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.
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
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.
'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.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed. Or just invest in bomb sniffing dogs and facial recognition research.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
And how does that make any sense? First off, in case you hadn't read the Declaration of Independence, it says that "all men are created equal." As a result, based on the Constitution alone, we all should be protected from unreasonable and unwarranted search and seizure. Secondly, the point you very much miss is that there are individuals (middle-aged Caucasian Catholic men) who would be just as willing to bring harm to America as any other terrorist. So, that's why we have to look at everybody, and not just certain people.
Now, I would argue, that we are going about profiling about the wrong way. Don't profile by culture or race - that would just piss people off. Instead, train the airport employees to be able to psychologically profile individuals. Almost all people (and, in reality, all people) have nervous tics and the like that can give away clues that they are planning on doing something wrong. Someone who is trained in spotting this can pick these people out. If we had highly trained employees to watch for this (ticket agents, airport security guards, etc), everybody else could go about as normal with absolutely no problem, and those few individuals who are displaying psychological signs could be pulled aside for questioning (NOT search until there is more evidence).
Of course, training requires more money than we've put into TSA already...so...that's not likely to happen...
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
How do you know what religion I practice?
Anything this predictable would be exploited. Heck, white folks like McVieghs or abortion bombers might start blowing up planes then since it would be easy.
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?
It is discrimination and it doesn't work. The Israelis would be doing just that if it worked, and they don't do that. They do profile, however they don't profile based upon anything that flimsy. They look for the individual that's likely to be a terrorist. Islam in particular is sufficiently diverse that you're never going to catch all the Islamic extremists like that. And that ignores the folks that are more likely to be up to no good, such as ELF and the other domestic terrorist organizations out there.
OK... it was a fit of passion, with the known list of holes now being (predictably) poked in it by the Slashdot community.
That said, we plainly need to be more selective about who gets more scrutiny, and who doesn't. IMHO, it will be difficult to do that without some lawyer claiming that it's discrimination. We're going throug this whole exercise of violating everybody's rights in order to avoid violating somebody's rights. Plainly, that's not the correct answer.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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.
Interesting. Do I have to tell you when I convert, then? Would it be illegal not to? Should we check the mosque records, or just let the police keep an eye on them?
And if it is more cost-efficient to simply do random house checks of converts/resident muslims, would that be ok? How about bugging said houses and mosques?
Paper check to buy certain items (printer toner, fertilizer)? Extra background check on dark-hued farmers?
Starting to sound like discrimination yet?
(And no, this is not a slippery slope argument, all the examples above either follow from your idea or can be based on the same premises as it has to).
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
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.
I doubt the framers of the Constitution could have forseen travel by air -- however, they do indicate that travel between states of the union *is* a right, and at this point, there are states in the union you can't get to in a car -- so travel by air could be argued as a right.
Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't provide you the right to a cell phone either. And more people get killed on our nations highways by people talking on the cell-phones while driving than were killed by any terrorist plot. So, maybe we should ban cell-phones too!
After all, as you said "Rights such as travel all depend upon us staying alive to enjoy those rights."
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
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.
It's worse than that because it's non-consenual. Secondly, as has become with case with minors, *any* nude image has been deemed porno. Heck, wasn't there a story here on Slashdot about a guy convicted of child porn and the images were cartoons?
Here in Puritan American where violence is glorified and sex is shunned, yes, naked==porn.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
The right to travel includes all methods. If we want to change that, we must amend the Constitution. Congress has the power to declare a state of war, as was done in the Civil War and WWII. Congress has not currently declared a state of war.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
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.
We have a right to travel. The government has no business placing unreasonable burdens upon people wishing to travel by any means, which they are definitely doing in airports these days. I can't force an airline to carry me, but as I said earlier, if they've sold me a ticket then it's a done deal.
Both cases are completely and totally immaterial to right now, since those were actual wars and not fear parades.
Err...
Wait, now I can't tell if I just gave you a bite or if you're serious.
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.
And we have freedom of speech, but they didn't say anything about the Intertubes!!1!
You're right, your argument is not well stated. Try again.
Your fear is showing. Grow up and start thinking like an American, or move to Afganistan where only one religious view is needed, and you can depend on your low taxes to not be used on such silly things as a modern infrastructure.
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
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
Frankly anyone who suggests closing air travel to save lives is a moron. More people would die in the resulting rise in car travel. Heck, the current security system already does this and it will kill ~600 more Americans every year.
The pat down or nudity are not resented for prudish reasons but for their very basic infringement on civil liberties.
This is literally a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
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.
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.
You expect TSA employees, who get flumoxed operating the equipment they've been trained on, to become perfect poker players and pick out the terrorists standing in line? How is that not creating a sea of potential abuse?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
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...
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.
It is discrimination and it doesn't work. The Israelis would be doing just that if it worked, and they don't do that
Really? Read some links and get back to me.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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.
Rights such as travel all depend upon us staying alive to enjoy those rights.
Ah, yes, good old scare tactics.
A nude beach might cure these prudes.
Because anyone who has morals different than your must be WRONG and in need of "re-education."
Similar to the upcoming US election results
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.
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!
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: your sig.
'Intensive'?
Not to put myself on a pedal-stool, but your grammar is a damp squid.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When I was posting more frequently, other Slashdotters would step in to remind people that it's grammar nazi bait. Actually, it's an illustration of McKean's law, which is a variation of Murphy's law. There are two huge errors in there. Most people only find one.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
And we should proclaim a single utterance of a man who lived hundreds of years ago because...? FYI, I do agree going overboard with passenger screening is ridiculous when the real problems on 9/11 were cockpit security and everyone's lack of insight into terrorists' intentions. But as technology progresses, we should prepare to give up enough liberty/privacy to avoid nuclear or nanobot armed terrorists. Transporter filters are good for you.
:-) hehe, thanks, that has cheered me up no end. I am happy to join the ranks of idiots that have risen to the bait.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.