothing relevant in common.
I'm sure the same people calling for Assange to be hanged are the same people that also say "if you've got nothing to hide..." about going through an airport scanner. They want to have that nice cozy feeling that the nanny state is protecting *them*.
So, they don't want to hear about Wikileaks, and they want to be seen naked at the airport *if* they think that'll make them sleep soundly at night.
This is pure speculation. There's no necessary relationship between those who feel individuals who knowingly receive and publish state information should be prosecuted and those who are willing to trade their inalienable rights for an unproven state-mandated security theater... aside from a possible "moran" overlap. Imagining a strong correlation between the two just marks you as someone as equally clueless and judgmental as your hypothetical masses.
So Wikileaks and Airport scanners. Two great tastes that taste great together! Too bad the government doesn't get the irony of being so upset about Assange while they strip away our rights. Too bad the media doesn't get it either. These two events are happening at the same time and both are about an expectation of privacy.
Maybe if the government got rid of the scanners, Wikileaks would calm down.
State-protected secrets have nothing to do with an US citizen's inalienable rights. Associating the two actually trivializes the latter. A citizen's rights are an entirely different class of untouchable entity; the US should put everything on the line, including its secrets, to protect those rights. Its failure to do so in some cases (DUI, TSA, etc.) is worthy of a substantial amount of criticism.
Your tone of "hypocritical American pundits getting their just desserts" is another pathetic symptom of the disdain, disrespect, and political infighting that compromised our rights in the first place.
In my opinion, I think you should be permitted to carry anything you can legally carry in any public place on an airplane.
Also, the TSA should become an educational service for airline employees. Train all airline staff how to defend the plane, give them the ability to arrest and detain unruly passengers. Lock the cockpit, make it bullet proof,and arm the pilots.
Once you do that, any terrorist would be INSANE to try anything on a plane. You'll have passengers who have pocket knives, multi-tools, etc on them. Airline staff that can actually do something, and armed pilots in a protected location who can all stop the "bad guys".
Empower the passengers and crew, because for everyone who won't do anything, there that many who would do something as simple as stick out a foot, slide out their carry on bag or smack 'em with their Macbook to thwart it.
Make America grate again!
It seems to me that by perpetuating this ridiculous paranoia of terrorist attack, and the subsequent removal of our rights, freedoms and privacy, our own governments continue to reward the terrorists with much greater victories than they could ever possibly achieve on their own.
How about the fact that Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security, represented Rapiscan while advocating the need for full body scanners in airports despite the lack of evidence that it's capable of stopping another underwear bomber?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Yes, that was Bin Laden's plan all along. Right now, in a cave someplace is a banner that reads "Mission Accomplished". He might even be wearing Bush's flight suit too.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
My friend agrees with him, because she was not killed. There is a point at which it is a waste of time and money to protect against something. Are you protected against livestock attack?
You are more likely to be killed by livestock than terrorists.
This is all about using fear to control the masses. It has worked for thousands of years. Why stop now?
Would like to welocome the editors of the Oklahoma Daily to the "no-fly list".
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
First problem is:
- X$ statistícally safe Y1 lives when invested into in airport security
- X$ statistícally safe Y2 lives when invested into road safety (just an example)
For nearly any example Y2 is a lot bigger than Y1. Terrorist attacks are more spectacular than car accidents. Are my friends who died in car related accidents (several) less worthy to be saved than airline passengers? Nobody argues for no security at all. But safety dollars should be spent where they show the most effect, not where they generate just a show.
There are a lot of dead people who might disagree with the current spending of money on pat downs or body scanners. They would have wished the money to go into breast exams or mammography installations. So while i can understand your point of view, the argument is flawed.
Second problem is:
911 was so effective because (nearly) nobody seriously anticipated such an attack. The next big attack will be as un-anticipated as the last one. They just don't xerox their last op plans and try to pull them off again. All reasonable security measure against a re-occurrence has already been taken years ago. Is this a reason to start implementing the unreasonable ones?
CU, Martin
This makes complete sense... therefore, good luck convincing your senate.
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
[ST8Z6FR57ABE6A8RE9UF]
I wouldn't mock your upbringing. This does seem to cross a line which was invisible, but real. A lot of people feel that they're being personally violated in a way that stuff up until now hasn't.
But it seems to me that there is an essential choice to make: your modesty (very real) or your safety. If you defend the former, al Qaeda will find a way to use it do damage to the latter. I'm surprised that they haven't already.
I'm personally fine with that, either way. I feel like I don't have a dog in this fight, or rather, I lose either way, in roughly comparable ways. (One daily and demeaning, one occasional and deadly.) I personally would rather move on to trying to solve the root problem.
The timing is perfect for this discussion, as just last Friday I went to a concert featuring three heavy metal bands and during the roughly hour wait outside to get into the venue I was discussing the intrusive TSA searches with a friend. He was telling me how he's refusing to fly again until "this shit ends" and nobody is going to feel him up just so he can get on an airplane.
You can probably guess the punchline. At the venue door, every person was being thoroughly searched, and I was even searched by a very cute female, complete with groin check. My friend...who was appalled by TSA practices, took the full body feel-up by a fat guy without a hitch.
I'm not sure if this is a case of "I really want to go to this concert, but I don't have any place I currently want to fly to" setting indignation priorities, or if it's more a case of nobody had told him he was supposed to be offended by concert patdowns, but for whatever reasons there are some definite inconsistencies in the way people react to body searches.
I had a friend that died from AIDS. Several friends, in fact. The fact that the money that could be going into research for a cure or treatment is instead going into this useless security theater that isn't going to stop anyone, and instead will just get more of us killed on the highways as we opt to travel by car instead, sickens me.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
If you don't like hypothetical posts, then this isn't the post for you. Feel free to mod it down, flame it, whatever you do best...
/.) become so self-conscious? I mean, "Hey, you can't look at my junk" is on the same sensitivity level I'd expect to hear from school districts, churches and daycares. Have we really fallen that far? I mean, my bits look just like the next guy's bits. Under the hypothetical assumption above, your average TSA agent wouldn't care about the bits. They just care about the bombs. If we're saying that we can't find a person to objectively look at body-scans without it becoming an "ordeal", then we've lost more than just the "war on terror."
Let's say for the time being that these devices are 100% foolproof. If you're carrying something onto an airplane, and it is capable of taking down said airplane, it will get noticed. I'm fully ware this isn't the case. That's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. Let's also say that the images taken from full-body scanners are not capable of being saved out to remote locations, or even locally. Finally, let's say that your average TSA isn't an immature kid who will giggle and point when looking at a full-body scan image. YMMV on this, depending upon location.
Under those conditions, what's the big deal? To me, it isn't a big deal.
First, since when has the internet (especially
Second, for those who cite Franklin and his Safety/Liberty bit, what personal liberty are you giving up? Do you have a right to protection from Body Scans? I mean, you already agree to have your entire contents searched via x-ray and also agree to not transport certain materials. Those rules are strictly enforced as it is. Assuming that the body-scan is 100% effective and your TSA agent isn't a snickering 15 year old...How does this violate anything that isn't already being violated?
Finally, to address the phrase "The risk of a terrorist attack is so infinitesimal and its impact so relatively insignificant": Risk and Impact here are presented in a grayscale. That's just not the case. If you or your loved one is killed in something like 9/11, the chance is 100%. There's no statistical consolation in this case, and the impact is quite significant.
So, if we could close those loopholes outlined in the hypothetical section, what do we have to lose? What am I missing here?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How about the fact that "former" isn't "current" and the DHS is not a Senator. So that's not pork at all. Just garden-variety self-dealing.
never will now.
All our vacations have been driving vacations so we could keep the dogs with us and it doesn't look like travel options are going to change soon.
And not all laws are Constitutional
What right do you have to afford legal representation to get a law proven unconstitutional?
No less than my right to speak by any technology I have access to
I seem to remember that U.S. courts have upheld the FCC's power to grant exclusive licenses to all usable radio frequency spectrum.
Aren't they? Few people follow the speed limit, and most people are capable of discerning the appropriate speed on their own. And almost no one wants to pay taxes. How did accepthing these things become the norm? We are becoming a nation of children who need to be told what to do by the Government. People need to be treated with dignity and respect. If you treat them like a bunch of children, that's how they behave.
Thanksgiving may be the biggest day of the year for the airlines, but around Christmas there's a good solid 2 weeks of people coming and going.
Let's see what happens.
I don't think the procedures are gaining me any real safety so that's the crux of it I guess. You think the measures buy safety and I think it's primarily a way to enrich and empower certain people who are using security as an excuse.
I don't know of any way to know which of us is right. We don't have any manner of comparing outcomes in the various options available.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
If we stop acting terrorized just because it made sense not to, then the terrorists would have to start doing things that *were* statistically dangerous, like driving drunk, cooking with trans-fats, or starting health insurance companies.
Washington insider with connections to the white house lobbies in 2005 for the use of full body scanners in airports while in the employ of Rapiscan. Twenty five million dollars from the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" was earmarked so that TSA could purchase these machines.
Looks like pork spending to me...
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Perhaps nobody remembers, but the machines that actually detect explosives were removed from airports in 2009 because they were too much trouble to maintain. (they were the ones that swabbed around luggage then put in the machine to check for residue) The scanners, less trouble to maintain, are more intrusive and are widely suspected not to even be able to have caught the underwear bomber, much less explosives hidden in body cavities. I'm surprised there is virtually zero mention of these two facts among most discussions.
We know the rate of attacks before these measures. The 80s was a busy time for airplane-related terrorism
Not really, because the goals were totally different then. You had hijackers, who just wanted to take the plane somewhere else. You had some explosions on planes, but that was not the primary goal.
Now we have a world where there is a lot more information on how to make pretty good explosives, the aims of most terrorists are different in that they either want to destroy the plane or destroy something else using the plane. ALSO as a mitigating factor, you have passengers who know that terrorists will probably kill everyone anyway, so you might as well take the risk to stop then.
Basically the situation has changed enough in all directions I don't think we have a clear picture of what risks are. But again, I am still advocating that we greatly lower security measures from where we stand. I just don't think risk is a good base for that argument.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
For nearly any example Y2 is a lot bigger than Y1. Terrorist attacks are more spectacular than car accidents. Are my friends who died in car related accidents (several) less worthy to be saved than airline passengers? Nobody argues for no security at all. But safety dollars should be spent where they show the most effect, not where they generate just a show.
Yeah, but the relative extremism of deterrence methodology versus civil liberties is a separate (albeit related) question from how statistically likely a terrorist attack is and the cost impact of implementing said deterrence methods though. Personally I think you're making the mistake of viewing terrorist attacks as natural incidents (like car accidents, getting struck by lighting, etc.) not as an emerging front in an ongoing battle in a war so it might be more prudent to say that it's only as statistically unlikely as it is prior to a lot of people getting killed in the next attack. Personally, I guess I'd rather try to tip the scales in advance to that happening rather than taking steps to adjust security priorities after a ton of people have been killed.
911 was so effective because (nearly) nobody seriously anticipated such an attack. The next big attack will be as un-anticipated as the last one. They just don't xerox their last op plans and try to pull them off again. All reasonable security measure against a re-occurrence has already been taken years ago. Is this a reason to start implementing the unreasonable ones?
I've heard this argument from people who are pushing hijacking statistics from the 80s, but I guess my view on that is to say that clearly 9/11 was a really high body count for a "fluke." Questions of effectiveness of methodology aside, the underwear/shoe bomber efforts would seem to invalidate your argument regarding attack methods. To paraphrase Mark Twain, attack methods may not be Xeroxed but they may still rhyme!
Bottom line for me here is that as methods continue to evolve in sophistication, then shouldn't our deterrence methods grow in sophistication as well?
I'm honest enough to admit I lie to myself.
TSA employee versus gynecologist; TSA employee gropes your junk or looks at your junk on a monitor; gynecologist feels your wife's pussy or stares deep into it; or both.
So, if I cut you open and remove an internal organ, it's okay because a doctor can do it???
Similar to the upcoming US election results
I can't wait to see someone bringing a bomb onto a plane because the probability of two bombs on one plane for completely separate reasons is entirely infinitesimal.
e-Vel!
Is somebody reaching into your wallet. These useless security measures sell machines, service contracts and employ people. It is a bit like the "new deal", except instead of getting roads and parks, we get grabbed and imaged.
Personally, the whole groping thing is ok; I wonder if there is a happy ending for first class customers.....
Senator Chuck Schumer proposed a bill to make it illegal to redistribute porno-vision image. Wrong problem, wrong answer.
You clearly don't understand what problem Senator Schumer wants to solve: Wikileaks. The legislation Senator Schumer proposed includes explicit statements that it is OK to redistribute rapiscan images for the purposes of "security".
The Senator wrote it that way because he is not trying to protect you, the public, from TSA/DHS; the Senator's purpose is to protect the TSA and DHS from you, the public being able to learn either now or in the future just how much clearer the pictures produced by this and the next generation of body scanners really have become. Between Wikileaks and those courthouse scanner images that were released, Senator Schumer got worried and sees a need to protect DHS.
Is the right to privacy and the right to travel the same as the right to travel privately?
Cheers, Glen
The White House doesn't do pork.
Pork is Congressmen directing projects and spending to their home districts.
What you're describing is simply successful lobbying.
Not that it isn't a bad reason for something to happen, it's just not correct to call it pork.
Nobody is making you go to the doctor. You do so because he provides a demonstrable benefit. What demonstrable benefit does the TSA groping provide? When has the security theater ever ONCE actually accomplished it's supposed goal?
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
This is a good thing. The previous security theater was just as ridiculous, but people put up with it because not enough were willing to actually consider that it is necessary to allow a small risk of something bad happening to get on with our lives. That allows the crazies to implement things like this. The only way the crazies can be countered is if enough people who aren't insane get in on the issue. The only way to have that happen is if the situation becomes so bad that people start caring. So I welcome these intrusions - the worse the better and the sooner the better. It's the only way to have a return to sanity.
They can smell a bomb from a dozen yards away. Without either taking nude pictures of people or illegally groping them. I guess effective countermeasures are too cheap and don't make special interests billions of dollars.
Most of the discussion on this topic is presented in terms of "nudie scan or gloved grope." The reality is that after the scan there is a high probability that the TSA observer will find "an indication" and you will receive the "nudie scan plus gloved grope" treatment. It is also obvious that the scanner operators provide little if any information to the gropers about what they are looking for. Three examples illustrate this:
One friend failed the scan because he was wearing a brace on a recently operated upon arm. Rather than examining the brace carefully (That would be an unwarranted intrusion into his medical privacy.) he received the full service genital examination.
A second friend who has extensive scarring from blood vessel harvesting was apparently mistaken as having wires running along his arm, leg and chest. The "pat-down" agent had little or no indication what to look for and so concentrated on pants seams, shirt collars, and genitalia.
A third friend set off the metal detector with his hip implant. The TSA agent wouldn't look at the medical card attesting to the implant, but again spent more than 10 minutes on the patdown and genital examination.
It makes one wonder what the TSA imagines it is doing. Or -- have they decided to target the elderly traveler as less likely to object forcefully?
The right to travel and the right to privacy can co-exist just fine even with these new regulations. Don't forget that you can travel using your own two feet, a bike, a car, a boat, etc... all without being groped.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
What about using specialists already trained to do security? Our finest... the military! We don't need to give up our rights nor allow ourselves to get groped. Check out how Israel does their security... excellent example!
You know, one of my favorite reflections on my country used to come from the movie The Hunt For Red October. There's a nice bit about the fact that - unlike Soviet Russia, in the US, you can travel freely, state to state - no papers. Maybe it's because I grew up on the tail end of the cold war. My parents and my grand parents all bought into the propaganda that we were the 'good guys' - we weren't evil, like those crazy Ruskies. We didn't have secret police; we didn't cart off citizens in the middle of the night; we didn't demand documentation to travel freely.
It truly sickens me, as it should sicken any true citizen of the United States, that we're WILLINGLY putting our neck under the heel of Comrade Commissar's boot.
For countless years, people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Pakistan, India, etc have been dealing with bomb, IED and explosive threats. Countless people have died at the hands of these terrorist attacks. The people in those countries make the choice every day to live their lives normally...in the face of not having any of the "security" mechanisms that we have. They have not chosen to trade human rights for "safety." In this sense, they are already free-er than us.
I went through the Freedom Fondle today, as I was flying somewhere. The gentlemen who did it was polite and explained what would happen. I told him I understood but did not accept that he had the right to do this. He did it anyway. I didn't mind much. I suppose I should just accept that the 4th Amendment means nothing any longer and that this is not the country I grew up in.
During the groping, I mentioned to him that he had become what his civics teacher had warned him about. He paused, and then continued.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Mr. don't touch my junk walked into an airport screening with a tape recorder (obviously not a tape) activated. This story then blows up (street slang possibly not best choice for subject) But the point is someone should do research on how to make a non-event become a story which the whole nation comments on. Possible ingredients: Catchy exchange caught on audio or video Release "news" at appropriate time - this story started just before busiest travel time of year Have similar agents go on any available news outlet to increase story volume. Achieve critical mass where news media spontaneously reproduces story until nearly all americans reference it (tiger woods, etc) I would also be interested in hearing the people who are complaining the loudest about airport security's opinion of airport security during november 2001. I don't gamble but I would bet they had no problem with it then.
Currently this is +3, Insightful. It needs to be modded up. You enlightened my day, thank you! ... . At least this kills a few birds with a single stone. Not only no terrorists, also no burglaries, no drug dealers, no mugging.
Your only mistake: in your scenario you wait until the terrorists have already planted the bombs. That's a bad mistake! The only real thing to do, is that we TSA anyone leaving their house. Scanners and/or gropers before anyone is allowed to leave the house, enter the car. Any day. Security (TSA) in front of our house, the same security when we leave our place of work. Security (TSA) when we go shopping, and the same when we leave the shopping mall. "Oh, beautiful, America"! The land of the hhmm
Until now, we misunderstood the term 'security' at the entrance of condominiums, gated communities. It must be just the other way round: The checks are to be done on those leaving the places. Then anyone you ever meet outside, is by definition clean. Then we can finally even abandon those pesky airport controls and body-checks, since nobody can leave any place and enter public space with anything illegal on or in him/her.
"the subject has [been] overly-commented on"
Try to increase viewership some other way, /.
Why is it that the TSA isn't being fundamentally challenged under the 4th amendment. It is illegal for the government to x-ray bags, let alone use the full body scanners or even metal detectors at an airport. Both of these are illegal searches and seizures. The US Constitution under Amendment 4 requires that due process be followed, and that warrants be issued that indicate specific persons to be searched and articles to be seized, and that the Police only have the right to search persons in the situation where they have already observed illegal activity in plain sight. Currently, the whole process assumes that every individual is guilty and must be "authorized" by an agent of the United States Federal Government as innocent. In many states, dragnet style traffic stops have been ruled illegal, how is this any different.
In all reality the only solution to this problem is to have all gate security at airports performed by non-governmental agencies. So that means that they must be be employed by the airlines directly and not employed by the airports themselves, unless the airport is run as a for-profit organization that does not receive nor never has received any public money for construction or operation. In other words, the air ports hire the security agency. The US Government can provide guidelines, but cannot require that they be followed, nor can they compel any airport authority or air line to enforce the requirement in any particular manner, because that constitutes action by the government. Since air travel is private venture, the US Government has no say in it's operation under the commerce clause of the Constitution. In this case the security agents have the ability to perform any search they see fit, as long as they do not infringe upon an individuals civil liberty (for instance causing undue efforts to be made by some one in a protected class). But this is much better case, as it is and has always known to be easier to vote with one's wallet than at the ballot box, as a single dollar is worth more than any individual's vote.
So why hasn't the federal government been sued to abolish the TSA like so many other three-letter organizations formed the last socialist regime (I count Bush to be as much a socialist as our current president, as the current president has done nothing but extend Bush's policies).
So no I'm flagged. I for one welcome our fondling, pornographic overlords.
It's really about societies values and self-knowledge.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
True, but nonetheless, there will be a lot of companies lobbeying for more security, and pointing out that they have a win-win situation with politicians who get to engage strong support from a xenophobic and authoritarian demographic. I suspect these motives operate deeply in the instinctive urge for money and influence that some people experience very strongly. Evidently, a lot of self-deception is going on, because the war on terror is a circus show -- and some are getting hurt.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
"I have a bomb, open the cockpit or I push the button"
And a handfull of people in the aircraft - who have an angle on him where the backstop is something other than another passenger - each put a bullet through his head. (It's easy at that range.)
Of course that means some of the passengers need to be exercising their SECOND Amendment rights in the aircraft. Oops...
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
dividing the cost by the lives it saves
Dammit! This is exactly the kind of bullshit reasoning I'm talking about. Here's what you just did in code:
float livesSaved;
float moneySpent = 5000 Quadrillion billion thrilion dollars;
printinf( "Result of meaningless calculation is %f/%f", moneySpent, livesSaved );
Do you see the problem? Lives saved is undefined, because it represents PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT DEAD NOW. You cannot measure this because (a) you don't know how many attacks the current system deterred, and (b) you don't even know how many attacks the current system prevented without us ever knowing.
We are spending billions on something that kills less people per year than farm animals.
You don't know that one way or the other.
The only way you could actually measure this is by removing all security controls (which again I point out I am in favor of) and seeing how many successful attacks you have with no controls. Perhaps the death rate will remain the same. If so, then bravo, your argument is correct. But it could be there are more in which case you can use THAT number to divide by a cost and then figure out how much a human life is worth.
BTW, if we are all hot to not waste money on saving human lives I guess you are probably for ending all expenses on researching disease...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If we have both the right to privacy and the right to travel, then TSA's newest procedures cannot conceivably be considered legal. The TSA's regulations blatantly compromise the former at the expense of the latter, and as time goes on we will soon forget what it meant to have those rights.
And that is exactly the point. The TSA's mission has NEVER been about catching terrorists, but rather desensitizing the American people to intrusive government surveillance.
This is about the risk of an attack
Which as I said is something you cannot know and so cannot weigh against the freedoms lost.
The article states that this scale is tipped way too far towards the giving up your rights and that balance needs to be readjusted.
If you read my response again in fact I said the same exact thing. I'm just saying that you CANNOT USE RISK in a calculation to make this argument because you do not know, you cannot know, the full effect of existing controls. It is only when the controls are removed that you get a true measurement of what the real risk is. So stop using risk and just remove the controls because it's the right thing to do, and not because you pulled numbers from your ass.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We have no way of knowing how likely terrorist attacks would be if I didn't have my rabbit's foot.
Your rabbits foot does not come into contact with a terrorist trying to sneak something onto a plane. The current security system does in that they have to go through it to get a person on a plane.
Therefore the current system has some effect on the choice in who and how to attack a plane, in a way your rabbits foot does not.
Because there is some effect, you cannot know what levels of risk are really there until you remove the controls and measure.
Again I'm all for removing ALL controls. I would even drop metal detectors. Don't care. I'm just pointing out a really huge flaw in arguments being made to remove the controls, when there are better arguments at hand.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If the Daily Oklahoman says its high-tech pornography, then it certainly isn't.
If the Daily Oklahoman says its an invasion of privacy, then obviously isn't.
The Daily Oklahoman, making Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck look like a bunch of liberal pussies.
Want to know why Oklahoma is a festering shit-hole? Shit-kickers reading The Daily Oklahoman that's why.
I'm a liberal Democrat. I've never liked the TSA, but I do think the porno-scan/gate-rape protocol has crossed a new line in violation of personal privacy.
Sadly, the sacrifice of liberty for the illusion of security isn't even a scam that someone is running on us. We're demanding it.
Lone Ranger: We're surrounded by hostile Indians. Get ready to shoot our way out.
Tonto: Who you calling 'We', white man?
Who are you calling "We"?
Some aggregate dreamed up by a polling organization? The politicians and newsies?
It sure doesn't include ME! Or my wife. We no longer fly - and haven't for almost a decade - specifically BECAUSE we refuse to be subjected to this crap.
Two years ago we visited family 2,500 miles away, by TRAIN.
This year Amtrack wouldn't let us carry something "dangerous" (read that "politically incorrect") even in checked luggage - so we DROVE it. Two weeks on the road. Towing a 20-foot trailer. Which almost wiped out on the freeway at one point (when we had to dodge a car at high speed and the fishtailing was stopped by our smart brake controller) - and blew a tire leaving only two rubber sidewall disks at another. (Good design of its axles and suspension, though: No damage except for the blown tire itself.)
This is the sort of inconvenience and hazard *our* version of WE is willing to put up with rather than submit to having our rights violated.
What version of WE are you in?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This is a thesis project from Ringling College of Art and Design.
It is awesome, and gives me hope that we haven't completely surrendered our culture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5o44U5ah84
Maybe if you post the link one more time someone will see your point :)
I just flew to Atlanta for a conference. On my flight out, they selected me for screening. Of course, there was no indication as to why I was selected, although ostensibly, this is because the selection is random. Because I didn't want to be X-rayed, I opted to get the pat-down. I also did it because I wanted to know what it was like and as a subtle protest against the whole process (although I didn't tell them that -- I was curtious). As it turned out, it wasn't as bad as some people have described it. The examiner was gentle and efficient. He did "meet resistance" in the crotch area, insofar as I felt the side of his hand come into contact, but it didn't bother me. For ME, it was a curious experience. However, I can clearly see why many other people would find it to be invasive. I wasn't personally offended, but I still haven't changed my mind about it being excessive from a civil rights standpoint. The examiner was dispassionate in a way similar to a doctor, but the big difference is that when I get examined in personal places by a doctor, it's because I elected well in advance to have it happen.
I just want more choices.
Only getting to pick between exhibitionism and cold fondling is really limiting.
Especially with the rush of the TSA agents; hardly enough time to get off even if I "prime the pump" before walking through.
The risk of a terrorist attack is so infinitesimal and its impact so relatively insignificant....
Risk of attack infinitesimal? Close to it, perhaps. Impact relatively insignificant? Um, do you mind if I point out your error in logic or judgment?
I seem to remember September 11, 2001, as a rather significant day in history. The families and friends of approx. 3,000 people, both Americans and foreign nationals, would likely agree.
Pardon me while I call "shenanigans."
sigfault (core dumped)
It isn't that we've "just" crossed the line. It's that we keep crossing the line (or nudging the line, or whatever you want to call it) and people are so apathetic or frightened that they don't do anything.
This is finally a line where "normal" people (as in, the at least 2/3 of people who don't really care about their rights as long as can watch sweaty guys in tight pants play a children's game on plastic grass) will maybe start to put up some resistance, so there's a good reason for lovers of liberty to harp on it: it's a line that can maybe be drawn.
Unfortunately, based on conversations with my own family around thanksgiviing, I have very little hope for that. They will make jokes, and complain about the discomfort, but they'll still go through the high energy degradotron machine without even thinking about how they being treated worse than criminals in a supermax prison because of their horribly incriminating "desire to get from one place to another."
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Parent post is unpopular opinion for sure, but definitely not a troll. Troll is not a synonym for "disagree".
You cant change the locks (Security procedures) too often. So any one who wants to f**k with you will definitely find a way to do it, no matter how you implement your security.
Taliban, in my opinion has largely been successful in their goal with 9/11 attacks. USA is now running like crazy chickens with no sense of purpose. Aimlessly accusing nations, destroying their social fabric, their way of life. And then, do you expect them to sit quietly? There will be more retaliations.
WE SHOULD LEARN TO RESPECT THE WAY OF LIFE OF OTHERS.....
I chose to be groped rather than be scanned this last weekend on a flight to Colorado. Not flying is not an option... I refuse to have my travel curtailed. So my choices are to be technologically raped or physically groped. I choose the groping. Ultimately, I think the groping was worth the expression of shock and indignation on the part of the TSA goon. My rights were violated either way, but at least I made some sort of stand.
Satis clankiller.com
The constitution certainly doesn't guarantee your right to eat. Or even breathe. The government has decided that it is not permissible to breathe (virtual sickness bomb) without being subject to a thorough body cavity search.
Or rather, admit you're an idiot who has no idea what the Constitution is and what it does.
This might be true, but the airplanes are a lot less expensive than either the machines they're putting in, or loss of money caused by people not getting on planes.
you've got two choices: either accept the occasional death-by-bombing, or the occasional massive personal intrusion.
Every day we have to choose between the occasional death by car accident or staying safe inside. Yet somehow we all manage to leave the house despite that it's not "safe" to do so.
The occasional death by car is many orders of magnitude higher than your occasional death-by-bombing, in fact the latter is surpassed by many trivial things happening today.
What you did there is framing the question in a way that makes the two choices seem balanced, when the reality is far, far away from that. Of course any normal person would choose any option from a long list of nasty things in exchange for death at a similar probability, so your intellectually dishonest question plays on that.
It's undignifying for a human being to be forced through that process.
If that's a difficult concept for you, consider that we have laws against "peeing toms" or generally viewing someone naked without their permission. This takes it one step further and makes such viewing a required step for a mundane activity. In a country that shudders at the view of a female nipple on TV.
If that's not enough, consider that all this gains us absolutely nothing, as it's just as easy to carry something in your ass as it is in your pants. But.. small steps, right ?
You don't understand. First, this saves the airlines from losing money they've already invested. Second, the government spends YOUR money (taxes) on scanners, thus bolstering the security sector. Third, it nails down a precedent that degrades the liberties of the citizens.
What's not to like?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The fact that US government thinks that all of its citizens are potential terrorists hell-bent on launching attacks on their own country.
Seriously... how many of the terrorists on the 911 flights were American-born citizens? Why are AMERICAN citizens being humiliated and treated as terrorists? How hard is it to simply put all the foreigners in a separate queue and subject just THEM to these extra measures? I am not american and I would totally understand THAT measure. If I did not like it, I simply wouldn't come to America. Period. Hell if you wanted to be totally anal, you could even put those citizens who were not America-born on that list.
Oh, and there is a BIG difference between spying on FOREIGNERS living in America, and spying on American CITIZENS themselves.
Some nutcases attack your country and the government response is to start spying on their own citizens and treating them as terrorists?(that while Osama is still walking free). And instead of loudly objecting to THAT, all you guys want is that TSA measures were "less" harsh? Hell, half of you actually argue on these counter-measures as "necessary". Even when they are being taken against American citizens themselves.
Way to go, geniuses.
Enhanced pat-down should be conducted by personnel of the opposing sex. Females and registered homosexuals should have option of choosing the TSA operative gender. Yea, and only sexually attractive TSA personnel should be admitted.
To me it seems pretty obvious that the only logical endpoint of all this security theater is to require all passengers to go nude through security, with zero carry-on luggage.
Body cavity search and/or full x-rays are optional (to the TSA, not you).
After the checkpoint you might be given a robe or towel, in order to reduce the need for cleaning the airline seats between each flight.
Terje
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
What you're describing is simply successful lobbying.
Not that it isn't a bad reason for something to happen, it's just not correct to call it pork.
How about 'corruption'?
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
now, what do you think it is they are most likely trying to protect here: You? Or the airline?
Their careers.
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
Do you only go to the doctor when you're sick? You should also go to regular checks to ensure your health is good.
As for the benefits, maybe the lack of gory discoveries is a benefit after all.
As for your inquiry: http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/brandon_alexander.shtm
Of course, "It's on their website, doesn't mean shit" will fly right out of your lips. Oh well...
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
That's a dumb analogy. Surgery can get you killed. Groping can't. Grow up :)
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
IANAL, but sexual abuse is handled at a state level for the most part. Many of the state laws, and feederal law follows title 18 of the US code section 2242 which states:
Section 2242. Sexual Abus
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly -
1. causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or
2. engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is -
* (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or
* (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
So, if the person being screened can not say "I wish to leave the airport instead of being searched" (say someone that is mute, or does not speak english and no translator is avalable). That could fall under paragraph 2, section B.
Now, the "out" for the TSA can be found in 18 USC 2246, paragraph 3:
3 the term "sexual contact" means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
If no one was being aroused, than it was not sexual contact, therefore not sexual assault. That is one LARGE loophole.
You aren't even going to die free or live in fear. The fear isn't going to protect you, so to the extent that you live in the fear option, you'll live free in the no-fear option.
Or, to be explicit:
We would rather live free than live in fear.
Why would the GP post want to live in fear???
Well, if you're an airline, and you're looking at substantially fewer customers flying that's not so great.
Aside of course from the whole civil liberties thing and then the whole totally destroying the tourism industry from countries which are really uptight about that sort of thing.
Why is everyone here whining as if they or anyone else can do anything about it.. Freedom was long bought and sold.. there's nothing you can do about this and it will be mandatory very soon, pending the next yet more infringing search method(s)... Deal with it, or stop flying.
I wouldn't mind going through the body scanners, as long as their viewing is not done in public.
However, this detail is unknown to us Europeans at this time, so I'd be grateful if this question is answered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereogram
seriously authentic geek cred
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The restrictions not long after 9/11 made sense (oh, so we're actually going to ban knives now? Wait, why weren't they banned already?). Then we moved to stupid shit like having to get rid of nail clippers (if you can take over a plane with nail clippers, you deserve to win), but who really needed to bring nail clippers anyway? Having to throw away bottles of water is an annoyance (mostly because of the highway robbery of airport shops). Having to take off shoes is stupid, but it doesn't take too long and the only risk is foot fungus. The puffer machines were mostly a government boondoggle with way too many innocent people failing (as it turns out, there's people who work with explosives for a living). Even though there were pat downs before this, they were quick, light, respectful, and generally rare.
But now we've gotten to the point where large numbers of people are given the choice between virtual strip search or getting their most private areas searched (or, depending on the airport, just randomly getting your private areas searched). Sure, previous indignities could be mocked as being stupid, poorly implemented or ineffective, but there's a much bigger line crossed when they start to feel you up. The government boogieman hits a lot closer to home when you've got your balls getting cupped by a uniformed government agent knowing that if you make a wrong move, they'll throw you in jail. It no longer sits in the realm of "we're gettin those feriners!", it hits people that they're taking away your most basic right to the integrity of your body.
That said, outside the TSA things have been much shittier for much longer, but that's not all 9/11's fault either (it can be traced back further to at least the war on drugs). But again, the average person doesn't actually see the intrusion in their lives. A shadowy government agency reading your emails in a dark room gives a lot less visceral caveman fear than the guy molesting you, your spouse, and your children.
The people we need to worry about blowing crap up are Rag Heads. So lets let all the normal people right through and send little Rag Heads through. I mean really, who is going to blow up a plane? A 40 year old white lady or a mid 20's sand n!gger? Yeah it profiling but the truth is the truth. Whites are the ones running around trying to blow up america, neither are mexicans or blacks, it's rag heads. If you really want to protect America and American's that is what you would do. Target those who are targeting us.
Honestly, it's been years since I've come face to face with a (foreign) tourist. I think that ship has sailed. No, sunk.
Also, I think airlines are already down to a combination of "must fly" and "derp"; it's not going to get much worse for them. Heck, I quit flying long ago, and I don't see any hint of changes designed to lure me back.
They'll do ok, business-wise. Just as the government will be fine no matter how much they trample the constitution. People just aren't up for the hardships implicit in restoring the US to a constituional republic. The plutocracy is well established. We're just a few voices lost in the noise.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
as a non-USA resident I simply made the choice not to visit the USA as long as these weird 'security' policies are in effect.
Are they risk averse??? When it comes to being killed by a misfire or gun accident, USians seem to be very averse to avoiding that risk. When it comes to the risks of AGW, many extremely vocal people (often the same ones who complain about terrorists) seem completely at home with taking risk.
I don't think it's risk aversion that's the problem.
It's idiocy whipped along cheerfully by corporations who find their job much easier with an ignorant consumer base as opposed to an informed customer, and who have bought media and politicians to ensure this detriment to humankind is spread even further.
The Gynecologist is a medical doctor and is actually promoting the well-being of his or her patient.
The TSA employee is a terrorist.
We already took the necessary steps. We now lock the cockpit door. End of story. Everything else is done to terrorize the populace and make rich people richer.
... and this wouldn't have *ANYTHING* to do with the way the governments and media have been pumping up the "terrorist threat." Terrorists in our airports, in our monuments, in our transit. There *COULD* be a terrorist living right next-door to you, or beside you on the bus.
TERRORISTS TERRORISTS TERRORISTS!
Before that (and continuing on), it was pedos. In the mall, in the playground, in the internet, hiding under the bed, etc. Before that, I suppose it was the commies.
Joe and Jane average respond to the input that is given to them.
On recent travel, my wife and I went through the security screening at the airport with our daughter. in a hurry, and just wanting to get through... I carried the baby while my wife loaded all of the carry-on onto the x-ray conveyor. While pulling my boots off and unloading my pockets I found I had forgot to remove and pack in the check in luggage my Gerber ez-out (3-1/2" folding pocket knife). I almost handed it to a TSA agent for confiscation, but decided instead to test the x-ray and tossed it in my boot, fully expecting to get yelled at and have it confiscated - which is no different than if i hand it to them for confiscation.
my wife got the pat-down (reminder, don't wear sweat shifts) while I walked through --with my jacket-- carrying the baby with no problems. when picking up the possessions on the other side we were pulled asside as I suspected we would be, but not for the blade. they needed to perform a chemical swab test (nitrates?) of the water we had brought through for my daughter. That took a few minutes and the TSA were very nice an efficient.
so.... water for a baby is more dangerous than a pocket knife. I don't expect the TSA to catch every thing, but I agree we have given up rights for the illusion of safety.
I am hereby announcing that my votes are for sale.
In any local, regional, or national election I will be voting for the candidate with the courage to stop our slippery slide into fascism by dismantling the TSA's stupid useless invasive degrading policies. I will take my chances on the airplane.
Sign up people. Let's get enough votes to get ourselves a politician.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Well said. Sorry I can't mod you up.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Rather than have a government agency check us all, have each airline perform its own security checks. Airlines have an incentive to perform good security checks (to avoid the high costs of hijacking, bombing, etc.) balanced with good treatment of customers (not too intrusive or nosy, reasonably quick, courteous, etc.).
In that case, different airlines might have different levels of security and costs, so that each consumer could choose what level of intrusiveness was acceptable. Contrast that with the current situation of TSA 'service'.
You're only partially right. The premise / proof goes like this ...
There simply isn't enough people questioning the premise. Progressives and Conservatives alike are equally at fault. Both left and right use the same premise, and make excuses for it, and then we get crap because at least it is something. From Health Care to TSA thuggary, to taxes to schools, to the "do it for the children" crap.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Kwerle mentions:
The constitution certainly doesn't guarantee your right to fly. Or even drive.
The Constitution doesn't state that the federal US government has any authority to arbitrarily (i.e. without proper due process, warrants, etc.) prevent the populace from traveling by any mode they so desire. Moreover, case law backs this up (Shapiro vs. Thompson, United States v. Guest , likely numerous others as well). Ergo, the TSA is a gross violation of foundational US law, never mind any ethical or moral arguments.
QED.
It's poignantly sad to me quite how many people in the US labor under the dangerous misapprehension that the Constitution lists the rights the people have, when in point of fact the Constitution lists the rights the government has, leaving everything else not explicitly mentioned up to the people and the states. You'd think such folks had never actually read the foundational document of US law. It's not even that long. To quote:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
there is an essential choice to make: your modesty (very real) or your safety. If you defend the former, al Qaeda will find a way to use it do damage to the latter. I'm surprised that they haven't already.
Al Qaeda has already used your fear of the latter to do damage to the former. You are mistaking their intent. Killing people is only a lucky side effect if a bomb happens to go off. Unsuccessful attempts resulting in huge expenditures and humiliating searches are a much better plan.
That's a dumb analogy. Surgery can get you killed. Groping can't. Grow up :)
And you don't grasp the obvious actual analogy. A gynecologist is checking for the purpose of helping a woman maintain her health. Basically, what you are suggesting is that *anyone* should be allowed to do something just because, in certain limited circumstances, one person is allowed to do something.
I think you are the one who needs to grow up and realize that not everyone should be required to follow what you believe is okay.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
I concur, but it's still not buying them anything. Yeah, Americans are busily making themselves miserable, but "step 3. Profit" is elusive for al Qaeda.
If all you want is to make people unhappy, it's not that hard to do, and by that standard, they're failing miserably. US airports are more demeaning than they used to be, but the US is still pretty much ticking along. People still shop, go on business trips, and generally live their lives. If we're bringing ourselves down economically, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
If they were hoping to bring themselves some sort of actual benefits, they've achieved less than zilch. Yeah, 9/11 cost the US a lot, but it cost them even more: they no longer have safe refuge in a country where they could institute their barbaric ideas and provide safe refuge to plan small-scale attacks. Even our stupidly-planned wars there and in Iraq are gradually winding down.
It has all cost the US a good deal, but we're very, very rich and can absorb even that. And they don't seem to be making much of a dent in that, not more than we're doing to ourselves. It just seems a huge stretch to call it a "win" for them, even if it is clearly a loss for us.
If they're happy with lose-lose, there's little anybody can do about it, but no real point, either.
The liberty argument only works if every person on the plane agrees that they are fine with no one being searched. Your right to privacy ends at the point where you become a danger to someone else. It's not as cut and dry as people on either side want to make it out, but to say that it's purely a personal liberties argument is silly.
Only if money changed hands. Lobbying is legal. Slimy in most cases, but legal.
A TSA worker is checking for the purpose to maintain ALL passengers' health in good order. That is, prevent them from getting killed by the oh-so-mighty terrorists people seem to fear so much.Be angry at TSA or fear bombs on the plane. Pick your poison. You can't really scoff at both.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Hello kwerle --
In your previous post here, you quote more:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
(For those of you following along, this is the first clause in Article I Section 8.)
I think you might have a parsing error here. This clause states that Congress has the right to gather money that it can then spend on defense and welfare. This is about taxation, and spending, and has nothing to do with any right of travel.
The keys to parsing this clause are capitalization, and punctuation:
-- Tells us we're describing a congressional power.
-- Tells us what the power is.
-- Tells us what the purpose of this power is, what the justification is for granting Congress this power. We know this is *not* a congressional power itself because the "to" is lower case.
Note too the ending semicolon -- this tells us that we are at the end of the initial description.
-- This modifies the initial description, and tells us that any such taxes, etc. levied by the Congress (i.e. any federal tax, duty, etc.) must be the same for all states. This was probably more of an issue around the time of Constitutional ratification, due to each state considering itself to be much more independent, and wanting no favoritism from the federal government towards any other state.
Hope this helps. If there is some other clause in the Constitution that I've missed that more clearly covers travel, please post it. Article I Section 8 however does not fit the bill.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Sorry it took me so long to respond I had to swab my keyboard again
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Why not just call it by what it is? Corruption almost worthy of a middle-african government.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1884962&cid=34387834 where you were "modded up" wrongly no less, & for a truckload of easily disproven b.s. you wrote, as regards HOSTS files.
APK
P.S.=> I set you straight on your "so-called points", easily. So, you're now free to disprove what I wrote you in response (but you seem to be avoiding that... why is that? WE KNOW WHY, lol!) - After all, I've already written you twice in your posts to dispute & disprove what I wrote in response to your b.s. there... so, why are you avoiding it? LMAO... again - we know why! apk