Slashdot Mirror


Baby's First TSA Patdown

theodp writes "Is there anything cuter than baby milestones? Baby's first steps. Baby's first word. And now, baby's first TSA patdown. 'Well,' writes Anna North, 'it finally happened. Airport security officers gave a pat-down to a baby.' A post on the TSA blog defended the move: 'The child's stroller alarmed during explosives screening. Our officers followed proper current screening procedures by screening the family after the alarm...The [8-month-old] child in the photo was simply receiving a modified pat-down.' Hey, at least they didn't make a federal case of the 4 oz. of liquid found in the little tyke's Pampers."

570 comments

  1. Pedophiles! by countertrolling · · Score: 2

    Here's some nice TSA porn for all you regular folks.. Now get back to work!

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:Pedophiles! by pcolaman · · Score: 2

      One of many reasons I would much rather travel by car/bus/train than airplane.

    2. Re:Pedophiles! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Regarding your subject, I couldn't help but notice a rather scummy looking woman shouting "PEDOPHILE, PEDOPHILE!" at a security guard in the supermarket the other day as she quickly strolled out the door. I'm guessing one of the staff noticed her putting stuff into her pram and the guard was trying to search it on her way out.. I felt kinda sorry for the guy, not sure what the correct response should be in a situation like that.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Pedophiles! by digitig · · Score: 1

      The correct response is to detain the woman and conduct the search with a witness present.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    4. Re:Pedophiles! by ickleberry · · Score: 1

      Don't forget boat. A hugely underrated way of traveling

    5. Re:Pedophiles! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      A most interesting way to get from Atlanta to Denver.. Where can I get a ticket?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    6. Re:Pedophiles! by conspirator57 · · Score: 2

      train huh? well coming soon to a train near you is... TSA. Enjoy your complimentary grope for their grand opening.

      http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/10/the-political-prospects-of-a-no-ride-list/

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    7. Re:Pedophiles! by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2

      Absolutely agreed. Last time I went to Australia I did the leg from Singapore on a (working) ship, and it was by far the most pleasant form of long-haul transport I've used - I'd highly recommend it for anyone who can spare the time. Shame about the expense, though - I was hoping to do my next transatlantic trip by sea, but even on a cargo ship the prices were several times that of a business class airline ticket. I still considered it, but in the end I just don't have the cash to justify spending that on a luxury, even if that 'luxury' is avoiding a grope from the TSA.

    8. Re:Pedophiles! by somersault · · Score: 1

      But just how forceful are you allowed to be in detaining someone when you're only a civilian yourself?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:Pedophiles! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I'll sell you one.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Pedophiles! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      In correct. Detaining someone opens a big ass can of worms, and it should.

      The fact that someone got to the point where they where putting stuff on the pram is a failure in store security.

      OTOH, reread the post. He is guessing that's what happened,for all he knows they guy was trying to grope the kids.
      It also assumes that tale is true.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Pedophiles! by ctetc007 · · Score: 1

      One of many reasons I would much rather travel by car/bus/train than airplane.

      Oh, don't worry, Homeland Security wants TSA to set up security stations for bus and train terminals too!

    12. Re:Pedophiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that someone got to the point where they where putting stuff on the pram is a failure in store security.

      I'm not sure how you prevent someone putting stuff into a pram short of having literally one security guard per person monitoring your every action. I don't know what the situation is elsewhere, but in the UK there's the concept of a citizen's arrest to prevent someone just walking away when you think they've committed a crime. The correct response would be to detain her, ask if she would allow a search in the presence of a third party, if she says no then notify the police and let them deal with it.

      OTOH, reread the post. He is guessing that's what happened,for all he knows they guy was trying to grope the kids. It also assumes that tale is true.

      Sure, that's the natural response when you see some guy groping your child, you don't call the police you just shout at him and go shop somewhere else...

    13. Re:Pedophiles! by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Actually this is an argument I used to try to demonstrate how Europe will be more prepared for a future without cheap/abundant crude oil than the US. Europe has an extensive canal and rail network, where as the vast majority of the growth in the US happened in the motor vehicle age. Europe will still be able to transport goods and people over large distances far more than the US will. Off topic, I know, but since you brought it up...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    14. Re:Pedophiles! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      There is only one legal source for such a thing. Your offer could be a felony :-)

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    15. Re:Pedophiles! by magarity · · Score: 2

      A most interesting way to get from Atlanta to Denver.. Where can I get a ticket?

      No problem. Your connections are as follows:
       
      Chattahoochee River to Apalachicola River
      Apalachicola River to the Intracoastal waterway
      Intracoastal waterway to Mississippi River
      Mississippi River to Missouri River
      MIssouri River to Platte River
      On Platte River, take the left fork to South Platte river
      Arrive Denver.

    16. Re:Pedophiles! by ctetc007 · · Score: 2

      I'd love to see this option in Google Maps!

    17. Re:Pedophiles! by magarity · · Score: 1

      There is only one legal source for such a thing. Your offer could be a felony :-)

      Not if he has a canoe and a river guide license for the intervening jurisdictions.

    18. Re:Pedophiles! by treeves · · Score: 1

      Here in Portland, OR there was a story in the newspaper about a guy who commutes to work in a canoe. I kid you not.
      OP should have used Seattle to Chicago instead of Atlanta to Denver. No rivers be crossin' the Continental Divide.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    19. Re:Pedophiles! by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Yeah, because it's really useful to prevent suicidal passengers from bringing bombs on trains when any idiot can plant one under the rails anywhere along a thousand-mile-long stretch without any significant risk to themselves.

      This is a prime example of why everyone in the top tier of TSA management should be fired. If they are so dumb that they naïvely believe that adding security stations for bus and train terminals is useful, they should absolutely not be allowed to be in charge of anything.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    20. Re:Pedophiles! by magarity · · Score: 1

      Here in Portland, OR there was a story in the newspaper about a guy who commutes to work in a canoe. I kid you not.
      OP should have used Seattle to Chicago instead of Atlanta to Denver. No rivers be crossin' the Continental Divide.

      Two words: Panama Canal

    21. Re:Pedophiles! by tragedy · · Score: 1

      I just have to comment on that one. Although police officers do essentially get special rights and privileges that other people don't, they're still civilians. Military personnel, acting as such, are the ones who aren't civilians. They have their own justice system and everything. Even they are civilians when they aren't acting as military personnel. If they shoplift off a military base, for example, they can be arrested by regular police, and even tried and punished by the regular courts and correctional system, although the local cops are more likely to just hand them over to the MPs. When police officers and the like refer to non-officers as 'civilians', it's just a form of contemptuous self aggrandizement.

      That said, police officers are in a special class in the sense of being "officers of the law". There's certain special status that comes with that with regards to things like detaining people, using force, and my personal favorite, the automatic assumption in court that they never lie (even to the point that hearsay rules don't apply to police officers). There are other special statuses like "officer of the court" for bar association members and process servers, clerks, etc. There's also special licensing for private investigators, bounty hunters, etc. Then there's members of the press, etc., etc. Lots and lots of special statuses out there, and plenty of people in these various occupations do have some sort of "us vs. them" mentality in which they may refer to others who don't have the same license as 'civilians'. Generally speaking, however, if the term is actually going to have any meaning at all, those people are all pretty much using the term wrong by separating the world into civilians and themselves.

      As far as how forceful you are allowed to be in detaining someone when you're not some sort of special class, that really depends. For one thing, state and local laws vary wildly and are generally ridiculously unclear on the subject anyway. Security guards also may or may not have a special status in the jurisdiction. Beyond that, what's allowed and what isn't often comes down to the discretion of the police and prosecutor. In places where it's legal to use "reasonable force" to detain someone who's robbing you, there's still nothing to stop the police from deciding that it was actually assault or even kidnapping based on their gut feeling or their own views on the law. Likewise, in an area where it's illegal to do anything other than report a thief to the police, someone who whacks a thief over the head with a two by four and then ties them up and throws them in a closet may end up with sympathetic police officers and a prosecutor who simply chooses not to press any charges (there's always the possibility of a civil suit, of course).

      It seems like the way the world really works is that it isn't about what's illegal and legal, it's about what you can get away with and what you can't. And that rule doesn't just apply to the people on the wrong end of the justice system, it also applies to the police officers and the TSA workers and the prosecutors and the judges and the politicians. It's actually kind of terrifying that we supposedly have a system that operates on principles of justice, but the reality is that what really happens is that might makes right or, if you're not mighty enough, right and wrong are what you can convince enough people of.

    22. Re:Pedophiles! by magarity · · Score: 1

      OP should have used Seattle to Chicago instead of Atlanta to Denver. No rivers be crossin' the Continental Divide.

      Should have used anywhere and Salt Lake City. Since the Great Salt Lake is a terminal lake, it's impossible to get to the area by water from anywhere outside the local watershed.

    23. Re:Pedophiles! by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      But just how forceful are you allowed to be in detaining someone when you're only a civilian yourself?

      It depends on the state (or country) laws.Years ago I worked for a retail store apprehending shop lifters and employees who stole cash and merchandise. At the time in the states I worked in there were laws that a retailer could appoint specifically designated employees to detain suspects. Generally the laws were written in a fairly ambiguous way which allowed for the use "reasonable force". In reality I never ran into a judge that found any amount of force unreasonable, but I was generally more reserved than any of my colleagues. Not that any of them were found guilty of excessive force either. Frankly if someone violently resisted I don't think any judge would have cared what you did short of repeatedly beating someone who was unconscious. Of course I don't think may people are willing/ stupid enough to disarm someone with a knife, gun or other weapon and then have the self control to not beat them to death either. Ahh to be young and dumb again.

    24. Re:Pedophiles! by treeves · · Score: 1

      Like Crater Lake?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    25. Re:Pedophiles! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      You can't do that (the detain part). Unless you place an arrest, and being a civilian that means you had damn well be sure about it.

      Note: I've taken the courses and meet the State of Georgia's requirements for unarmed security personnel:
      GEORGIA BOARD OF PRIVATE DETECTIVE & SECURITY AGENCIES, CHAPTER 509-3, RULE 509-3.02

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    26. Re:Pedophiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct response would be:
      "You have no right to search that lady. Leave her alone asshole."

    27. Re:Pedophiles! by digitig · · Score: 1

      Yes, agreed on the had damn well be sure about it. But do shop security make a habit of random searches on prams?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    28. Re:Pedophiles! by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      I'll walk

    29. Re:Pedophiles! by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      I don't know...perhaps TSA should be put in charge of sewage waste management. They are so full of shit, it's probably an appropriate assignment.

    30. Re:Pedophiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in whose alternate reality does that make him a pedophile? Oh wait, it doesn't - which means that would be slander. Make sure somebody gets her license plate # so she can be identified in the lawsuit...

      Of course, fugly whores who steal shit from supermarkets also aren't worth suing because they have no money, so it's somewhat of a moot point anyway. A brick through her windshield would be more useful and effective.

  2. Osama Bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Osama Bin Laden is laughing in his grave. He obviously won, even in death.

    1. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Osama Bin Laden is laughing in his grave. He obviously won, even in death.

      Osama Bin Laden is laughing in his grave. He obviously won, even in death.

      Fixed that for you.

      He even gave an interview on CNN and said "I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed", and we still did exactly as he predicted. We won the battle ten days ago, but lost the war ten years ago.

      Maybe I'm just an oldthinker who unbellyfeels newspeak, but "Homeland of the fee, homeland of the safe" still doesn't sound right. Can we please have pre-9/11 America back? You know, land of the free, home of the brave?

    2. Re:Osama Bin Laden by snarkh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The economic damage he caused to the US economy is several trillion dollars. While he may not have won the war, but he did cause overwhelming damage.

    3. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yup, he exploited us and we're just making it worse. The act of terrorism was as much was social engineering.

    4. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Osama did win. And big.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    5. Re:Osama Bin Laden by somersault · · Score: 1

      The old American attitude was just as annoying as the new millenium's foreign policy. At least now you can't bullshit about being free and brave with a straight face.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:Osama Bin Laden by snarkh · · Score: 2

      What do you mean by winning? He showed how to cause great damage to super-powers (first USSR, after that the US) with relatively tiny resources. Btw, note that most of the economic damage to the US (e.g., the war in Iraq) is self-inflicted.

      On the other hand, his dream of building a caliphate has failed miserably.

    7. Re:Osama Bin Laden by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      His dream of making America not free or brave has succeeded very well though.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    8. Re:Osama Bin Laden by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      I would imagine the fascists and profiteers are laughing even harder.. OBL's bit part is over, I mean, aside from the public's obsession

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    9. Re:Osama Bin Laden by pnewhook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What do you mean by winning? He showed how to cause great damage to super-powers (first USSR, after that the US) with relatively tiny resources. Btw, note that most of the economic damage to the US (e.g., the war in Iraq) is self-inflicted.

      And most of the damage done to the USSR was also caused by the US. This was back when Reagan portrayed the Taliban and al-Qaeda (actually the precursor to them) as a religious group being persecuted for their beliefs by the big bad commies. So the US trained the mujahedeen and sent billions in weapons aid so they can fight the Russians. Russia eventually pulled out when they realized they could not compete.

      If the US/CIA had minded their own business then the mujahedeen would have been wiped out by the Russians and all of this stupidity would never have happened.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    10. Re:Osama Bin Laden by snarkh · · Score: 2

      Well, his goal was to have the US economy collapse. That did not work.

    11. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing Charlie Sheen means by winning?

    12. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      Been saying it for a while now: the terrorists won, we are all terrified.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    13. Re:Osama Bin Laden by geekoid · · Score: 1

      His goal was to bankrupt America, Make it less free, and make it look even worse to ther est of the world.

      If you define winning by getting what you want, then he won.

      The plus side it is possible to recover. Unfortunately dumb asses in congress want to cut taxes, renew tax breaks, and stop government programs. There factually incorrect, sad little ideology is destroying the country.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:Osama Bin Laden by peragrin · · Score: 0

      That's only because we are hiding the true accounting books from the politicians.

      The Baby boomer generation basically took a second and third mortgage out, maxed out hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit cards, and now are demanding that their kids pay them for the privilege of being raised by them.

      It will take 30 years to fix our current financial problems mostly because we have to wait for those people to die off.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    15. Re:Osama Bin Laden by delinear · · Score: 1

      But at least back then the rest of the world could just get on with it without inheriting security theatre.

    16. Re:Osama Bin Laden by rbollinger · · Score: 1

      This is true, but it's not OBL's victory. We did this to ourselves.

    17. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      He showed how to cause great damage to super-powers (first USSR, after that the US) with relatively tiny resources.

      "Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future." --Adolf Hitler

      Osama didn't "show" anyone anything they didn't already know.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    18. Re:Osama Bin Laden by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Well...Google Public Data says that our unemployment rate has doubled since 2001 (4.6% in 02/01 and 9.8%), the government had to bail out GM and Chrysler and also bailed out a number of banks. <shrug> We may not be completely sunk, but I think you could argue that the economy of the US has been critically damaged, at least.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    19. Re:Osama Bin Laden by snarkh · · Score: 1

      >This is true, but it's not OBL's victory. We did this to ourselves.

      True, but irrelevant, IMHO. He managed to cause us to harm ourselves and to give up on our principles.

    20. Re:Osama Bin Laden by snarkh · · Score: 1

      He probably over-estimated the damage that the war in Afghanistan did to the USSR. Ultimately, the cause of the collapse was the unsustainable desire of Soviet leaders to have military parity with the US.

    21. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the Russians were a bigger threat than the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have ever been. I wouldn't say trading the one for the other was a bad move at all.

    22. Re:Osama Bin Laden by interkin3tic · · Score: 1
      No, their goals don't really involve domestic policy in the US. Their upper management would enjoy it a little if we just declared sharia law here in the US, but their priority is getting the US to get out of the middle east, so they can take over and do it themselves throughout the region.

      "I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed," bin Laden said as the U.S. war on terrorism raged in Afghanistan. "The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life."

      That was just trolling, to demoralize a few more people. Crazy as he was, he didn't embark on his mad quest in order to erode our freedoms. That was all us.

      Furthermore, I think it really undermines our side of the security vs freedom debate to go hyperbolic like that. We are not in 1984. Our rights are not totally "doomed." TSA has not turned the nation into a fascist state. Things like patting down babies, and paranoia about fingernail clippers on airplanes are absurd and stupid, yes, and TSA is a big waste of tax dollars and time, but lets keep the criticisms focused and grounded in reality. When we make overstatements like "Osama won," that might make us feel smart, like we're the only ones who know whats going on, but it also makes us look like we're paranoid lunatics to the rest of the people we need to convince to relax about airport security.

    23. Re:Osama Bin Laden by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but that has zero to do with OBL, and will not result in the economic collapse he was looking for. OBL didn't attack the WTC in order to cause a debate about the debt ceiling, foreclosures, or creative accounting practices, he wanted a collapse that would destroy the US. That was a total and complete failure. Even the two wars he unintentionally sparked didn't cause us to come close to our State failing due to economic reasons.

    24. Re:Osama Bin Laden by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      The plus side it is possible to recover. Unfortunately dumb asses in congress want to cut taxes, renew tax breaks, and stop government programs.

      When you're on the verge of bankruptcy, reducing waste and increasing income is precisely how you do recover. On a national level that means cut taxes and eliminate wasteful government jobs programs.

    25. Re:Osama Bin Laden by russotto · · Score: 2

      Furthermore, I think it really undermines our side of the security vs freedom debate to go hyperbolic like that. We are not in 1984.

      We're heading that way at breakneck speed, following Airstrip One which is leading the way.

      Our rights are not totally "doomed." TSA has not turned the nation into a fascist state.

      Not TSA alone. But the Fourth Amendment has been reduced to shreds, though the TSA, through allowing of various "checkpoints" (the local police had some sort of BS checkpoint, marked "safety checkpoint" set up at 8am on a weekday the main road through town. What's the excuse for that one... not a lot of drunk drivers around at that time), through warrantless wiretaps and warrantless GPS tracking.

      On the economic side corporate bailouts and takeovers sure stink of fascism as well.

      When we make overstatements like "Osama won," that might make us feel smart, like we're the only ones who know whats going on, but it also makes us look like we're paranoid lunatics to the rest of the people we need to convince to relax about airport security.

      The rest of the people are convinced _we_ need to "relax" (as in "relax and enjoy it") about airport security. And as long as they think so, it'll get worse. The problem with being pro-freedom is we really have no champion and no constituency; people who actually want freedom are a small minority.

    26. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Combatso · · Score: 1

      Osama Bin Laden is laughing in his grave.

      It's worth noting Osama was never subjected to a TSA pat-down... only us tax-payers are.

    27. Re:Osama Bin Laden by tibit · · Score: 1

      It was all self inflicted. The voters let the war spending happen, and they let the TSA happen, and they themselves got terrified of flying. I think we seriously overestimate just what the direct impact of the 9/11 attacks was. All that really happened, and all that really made the difference, was that the U.S. voters' real crummy side got exposed. Noone stood with a gun to people's heads to stop them from flying, or to send troops to Iraq and elsewhere.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    28. Re:Osama Bin Laden by treeves · · Score: 1

      "Homeland of the fee"

      Either Freudian slip or intentional typo, I think it is quite accurate, taxes == fees.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    29. Re:Osama Bin Laden by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      The shark who ate him, however, didn't win. After having its dorsal fin cut off for someone's soup, it lived for a short time until being lased by a weaponized Orca.

      Somewhere out there, there is laughter coming from the belly of one of Shamu's kin, as an indigestible ghost continues to ... pass.

    30. Re:Osama Bin Laden by rsborg · · Score: 1

      The economic damage he caused to the US economy is several trillion dollars. While he may not have won the war, but he did cause overwhelming damage.

      The spiritual damage he caused to the society (happily pushed on by the MIC) in terms of freedom lost is incalculable.
      The hypocrisy of "land of the free, home of the brave" has never been more strong than today.

      It's not clear to me if the TSA djinn can ever be put back in the bottle. We are now a police state in all but name.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    31. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      His goal was to shatter the myth of the superpower - show that we could be readily harmed. I'd say he got that cold.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    32. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Muros · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm just an oldthinker who unbellyfeels newspeak

      Fatal exception: one or more words caused minor explosions at location CRANIUM. Please reinstall English Lexicon and reboot America.

    33. Re:Osama Bin Laden by jo42 · · Score: 1

      The economic damage he caused to the US economy is several trillion dollars.

      It's not him that caused the economic damage.

      It's the fucktards in Government and greedy cunts on Wall Street that did that.

    34. Re:Osama Bin Laden by snarkh · · Score: 1

      I am not sure what you are comparing. Hitler had all the resources of German military and industry behind him, while Bin Laden had virtually nothing.

    35. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Muros · · Score: 1

      I wonder how true that really is. The russians had (and still have) a far larger capacity to damage the US. I find it hard to believe they had the same willingness though: communism is, after all, a utopian ideal. It will probably come about eventually in some form globally, but only when we have built an easily maintained production infrastructure (which of course can be best achieved through capitalism. Ironic eh? We have already achieved a level in the western world where people, if they tried to, could feed themselves easily every day for less than 15 minutes pay. We're just too lazy. ) Militant Islam however is all about "Death to the infidels!"

    36. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think he's laughing where he is.....

    37. Re:Osama Bin Laden by baerm · · Score: 1

      The plus side it is possible to recover. Unfortunately dumb asses in congress want to cut taxes, renew tax breaks, and stop government programs.

      When you're on the verge of bankruptcy, reducing waste and increasing income is precisely how you do recover. On a national level that means cut taxes and eliminate wasteful government jobs programs.

      I can see what you mean by waste, 'eliminate wasteful government jobs programs' (although when that is a very tiny part of the federal budget, by itself it won't do much, military, SocSec and medicaid/medicare are the really big items). But since it's our government going bankrupt, I don't think 'increasing incomes' = 'cut taxes' will do what you think it will do. Ever time we've tried it in the past 30 years, government debt goes up, median income goes down. Our government loses and the only people that gain are people in the top %5-%10 income bracket (and the only big gains are in the top %1). To me it sounds like the building of a crappy surf society where most of us lose.

    38. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Labcoat+Samurai · · Score: 1

      Well...Google Public Data says that our unemployment rate has doubled since 2001 (4.6% in 02/01 and 9.8%), the government had to bail out GM and Chrysler and also bailed out a number of banks. <shrug> We may not be completely sunk, but I think you could argue that the economy of the US has been critically damaged, at least.

      By Osama? Why would you count from 2001? It spiked a bit shortly thereafter and then dropped for several years straight before spiking far more dramatically 2008-2009. Remind me again what it was Osama did to hurt our economy in that time frame.

    39. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Osama bin Laden's share of this fortune is estimated at almost $300 million.

      from Forbes. Yeah, $300 million is virtually chump change. Not much you can do with that.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    40. Re:Osama Bin Laden by jefe7777 · · Score: 1

      Collapse in this context is meaningless. Even during the great depression, the economy did not collapse. Both my grandparents were alive during the great depression, and both will tell you today that their parents still worked, still bought things, and still conducted business. He indirectly caused great damage. If by your standards, he did not, then you're metrics are flawed.

    41. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "On a national level that means cut taxes and eliminate wasteful government jobs programs."

      Then why the fuck isn't the TSA gone, yet?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    42. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, the number of crimes also increases as people eat more ice cream.

    43. Re:Osama Bin Laden by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Well, his goal was to have the US economy collapse. That did not work.

      Yet.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    44. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. He didn't do it. We did it to ourselves.

    45. Re:Osama Bin Laden by snarkh · · Score: 1

      First, yes, compared to the size of pre-war German economy, $300 million in modern dollars is chump change. In modern times to maintain a single aircraft carrier for a month costs more than that.

      Second, he only had a small part of that (estimated at $20-30 million, according the The Economist) at his disposal after his assets were frozen in the 90's.

    46. Re:Osama Bin Laden by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Probably not exactly larger [1] - but yes, it is important to note they had the ability to inflict massive destruction... and yet managed to recognize they're broke and dissolve themselves mostly peacefully. I hope we could treat such outcome as a given...

      (then there are the myths of bomber gap, missile gap, and mineshaft gap - and how, during and some time after the missile one, Soviets even had a policy of storing warheads and rockets separately; whatever Team B came up with; or one of the greatest historical ironies... Stalin: despite all the victims, a dramatic increase in life expectancy in the area (& generally bringing a very backward and impoverished semi-colonial place up to a status of a superpower - this example of rapid industrialization, and our current comfy world sort of also on the backs of Chinese (plus...), making your ironic point probably much more complex [2]); another irony: yes, strict censorship... but also the first literate generation;
      and generally, how the Cold War wasn't very civilised on either side (heck, you have to count the bodies on both, to seriously start pondering...); or how the "evil Russians" probably have a deep need of maintaining buffer states due to foreign armies regularly steam-rolling through their land)

      1. Of course, any "demonstration" on either side would most likely cause a full response of the other, so who exactly had a larger stick is a bit moot point.

      2. Still a small fry vs. how some of the more radical ideas of "communism" appear out of myths cherished, ironically enough, typically (from what I see) most fervently by the most red-scared parts of society ;> (their "myth of past middle class glory", with a cold look at demographic data, working out pretty much exactly backwards to the cherished ideology :> )

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    47. Re:Osama Bin Laden by sznupi · · Score: 1

      ...if I would have to guess, also with a relatively long-lasting bloodbath in the spirit of WW1; of past tactics + "future" technology (for example, say, mass-produced & mostly-autonomous "kill vehicles" of various types; with a touch of Skynet / will biological humans be able to overcome "past tactics" of...essentially their bodies? ;) )

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    48. Re:Osama Bin Laden by sznupi · · Score: 1

      The finishing touch - probably when the ignorant Soviet generals forced a project giving "parity" with non-existent "strategic advantage" of the STS... (while their engineers wanted to do something very different)

      Actually, one can wonder if that wasn't the real goal of the Shuttle (a concept sort of made obsolete, by successful automatic rendezvous, ...before it seriously got onto drawing boards) - to provoke similar Soviet project of rampant spending. Though presumably, in such case, it wouldn't be allowed to suck NASA dry for the last 2 decades... (and there was even a good opportunity to replace it after the first disaster; of course, at this point we possibly witnessed a "counter-provocation" of sorts, when Buran was prepping for "regular service"... so of course the Soviets couldn't be left with the only operational shuttle fleet)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    49. Re:Osama Bin Laden by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Systems of governance are ultimately a reflection of their society. In the case of "economic damage" we're talking about a society with masses of people unable to keep balanced personal budgets; generally at the forefront when it comes to rates of living on a debt, consumptionism, etc.

      From where do you think those "fucktards in Government and greedy cunts on Wall Street" originate? Most people would cut a slice of the cake for themselves, given the chance (vs. merely claiming they wouldn't). Also, notice how universally the extended families of military members describe them as noble & honorary (nvm frightening rates still thinking that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11). Or how, even when generally bitching at "government waste", if in the family there's some engineer or blue collar worker doing some public project... then of course the work is essential, and the price fair.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    50. Re:Osama Bin Laden by sznupi · · Score: 1

      And yet, places with taxes (or even with "high" ones) generally lead in positive societal factors, are most pleasant to live in, most "free", and so on. What do you think buys you civilization?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    51. Re:Osama Bin Laden by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      The damage to the US economy was largely self-inflicted. Our economic system is way, way too vulnerable to drama queens -- the stock market is a perfect example of how millions of people are adversely affected by a few guys in suits acting like 13-year-old drama queens.

    52. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You seem to have missed the point entirely. When Hitler made the statement I quoted, he was referring to how wars would be fought in the future. Not how Germany was fighting the war. Therefore your insistence on dragging the German economy into the argument is irrelevant - the German economy was committed to fighting a conventional war against virtually the entire world. Osama's $300 million (or even $30 million) are resources he had available for a single cause. It is far cheaper to arrange for the hijacking of an aircraft, the derailment of a train, or the bombing of (insert high value target here) than it is to build a single Me-109.

      Hitler was pointing out that any free society was extremely vulnerable to this type of asymmetric warfare - small, targeted attacks would, according to him, bring any free society to its knees.

      What politicians have failed to make note of, however, is that is assumption is entirely false. Many societies have been bombed over and over again (Columbia, the pretty much all of the middle east, Sri Lanka, the IRA, Eta, etc) and in not one single case has a government or nation ceased to function because of it. Yes it's no fun. Yes it scares people. Yes it kills people. But generally the result is extreme laws and measures that result in a crackdown on terror groups. Perhaps the only case where a partial success was achieved is Ireland, where the IRA at least got political recognition from the appeasing British. So Hitler predicted this method of warfare, however he failed to understand that it is largely ineffective unless you measure victory by body counts.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    53. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      What do you think buys you civilization?

      The sweat of our fore-bearers and the good work and graces of civil neighbors. Money isn't needed for that. Taxation is a method used by a select few to attempt to force good work, graces, and civility by making things unequal (monetarily) between ruler and ruled.

    54. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought nazi was spelled naz not TSA.

    55. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTFY:

      > While he may not have won the battle himself, but he did win the war

    56. Re:Osama Bin Laden by snarkh · · Score: 1

      Certainly, I would not claim that Osama invented the idea of terrorism.

      The difference between all these people (starting from the 19th century anarchists) and Osama Bin Laden is that he was far more successful in causing damage than anyone else.

    57. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't cause the economic damage. WE DID by being cowards. He won the war the minute the "patriot" act was passed.

    58. Re:Osama Bin Laden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_qMagfZtv8

      - Osama

    59. Re:Osama Bin Laden by sznupi · · Score: 1

      And yet, places with taxes (or even with "high" ones) generally lead in positive societal factors, are most pleasant to live in, most "free", and so on (overall the "nice" ones, where you'd certainly prefer to live). There is very clear correlation between one and the other. Also, somehow, pretty much all nice societies / civilisations (!= "tribal groups", or those of similar size), have some way of assigning value (aka money). Maybe it makes fair cooperation a bit easier?

      Sweat isn't the best as an element here - you're under Just World illusion if you think it's not pretty much universal among all our "fore-bearers"... and the amount of it (and blood) not clearly pointing to future prosperity in a given place (more in places which export its suffering there). And let me guess, maybe also the myth of "past middle class glory" or Lake Wobegon Effect? (while the US is in fact the lowest (together with few others of course, not being alone) in social mobility among developed places? (the highest being in "nanny states" such as Canada or Nordic ones); so much for "Land of Opportunities" / "American Dream"); NVM other cognitive biases, for example how we merely convince ourselves into reliability of our memory, don't remember how little we remember (via "old times were always better" this gives tiresome political results)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  3. 2 questions for the TSA by sootman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) Nationwide, how many times has the alarm gone off during explosives screening?

    2) How many times have explosives been found?

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:2 questions for the TSA by bmo · · Score: 5, Informative

      >2) How many times have explosives been found?

      None. Ever. Even the underpants bomber made it through.

      Since the inception of the TSA, they have stopped *zero* hijacking/bombing attempts from the airport.

      Biggest waste of money on security theater going.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:2 questions for the TSA by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      I'm in favor of them taking all basic and non-intrusive steps to detect explosives.

      It's fallacious to say "they haven't found any in the screening process so there aren't any". It excludes the middle in that if they weren't checking for explosives, it'd be easy to get them through, and then terrorists would be doing it. But as it stands now, they know baggage is screened so they have to find another way.

      The trouble with these pat downs is that they can't reasonably detect any more by groping your balls than they can with scanners and wands. I don't have a problem with the old-style scanners or the wands if you set the metal detector off.

      I think the Homeland Security department which was a little crazy before has gone absolutely over the falls with Obama/Napolitano, but voters are going to let them off the hook for this because they like the other guys less. That does not fix anything.

    3. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember - TSA is there to act as a deterrant as well. Even if they haven't stopped any hijacking/bombing attempts they may have deterred some. However, that's not to say that I agree with the extreme levels that TSA takes.

    4. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Surt · · Score: 1

      But they stopped over a thousand terrorist attempts from even considering going through their heightened security measures. Plus, the theater is just that, theater. The real security improvements are secret and invisible.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >2) How many times have explosives been found?

      None. Ever. Even the underpants bomber made it through.

      Since the inception of the TSA, they have stopped *zero* hijacking/bombing attempts from the airport.

      Biggest waste of money on security theater going.

      --
      BMO

      The parent should be modded to 5, and all Slashdot readers should be sure to spread this point as much as possible to everyone they know. The TSA has an $8.1 annual billion budget and has yet to have a single success.

      We can't comment definitively on the deterrent effect mentioned by an AC reply, though our very limited data points make deterrence seem unlikely, given that 1) every attempted bomber in the last 10 years has successfully made it through security and 2) the 100% failure rate probably doesn't put much fear into the hearts of potential attackers.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    6. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      Remember - TSA is there to act as a deterrant as well.

      Mission accomplished. I have been deterred from flying.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    7. Re:2 questions for the TSA by eam · · Score: 1

      I don't think the parent was saying there aren't any. Just that the TSA security theater isn't finding them.

    8. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, at least, that's the story until we realize that those 'secret and invisible' measures missed underwear bomber. I don't have much respect or encouragement to give any part of TSA.

    9. Re:2 questions for the TSA by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...has yet to have a single success.

      HA! Tell that to the people who sell all those nice machines.. They're laughing all the way to the bank..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    10. Re:2 questions for the TSA by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Israelis haven't had a hijacking in decades, and they don't use full-body scans or anything of the kind. I listened a few months ago to an Israeli security expert who was literally scoffing at the TSA's methods, and stating what they need, rather than $10 an hour rent-a-cop types, they needed to pay some behavioural experts who can recognize potential threats. Trying to up the ante with technology is just a shell game, and as we've seen, doesn't seem to do a great deal if someone seems dedicated to blowing up an air plane.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >2) How many times have explosives been found?

      None. Ever. Even the underpants bomber made it through.

      I didn't realize American TSA agents work in Amsterdam. The Detroit TSA probably couldn't have stopped him considering he was on his way to Detroit from Europe. I don't know, I'm not a security expert but I don't think US supplies TSA agents across the globe.

    12. Re:2 questions for the TSA by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly, that's the same way that I know that this rock that I have bought keeps away tigers!

      More seriously, lets say that your screening procedures are 99% effective with a 0.0001% false positive rate, both of which are horribly, massively unrealistic. And then let's pretend that there are 10 terrorists that try to get on an airplane each year in the US, which is almost definitely an unrealistically high number. There are an estimated 737.4 million passenger flights each year in the US. That means that for each terrorist detected you're going to hit 8200 false positives. Screening everyone in the country just doesn't work at a mathematical level.

    13. Re:2 questions for the TSA by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Funny

      George Carlin said it best, long before 9/11:

      I’m getting tired of all this security at the airport. There’s too much of it. I’m tired of some fat chick with a double-digit IQ and a triple-digit income rootin’ around inside of my bag for no reason and never finding anything. Haven’t found anything yet. Haven’t found one bomb in one bag. And don’t tell me, “Well, the terrorists know their bags are going to be searched, so now they’re leaving their bombs at home.” There are no bombs! The whole thing is fuckin’ pointless.

      And it’s completely without logic. There’s no logic at all. They’ll take away a gun, but let you keep a knife! (editor note: Not anymore) Well, what the fuck is that? In fact, there’s a whole list of lethal objects they will allow you to take on board. Theoretically, you could take a knife, an ice pick, a hatchet, a straight razor, a pair of scissors, a chain saw, six knitting needles, and a broken whiskey bottle, and the only thing they’d say to you is, “That bag has to fit all the way under the seat in front of you.”

      And if you didn’t take a weapon on board, relax. After you’ve been flying for about an hour, they’re gonna bring you a knife and fork! They actually give you a fucking knife! It’s only a table knife, but you could kill a pilot with a table knife. If might take you a couple of minutes. Especially if he’s hefty. But you could get the job done. If you really wanted to kill the prick.

      Shit, there are a lot of things you could use to kill a guy with. You could probably beat a guy to death with the Sunday New York Times. Or suppose you just had really big hands, couldn’t you strangle a flight attendant? Shit, you could probably strangle two of them, one with each hand. That is, if you were lucky enough to catch ‘em in that little kitchen area. Just before they break out the fuckin’ peanuts. But you could get the job done. If you really cared enough.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    14. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am still able to sneak drugs through security. Accidentally took a knife that was never discovered

    15. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why would it be a deterrant?

      You've got a guy willing to blow himself up. If he gets through TSA, he blows himself and the plain up. If TSA catches him.. well, he doesn't get to blow the plane up. Maybe he just blows the security line up, or maybe he gets stopped before he can trigger the bomb. If he gets stopped, maybe he can rat out a couple of accomplices under "interrogation". It's not like building a bomb is such a HUGE expense that the THREAT of a failed attempt would make people give up.

    16. Re:2 questions for the TSA by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If there were terrorists with the will and capability to bomb a plane, but who were put off purely by the probability of being caught by the TSA, don't you think the would've attacked one of the many, many other totally unguarded areas of our infrastructure? Airliners are big, flashy, somewhat fragile targets, but I don't understand how so many people seem to have decided that they're the only targets.

      If someone was willing to blow themselves to pieces for a cause, but couldn't because of the TSA (something I find unlikely to begin with), it's mind-boggling to claim that they'll just sit back, accept it, and become a productive member of society. If anything, it would create a lot more panic to show that we're at risk everywhere, from the subway to the supermarket to the airline security queue. If terrorism were actually an appreciable threat within the US, we'd see some evidence of it. The TSA are fighting an enemy that is vastly few and far between, and even so they're doing a terrible job of it while encroaching horribly on our civil liberties; terrorism just isn't the threat that people make it out to be.

    17. Re:2 questions for the TSA by bmo · · Score: 5, Informative

      You know what deters hijackers now?

      The fact that the passengers will beat him to a bloody pulp.

      That's what stopped the shoe bomber. That's what stopped the underpants bomber. It sure as fuck wasn't the fucking TSA.

      Old rules are gone. "Sit tight and this will all be over and everyone will go home" doesn't exist anymore. Not since 9/11. Now it's "beat the piss out of him and sit on the bastard until we land" as exemplified by the last incident where a passenger went nuts this past week, tried to open the door (lol!) and the passengers beat the piss out of him.

      TSA is underpants-on-head useless.

      --
      BMO

    18. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Combatso · · Score: 1

      not so fast, do realize how much shampoo they have stopped from making it on to airplanes. that shit really stings if you get it in your eye.

    19. Re:2 questions for the TSA by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      The Israeli system can't scale to our needs. It definitely works but it is significantly labor intensive. They actually talk to each and every passenger.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    20. Re:2 questions for the TSA by zill · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I'm not a security expert but I don't think US supplies TSA agents across the globe.

      If an Anonymous Coward on the Internet knows about this gaping security hole, then I'm guessing the terrorists probably figured it out too.

    21. Re:2 questions for the TSA by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Mission accomplished. I have been deterred from flying.

      I've got a big Disney fan in the household. We used to make at least one vacation stop at Disney World each year. This year, we've canceled our initial plans. A big part of that is not wishing to go through Security Theatre.

      I understand that big tourism like Disney theme parks are struggling with disappointing numbers in current times. What a pity they have additional pinch points further restricting income flow.

    22. Re:2 questions for the TSA by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Precisely. The threat just isn't significant - if it were, we'd see evidence. As for the comment about knives, you may not be able to bring them any more, but the broken glass possibility more than makes up for it; it's theatre, plain and simple.

    23. Re:2 questions for the TSA by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      the problem is none of what they are doing would prevent 9/11...which is the justification for all this crap. 9/11 wasn't a 'bomb' it was a hijacking. We solved that problem with reinforced cockpit doors.

      Bombs were in existence before 9/11 but we didn't seem to care about them - because they are rare, and very limited in their effect. Blowing up a plane != using it as a flying missile.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    24. Re:2 questions for the TSA by maxume · · Score: 1

      Your analysis discards the distinction between catching and deterring them; if you aren't trying to catch them, your false positive rate actually matter (but you are indeed left explaining the effectiveness of your rock).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    25. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife has to buy the same $400 bottle of lotion in every city. Lucky it only lasts one day, or that would be wasteful.

    26. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Loconut1389 · · Score: 2

      My backpack has two large removable aluminum rods that run down the back. They look like they're part of the structure, but they're fully removable and actually quite effective weapons. While they have no cutting power, they're long enough and hard enough and have enough mass to be very painful when swung.

    27. Re:2 questions for the TSA by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Not exactly, what it means is that not only have we sold out our values, but we've traded them for cheap trinkets which don't even do what they claim to do. Imagine how the tale of Jack and the Beanstalk would have turned out if the bean seeds had turned out to be just normal bean seeds. I doubt very much that you'd have apologist trolls declaring them to be a success.

    28. Re:2 questions for the TSA by bmo · · Score: 1

      Not sure if trole.....

      They just busted an organized group of baggage handlers that had been smuggling tons of cocaine into the US.

      Substitute a bomb with a "cocaine bag"

      I put it to you that we'll see a Lockerbie style bombing before we see a successful hijacking, and nothing in the airport will have prevented it, just like back in 1988.

      --
      BMO

    29. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't the Marines say something about 'You're bare hands are a weapon'?
      Marines should not be allowed on planes.

    30. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Skater · · Score: 1

      In case you hadn't heard of this incident...it's not just planes any more. And they screened people who just GOT OFF the train.

    31. Re:2 questions for the TSA by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm inclined to agree with the poster who said that the Israeli system probably wouldn't scale to the entire US. That's fine, though, because the situations are very different - Israel actually has a genuine and significant threat from terrorists [or freedom fighters, depending on your point of view. I'm staying out of that debate.], whereas the US quite simply does not. As I've said in a couple of other posts: airlines may be a tempting target, but they're hardly the only one. If there were really any appreciable number of terrorists with the will and capability to strike within the US, we'd be seeing attacks against any number of other totally unguarded parts of the infrastructure.

      The fact that the TSA haven't actually found any bombs means, pretty much by definition, that they aren't catching any terrorists. The fact that nobody's attacking any other areas where people congregate implies that the TSA isn't acting as a deterrent - if that were the case, at least some of those deterred from attacking airlines would attack other targets instead.

    32. Re:2 questions for the TSA by modecx · · Score: 1

      None. Ever. Even the underpants bomber made it through.

      In all fairness, that guy was on a Flight originating from France, so TSA never had the opportunity to check his diaper. Still, I agree with the rest of your sentiment.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    33. Re:2 questions for the TSA by hedwards · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't exclude that at all, the GP just didn't explicitly state it. The TSA pat downs have absolutely nothing to do with explosives, nothing. They are supposedly justified on the notion that somebody might sneak in a knife or other weapon. The only way to screen for explosives is with chemical detectors and taking everything apart, or alternately with dogs. Pat downs have never and will never deter an individual from bringing a bomb on a plane.

      Additionally, the only reason that 9/11 was successful is that we've disarmed everybody else on planes. As unclean as it makes me feel to say it, perhaps if we went back to the way things were in the past, where people could bring knives up to a certain length on planes, we wouldn't have to worry about catching everybody with a small blade and then the TSA groping and irradiation would largely be pointless. A simple metal detector can easily screen for firearms and larger knives.

    34. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Combatso · · Score: 1

      well a guy lit a firecracker in times square... so, lets get at patting down all babies, given the chance those babies will kill you, and your whole family.

    35. Re:2 questions for the TSA by sconeu · · Score: 2

      Anything that costs Disney money (and by extension, power) is a Good Thing(tm)

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    36. Re:2 questions for the TSA by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Remember - TSA is there to act as a deterrant as well. Even if they haven't stopped any hijacking/bombing attempts they may have deterred some. However, that's not to say that I agree with the extreme levels that TSA takes.

      That has a certain ring of "magic rock", though. Or if you prefer, "security by wishful thinking".

    37. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They said my rock was expensive because it was unique.

      : (

    38. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point.

      If you wanted to bomb an aircraft, you're less likely to now, because they have scanners.
      If you wanted to smuggle drugs on an aircraft, you may be less likely because they occasionally have drug dogs, or cavity searches.

      People are less likely to rob a house with an alarm system sign on it.

      People speed less knowing there are speed traps.

      The effect isn't how many you catch, it's how many you prevented. Which is pretty much impossible to determine.

    39. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Big+Smirk · · Score: 2

      You are of course correct, there is a possibility that the TSA has deterred terrorist. Unfortunately, there is equal evidence to suggest they have also deterred elephants from getting on planes as well as aliens from outer space.

      Hint: you are fighting an organization that has no qualms about using suicide bombers and killing innocents. Your deterrent is that some of them might get caught?

      Please read any study on "asymmetric warfare" and its tactics.

      --
      TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
    40. Re:2 questions for the TSA by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      No kidding. I was flying back from South Africa and had some bottled water in my bag. The security check 'told me' to throw it out. It was apparently the honor system to actually throw it out as I left the security area. And I did. Well one of the bottles anyway.

      As for the underwear bomber, I don't really understand why international arrivals aren't screened on arrival if they plan to board another flight.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    41. Re:2 questions for the TSA by PieSquared · · Score: 1

      It's not "they haven't found any in the screening process so there aren't any", it's "they haven't found any in the screening process, but several got through, so why are we spending so much money on a process that violates our rights and doesn't even work?"

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    42. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Pi1grim · · Score: 2

      Yeah, grabbing each passenger by the balls is way more effective.

    43. Re:2 questions for the TSA by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

      last time i checked my pet rock didn't also run gulags in foreign countries.

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    44. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA are fighting an enemy that is vastly few and far between, and even so they're doing a terrible job of it while encroaching horribly on our civil liberties;

      Nonsense. They are doing an **excellent** job of it. Your mistake is assuming that the TSA's purpose is to stop terrorism at the airports.

      The TSA is fighting the enemies of reduced budgets, reductions in staffing and scope, and maintaining liberties of the people. And they are undefeated against all of those.

    45. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      TSA just created a conveniently choke point outside the security perimeter where bombing can be even most effective than on a plane.

      just sayin'

    46. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only recall two attacks, shoe bomber and underwear bomber, and both originated in Europe coming to the US. Neither boarded planes while in the US.

      Now, it was my understanding that those host countries supply their own security, but if your statement is true, the US supplies TSA agents there as well. If we don't, then TSA didn't fuck it up did they?

      No, I am not a TSA agent. My wife is, even though I hate TSA and want them to go away, but I am thankful for the income in a tough economy.

      I used to feel the same way as you, still do in some regards, but after my wife started there I learned some things. TSA has had successes they just don't publicize them. 1) they prevented terrorism so it actually wasn't terrorism. TSA stops the guy with armaments in his bag then FBI takes him away. Most people claim to have forgotten it was in there. So even the guys they actually prosecute may not get a terrorism charge. You want to be the PR person that says hey we caught a terrorist then charged him with illegal possession of a firearm? There's only so much you can charge a person with at the gate and it's usually not a terrorism charge unless the evidence is just overwhelming like carrying a claymore or other military weaponry instead of just household junk strapped together (yes, I am a lawyer). 2) they don't publicize because it denies any feedback to the terrorists. This tactic is used in Iraq and Afghanistan and it works great. There guy just disappears. You and I may want to know what TSA has been doing, but do you think every American wants to know that terrorist attempts are still happening? Can't revamp your tactics if you don't know what went wrong. You may not like not getting any feedback, but the goal of TSA is to prevent terrorism not to beg for attention like a spoiled child every time they do their jobs.

      1 I know for sure (technically I'm not supposed to but you know), and 2 is my inference from military experience where I did whatever it is that I did that allowed me to know such things. I don't know, for sure, that that's why they don't publicize, but I do know it's a standard tactic that works well against an uninformed enemy that depends on operational feedback.

      Like TSA, hate TSA, I don't care, but don't assume you know everything that happens everywhere or that because you personally didn't hear about it it could not have happened. I still think we should get rid of TSA even though if what I wrote is true that would result in possible attacks. It might, but it's the common freedom v. security issue. More freedom opens up vulnerabilities. It may make us more susceptible to attacks, but I have some faith in the American people after 9/11 that they'd stop any attack that occurred on the plane. That's a personal choice; though, and last poll I saw shows most approve of TSA. So it appears that most Americans like the sense of security. You would say it's a false sense, but that wouldn't be correct. You don't have to believe me, but it's the way things are. That doesn't mean we shouldn't question TSA methods, budget, or actions. Just that you're statements that TSA has never prevented anything should be prefaced with "As far as I know" or "I think that" instead of being posted as fact or a 100% failure rate (especially when it was foreign country security problems).

    47. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Pi1grim · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Anyone with hands should not be allowed on a plane. Unless? of course, they are restrained and chained to their seat in a secure manner.

    48. Re:2 questions for the TSA by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      That's because the Israelis are actually serious about preventing terrorism. TSA is just a jobs program, kickbacks to those who make and sell the expensive security tech which really doesn't do anything, and purposeful expansion of the size of government and control over the lives of US citizens.

    49. Re:2 questions for the TSA by reddwar · · Score: 0

      Sure that kid most likely isn't a terrorist buuuuuuut the TSA and airport security personnel in other countries aren't only looking for terrorists. They're also looking for people smuggling drugs, wildlife and other prohibited or illegal items. It just so happens that the people doing these things also sometimes try and smuggle things through security by getting kids and other people to carry the items for them (knowingly or unknowingly).

    50. Re:2 questions for the TSA by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Someone mod this up.

      Scariest question to ask any Airport operator: How long would it take to evacuate the airport for a bomb scare?

      You won't like the answer.

      --
      BMO

    51. Re:2 questions for the TSA by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Not that easy. How many people didn't even try because of airport security?

      well we can't know. And that's why it's hard.

      Then tech when the underwear bomber happened isn't the same as now.

      I know there are saner way to deal with it, but we must be intellectually honest and acknowledge all the factors we know.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    52. Re:2 questions for the TSA by geekoid · · Score: 1

      why? if the one argument his whole post rides on is false, why do you agree?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    53. Re:2 questions for the TSA by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I think it would be fair to acknowledge that terrorist use children to smuggle bombs and explosives.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    54. Re:2 questions for the TSA by eth1 · · Score: 1

      Yep, I've been saying for years: Strap a combat knife to the seat-back in front of every adult passenger, and just x-ray/metal detect for guns and use dogs to try to catch explosives.

    55. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't the Marines say something about 'You're bare hands are a weapon'?

      Only the Marines who doesn't know the difference between "you're" and "your".

    56. Re:2 questions for the TSA by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The had claimed to have a bomb.

      I wonder if that claim today would fall on false ears because people know everyone on board has been 'screened' for explosives?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    57. Re:2 questions for the TSA by peragrin · · Score: 1

      And how many people are employeed to pat down each passenger now? How many machines are in place that cost $500,000 each that aren't being maintained properly and emitting more xray than they are spec'd at?

      For each scanner you can keep 5 people employed for a year. plus you have to have the guards anyways you might as well have them do something useful other than feel people up with the back of their hands.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    58. Re:2 questions for the TSA by bmo · · Score: 2

      Bullshit.

      And your analogy stinks. Locks and alarms are only there to keep honest people out.

      We can't even keep drugs out of prisons! How are you going to stop a determined person from creating another Pan Am 103?

      --
      BMO

    59. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter. you can still sneak stuff onto planes now. it happens all the time. I know guys who carried knives right through by accident.

      It is easy to hide a small bomb in any number of carry-ons that can't be detected by any current means.

      An MP3 player with modified head phones for the trigger and lead wires, to a bomb built into the secondary drive compartment of a laptop(remove dvd drive install bomb use a metal housing laptop) . The real trick is that the guy who is going on the plane can't touch the bomb, or laptop before the day in question, and then only through the laptop bag. That way the scent is never on him until after he is on the plane.

      That is just one way. Posted Anonymously for obvious reasons.

    60. Re:2 questions for the TSA by LinksAwakener · · Score: 1

      I don't know about other countries, I only fly in and out of Canada/Mexico so it's only half-international. But every time I am screened by an American TSA agent as well as border control. Whenever I take a flight *into* the US I feel almost assaulted--it's more vigirous than within-US flights--so I'm not sure HOW one would slip a bomb through.

    61. Re:2 questions for the TSA by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      The TSA has an $8.1 annual billion budget and has yet to have a single success.

      Your definition of success might not be in line with mine, especially considering the New York skyline hasn't changed in a dramatic way for quite a while.

    62. Re:2 questions for the TSA by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Right now the people are rent-a-cops. The Israeli system requires actual trained professionals. And more of them than we currently have rent-a-cops. It doesn't scale.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    63. Re:2 questions for the TSA by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I averaged about 15,000 frequent flier miles/yr before they installed backscatter machines at my local airport. Since then I've accrued 0.

      Call me when the shenanigans are over.

    64. Re:2 questions for the TSA by lgw · · Score: 1

      Check again - that's one wicked rock you've got there!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    65. Re:2 questions for the TSA by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Whether they claimed to have a bomb or not is no longer relevant.

      People now fight back, i.e. Flight 93. The jig is up on the unwritten agreement that if the passengers just play along they'll be released relatively okay in Cuba or wherever.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    66. Re:2 questions for the TSA by ATestR · · Score: 1

      . How many people didn't even try because of airport security?

      How many people no longer fly because of airport security?

      --
      âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
    67. Re:2 questions for the TSA by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Canada & Mexico are neighboring countries so having people stationed there isn't a huge issue. Having a significant security team in each and every airport that flies to any city in the US isn't remotely workable.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    68. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Locutus · · Score: 2

      partly true. what "stopped" the underpants bomber and the shoe bomber from blowing up their target was the devices failed to explode. Only then did the other passengers and crew subdue and prevent further attempts.

      so I would not be so sure potential hijackers would be deterred by a fear of getting beat up.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    69. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just because they didn't even START rebuilding for 5 years.

    70. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's that term I'm looking for? The one where you hear something from someone else about some event but haven't witnessed it yourself.

      Oh yeah, hearsay.

      I call bullshit on your story. Go troll an IAMA on reddit.

    71. Re:2 questions for the TSA by 228e2 · · Score: 1

      They are

      I just came back from Nigeria late April and had a connection from atlanta to detroit. And I was treated just as if I walked into an airport except for not having our luggage reweighed. That meant screening, machines, shoes off, the whole 9 yards. Im not sure if this is a new thing or if the ATL airport is just on top of their shit.

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    72. Re:2 questions for the TSA by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Yeah, true.

      You know, I've noticed that if I I read /. before going outside, there are no polar bears in my front yard. I think I'll probably take a peek at /. before going outside, just to keep the polar bears away.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    73. Re:2 questions for the TSA by rbollinger · · Score: 2

      Yes but we could have paid a lot less for a sticker that says we have an alarm system, than installing an alarm system that doesn't work.

    74. Re:2 questions for the TSA by residieu · · Score: 1

      I would expect them to be trying. If I wanted to bomb or hijack planes, I'd be sending people through security to see what I could get through. I'd probably expect them to get caught, so they'd know nothing of importance to tell the authorities. Why aren't they trying to test the security more?

    75. Re:2 questions for the TSA by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      [Citation Needed]

      Of course, there AREN'T any because that information is "classified". So given the option of trusting DHS/TSA or assuming that since wanna-be terrorists have, in fact, managed to sneak past TSA (shoe bomber and underwear bomber, for starters) and DHS/TSA isn't releasing information on terrorists they have caught, I'm probably gonna be skeptical about "the real security improvements."

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    76. Re:2 questions for the TSA by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Esta, dieser, questo, cette, seo, this.

      If there were so many terrorists that the TSA was the only thing stopping them from getting on airplanes, we'd see wreckage in our shopping malls, buses, stadia, movie theaters, anywhere people congregate. The fact that it doesn't happen there means the terrorists simply don't exist.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    77. Re:2 questions for the TSA by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Just for curiosity, why wouldn't it scale? Are Israeli airports that much smaller than American ones? (Yes, you'd need more *total* people, because US has a higher total population. But you also have more police officers, firefighters, nurses, teachers, garbage collectors, etc...)

    78. Re:2 questions for the TSA by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Have you ever held a three-month-old, or even seen one up close? How much explosive do you think you can pack on one of those rug rats without the bulges being all kinds of obvious? An M-80 firecracker isn't going to bring down an airliner, and you aren't going to pack a sizeable chunk of explosive on a baby without him looking like the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man [:rolleyes:]

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    79. Re:2 questions for the TSA by ctetc007 · · Score: 2

      Hey, don't mock your rock. You never know when you need to ward away tigers!

      More seriously though, part of the issue of gauging the "success" of TSA is that we don't know how many potential plots they stopped from even leaving home to attempt it. How effective was the security theater in convincing potential terrorists to "just stay home".

      I see 2 possible answers to that question: Pessimistically, if those terrorists really wanted to do it, no amount of security theater is going to stop them. On the other hand, those that were really more on the fence, they probably decided to stay home instead. In that sense, it would be argued that the security theater works, and also we can't really gauge the level of that success.

      The data points that we actually do have to gauge the "success" of TSA are skewed. All we see are the times when weapons are caught going through the scanning (call them partial successes) and when they slip through and either the passengers tackle them to the ground or they're successful in their mission (TSA failures).

      Really, the only way we could truly gauge success would be to compare our airport system to the same system without TSA. We could try to compare to that of other countries, but then some would cry foul saying "That's not America, we can't accurately compare." Also, we (America as a whole) are too risk averse to try and see what happens if we actually stopped enforcing airport security. Honestly, I think the real risk is negligible, but we live in a world where we've been scared into thinking that any Arab-looking man is a potential terrorist... Bin Laden has won.

      We really need to find some way of assessing how much the threat of security theater deters attacks, and how much the threat of passengers beating you up stops attacks. Honestly, real airport security should be self enforced, but we're stuck in a society where we depend on authority figures. The average American is lazy enough to prefer someone in a uniform to keep us safe over having to fight for him/herself. Because of that, we revert to allowing our higher ups to push us around, believing that what they do helps keep us safe from the terrorists.

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

    80. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >2) How many times have explosives been found?

      None. Ever. Even the underpants bomber made it through.

      Since the inception of the TSA, they have stopped *zero* hijacking/bombing attempts from the airport.

      Biggest waste of money on security theater going.

      --
      BMO

      Not that I disagree, but can you be sure we would hear about a success?

    81. Re:2 questions for the TSA by anyGould · · Score: 1

      And the craziness will continue until the American people are willing to let a politician say "this security measure does both diddle and squat and is a waste of dollars - we're not going to do it anymore" without promptly getting stomped into fine paste with cries of "SOFT ON TERRORISM!"

    82. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Amouth · · Score: 0

      What France does is not the fucking fault of fucking US fucking TSA.

      actually it kinda is - see if we hadn't bothered to save their ass a couple of times last century they wouldn't be here to "fucking do something/nothing"

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    83. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or you know just bring a bomb to the security line at an airport. The TSA makes people wait so long you end up with huge groupings of people with no security check at all. One bomb in the middle of that line would take out more than a bomb on a plane.

    84. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, American babies kind of do look like the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man....

    85. Re:2 questions for the TSA by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Anything that costs Disney money (and by extension, power) is a Good Thing(tm)

      So we'll jot you down for the "TSA is doing a good job" column, then?

    86. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So instead of possibly being released relatively unharmed in Cuba or wherever, you can all die in a fiery wreckage as the plane plummets into the ground at 560mph. I like your thinking!

    87. Re:2 questions for the TSA by russotto · · Score: 1

      I just came back from Nigeria late April and had a connection from atlanta to detroit. And I was treated just as if I walked into an airport except for not having our luggage reweighed. That meant screening, machines, shoes off, the whole 9 yards. Im not sure if this is a new thing or if the ATL airport is just on top of their shit.

      Certain originating airports are on the TSAs shit list; if you come from there you have to get re-screened. This actually pre-dates the TSA, I think the State Department maintains the list.

    88. Re:2 questions for the TSA by hey! · · Score: 1

      The question isn't whether the TSA has prevented any hijacking attempts. The question is which of TSAs measures are cost effective and which are a waste of time and money.

      Given that we *know* there are people out there who would like to hijack American planes, and there haven't been any attempts made, we have to assume that *some* of what TSA is doing is an effective deterrence to attempts. For example, metal detectors combined with the inspection of carry-on luggage are surely an effective deterrent to carrying on firearms and other weapons. But does body scanning provide any measurable addition to secruity? If it does, is that worth the cost? I don't know, but I'm skeptical.

      That brings up another good question, which is opportunity cost. Last summer a teenager stowed aboard the landing gear well of an airliner bound for Boston. It turns out there was a similar case a few years ago where a man stowed away in the wheel well of a jet in Africa that was bound for the US. In both cases the stowaway died from exposure, but had he been a terrorist he could easily have planted a bomb. This tells us that the TSA is missing some crucial, probably low-tech security procedures. The money and effort spent on the questionable body scanning system would surely have been better spent on securing the non-passenger parts of the airliner before it leaves the ground.

      Even if you got rid of the security theater and the more intrusive searches, the TSA would not be a beloved agency. Bureaucratic pig-headedness is bad customer service, but it is necessary for deterrence. If a rule is triggered, the procedure must be followed; you can't allow an agent in the field to override the rule with common sense. He'd be right nearly every time he gave somebody a pass, which is precisely why you can't let that happen. Relaxing the rules would become a habit, and some places would become much more lax than others.

      The time to fix things we don't like about airport security isn't when we're at the security checkpoint. It's when the rules are set down. If a TSA agent realizes that the rule technically requires him to pat down a baby, he ought to do it. Then the agency should review the rule and clarify or modify it as necessary.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    89. Re:2 questions for the TSA by jimicus · · Score: 1

      That's one measurement, but the other one that the OP refers to is: How many of the following incidents have occurred?

      1. Passenger stopped, arrested, charged and convicted of terrorism-related acts.
      2. Bombs prevented from being allowed on board.

      It'd be absolute political gold to be able to say "I supported the acts that led to the TSA, since then it's been directly responsible for all of these things!".

      But that hasn't happened. Instead, the best they can do is point to an impossible to quantify deterrent effect and claim everything else is classified.

      Lest we forget, hijackings are (and always have been, even prior to 9/11) extremely rare and almost invariably unsuccessful. The usual result has always been for the hijackers to wind up face down on the tarmac with a couple of bullets in the back of their head. It's really not a long-term career plan.

    90. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that is perfectly normal for any flight arriving from "overseas" into the USA. With the exception of some flights from Canada (and perhaps Mexico, I don't know), you go through customs and immigration at your first stop in the USA, and then you are screened just as if you came from outside the airport. I travel internationally 2-3 times each year and have done so for several years, and this has always been my experience.

    91. Re:2 questions for the TSA by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't have anything to do with airport size. You need orders of magnitude more people and these are highly trained skilled people. Interviewing each and every passenger multiple times takes time. It wouldn't work in such a large system.

      Google "why wouldn't the israeli airport security work in the us" one example

      Other factoids, Israel has 1 major airport, we have 450. Israel handles 11 million people annually. We handle 700+ million.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    92. Re:2 questions for the TSA by russotto · · Score: 1

      Have you ever held a three-month-old, or even seen one up close? How much explosive do you think you can pack on one of those rug rats without the bulges being all kinds of obvious? An M-80 firecracker isn't going to bring down an airliner, and you aren't going to pack a sizeable chunk of explosive on a baby without him looking like the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man

      Check out http://www.terrorsupplies.co.ly/ where you can get such items as the C4 Diaper.

    93. Re:2 questions for the TSA by eharvill · · Score: 1

      ATL has been that way for as long as I can remember. It's really annoying as you have to re-check your bags after you go through customs just to pick them up at the normal baggage claim. They are building a new international terminal to get rid of inefficiencies like this (supposedly).

      http://www.atlanta-airport.com/Airport/Construction/Construction_Maynard.aspx

      Hopefully this will be an improvement as I travel internationally about once a year.

      --
      At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
    94. Re:2 questions for the TSA by russotto · · Score: 1

      In case you hadn't heard of this incident...it's not just planes any more. And they screened people who just GOT OFF the train.

      And if America had any hope left, there would have been some incidents where people refused to co-operate with the TSA. There weren't; everyone co-operated.

    95. Re:2 questions for the TSA by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Again, a bomb is significantly less harmful than a hijacked plane. The odds that the hijacker actually has a bomb are pretty low to begin with.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    96. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or bring a fake bomb. You'll still cause panic and confusion as your force the whole airport to shut down.

    97. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Surt · · Score: 1

      The point is precisely that we grab only a small fraction of the passengers by the balls. The Israelis work over every single passenger, and only have to do so at 3? airports.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    98. Re:2 questions for the TSA by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I see 2 possible answers to that question: Pessimistically, if those terrorists really wanted to do it, no amount of security theater is going to stop them. On the other hand, those that were really more on the fence, they probably decided to stay home instead. In that sense, it would be argued that the security theater works, and also we can't really gauge the level of that success.

      That's a really, really stupid statement. You need to put yourself into the shoes of a terrorist, you're pissed off enough to kill yourself to hurt your enemy. The minimum wage security personnel at the airport aren't going to make you decide not to commit an act of terror. If you think the security people are really a threat, you'd simply choose some other place to attack. Instead you'd try to blow up a train, or a ferry, or a landmark. Security guards can't stop rage.

      The way you determine if they're effective is to look at how many terrorists are caught and how many get through and comparing to other potential targets. It's pretty safe to say that if few or no attacks have succeed in the U.S. and no terrorists have been caught by the TSA, then they are worth less than they cost.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    99. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who despises what the TSA is doing, I will have to admit that they have probably scared off a lot of potential attacks simply due to the heightened security. You can't really gauge those numbers, though.

    100. Re:2 questions for the TSA by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Nope. The reason 9/11 was successful was that people were complacent. Almost everyone thought that the worst that would happen was the flight being diverted to a third world nation. That's why the plane companies didn't reinforce the cabin doors to stop hijackings. The safest course of action was to fly the hijackers to their destination, give them whatever they want and then shoot them when they tried to leave the plane. 9/11 changed that, now the safest course of action is to capture or kill the hijackers when they try to take over the plane.

      You could have given everyone on board each of those planes on 9/11 a great big steak knife, and I expect everything would have turned out exactly as it did. Passengers need a reason to risk their lives, they didn't have that before 9/11.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    101. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Given that we *know* there are people out there who would like to hijack American planes, and there haven't been any attempts made, we have to assume that *some* of what TSA is doing is an effective deterrence to attempts.

      No we don't, and if anything, we should be comparing them against what we did before - metal detectors, bomb sniffers. They're a whole lot more invasive and they don't do shit.

      For example, metal detectors combined with the inspection of carry-on luggage are surely an effective deterrent to carrying on firearms and other weapons.

      I was talking to an old timer in the TSA line; he said that in the 70s, you could bring guns on the plane - they had a locker that they'd store your gun in for you.

      Bureaucratic pig-headedness is bad customer service, but it is necessary for deterrence.

      Unsupported assertion. We had plenty of deterrence on 9/10/2001

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    102. Re:2 questions for the TSA by modecx · · Score: 1

      Why? The fact the underwear guy originated at a foreign terminal is only tangential to the idea that much of TSA, in its conception and execution, is a monumentally wasteful, yet demonstrably ineffectual bassackwards bureaucratic clusterfuck; and as it stands, an insult to common-sense, individual decency and the American way. I hope this satisfies your query.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    103. Re:2 questions for the TSA by tragedy · · Score: 1

      MozeeToby, I want to buy your rock!

    104. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Samalie · · Score: 1

      I remember the answer for Toronto's Pearson International Airport...

      36 to 48 hours, IIRC

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    105. Re:2 questions for the TSA by treeves · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't we hear about it? If the purpose of the screening is to deter, wouldn't it be a better deterrent if they could point to successfully catching would-be terrorists?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    106. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Samalie · · Score: 1

      Actually, ALL flights from Canada to the USA you are pre-cleared by customs and screened by the TSA. The only exception I can think of would be with small privately-owned aircraft, and even then I recall that you are supposed to pre-clear.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    107. Re:2 questions for the TSA by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      >2) How many times have explosives been found?

      None. Ever. Even the underpants bomber made it through.

      Since the inception of the TSA, they have stopped *zero* hijacking/bombing attempts from the airport.

      Biggest waste of money on security theater going.

      --
      BMO

      They're not trying to stop bombing attempts. They're trying to stop their employers getting reamed by the media when a bombing attempt is successful. "But we x-rayed everyone and groped *babies* -- what more could we do?" is probably the best defense the likes of the FAA, FBI, and TSA have available to them the next time someone blows something up and the media is all "but look at all the WARNING SIGNS: how could you be so dense as to not notice this one dude out of 300 million other dudes who did four things that in hindsight make it clear he was building bombs but at the time looked like relatively innocuous actions?" The whole TSA is a giant exercise in ass-covering. Stopping actual terrorists is a slight side-effect.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    108. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first I remember about airport security was when a couple of whack jobs hijacked planes and diverted them to Cuba. For me, that's when it started. Yes, they actually got through security and had a measure of control of the aircraft - if they had wanted to, they could have used the plane as the 9/11 terrorists did - but, those late '60s terrorists weren't the same breed of whack jobs as we got on 9/11.

      If you remove all the security, somebody will eventually do it again, and then everyone will whine and cry about how easy it was to do. So, why not make an industry of it? It's not like those TSA agents could make valuable contribution to society in another job anyway.

    109. Re:2 questions for the TSA by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You realize that Israel has one International Airport and maybe 50 regional airports. Smaller than New Jersey. Israeli techniques, while effective don't scale. Further, ask anyone with an passport from any one of a number of countries with less than cozy relationships with Israel how they like going through Israeli security. It would likely not pass muster in the US - not that what we're doing now is particularly constitutionally sound....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    110. Re:2 questions for the TSA by rhizome · · Score: 1

      TSA has had successes they just don't publicize them.

      You are a bald-faced liar.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    111. Re:2 questions for the TSA by hey! · · Score: 1

      No we don't, and if anything, we should be comparing them against what we did before - metal detectors, bomb sniffers. They're a whole lot more invasive and they don't do shit.

      That's essentially what I said. The basic methods used before 9/11, along with stricter post 9/11 standards for what can be carried on (e.g. no box cutters), account for most if not nearly all the deterrence of hijack since then. Here's where we differ: Since the TSA performs these duties, I think it is reasonable to say that the TSA has effectively deterred hijackings.

        I think you're confounding "TSA" with specific methods introduced with the TSA like body scanning and enhanced pat downs that are of dubious value.

      I was talking to an old timer in the TSA line; he said that in the 70s, you could bring guns on the plane - they had a locker that they'd store your gun in for you.

      Yes, and there were 5 major hijackings worldwide in 1970 alone, and well over twenty for the decade. There were almost as many hijackings in 1970 as there were in the decade since 9/11 (8), even though there were far fewer flights back then. Which is why they developed metal detectors in the 70s. I started flying around the time they were introduced.

      The locker thing is a good idea, but it's not any different than checking your gun with your luggage. It'd be nice if they did that for things like your swiss army knife rather than making you throw it away, but one of the things that has happened since the 1970s is that air travel has become cheap. Air travel used to be glamorous ... and expensive. If people paid the equivalent of what they used to back in 1970, you'd get a lot more amenities.

      Unsupported assertion. We had plenty of deterrence on 9/10/2001

      It's an easily supportable assertion, unless you insist that I prove a negative assertion *by example*, which is of course impossible to do.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    112. Re:2 questions for the TSA by TCQuad · · Score: 1

      The TSA has an $8.1 annual billion budget and has yet to have a single success.

      The TSA actually has a new section dedicated to their successes at http://www.tsa.gov/press/goodcatch/

      There are currently three stories: on March 30th they found some pot in a jar of peanut butter, on April 15th they found what appears to be a really tiny knife (or a normal knife in a gigantic DVD player) and on May 5th they found a knife in a shoe (knife not shown).

      So, they have had some successes, but these are small, meaningless victories (and, in the first case, completely unrelated to safety).

    113. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I think you're confounding "TSA" with specific methods introduced with the TSA like body scanning and enhanced pat downs that are of dubious value.

      No, I am specifically talking about those methods. You have yet to establish that there is anything to deter. You've just declared that the TSA protects us (while stealing shit).

      It's an easily supportable assertion, unless you insist that I prove a negative assertion *by example*, which is of course impossible to do.

      Well, we can look at the number of hijackings/attacks in the decade leading up to 9/11 (on us flights) and in the decade after. I count 1 attempt before (someone hijacked a cargo jet in 1994 so they could fly it into fedex HQ) and 2 or 3 attempts (shoe guy and underwear guy) with zero effectiveness from the TSA for the after, so we do see some attempts being made, but the TSA did nothing to detect/preent them. With that level of egg on their face, you would expect them to crow loudly about anything they actually did right, but instead, they're trying to harass train travelers. basically, they don't do shit, so why do we have them?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    114. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would expect them to be trying. If I wanted to bomb or hijack planes, I'd be sending people through security to see what I could get through. I'd probably expect them to get caught, so they'd know nothing of importance to tell the authorities. Why aren't they trying to test the security more?

      Follow that thought through... there are 2 options:
      1) They are testing it and succeeding
      2) They aren't testing it. (either they don't exist or they are aiming at other targets now)

      Either way, guess who loses? That's right, kids... the Taxpayer! Let's spend $8.1 BILLION per year and then either fail to catch the bad guys or cover up the fact that there haven't been any bad guys. Sounds like a great investment to me.

    115. Re:2 questions for the TSA by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      And then let's pretend that there are 10 terrorists that try to get on an airplane each year in the US, which is almost definitely an unrealistically high number.

      No it's not, you've qualified your statement inadequately. Terrorists fly in the US frequently, but those who plan to destroy the flight they're on are rare.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    116. Re:2 questions for the TSA by bell.colin · · Score: 1

      "Even the underpants bomber made it through."

      Interesting that the TSA missed him since he was "Inbound" from an International flight from Europe. (i.e. no TSA screening at all)

      The TSA is still useless/for show.

    117. Re:2 questions for the TSA by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Carlin made a lot of valid points in his life, but his attitude was vicious. In your quote, he's calling the airplane pilot, a highly skilled and very responsible guy who'll be keeping Carlin alive, a "prick". There are myriad valid ways to criticize bad behavior while earning a living as a funny man, and that isn't one of them.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    118. Re:2 questions for the TSA by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Just checked, not a real thing.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    119. Re:2 questions for the TSA by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There have been incidents where people have refused to cooperate, and they've been treated viciously. You haven't been paying attention.

      Most people just want to get where they're going, and their responsibilities (to their family and their employer) don't give much range for striking back against the TSA. Those that are willing to stand up for themselves are in most cases wise enough to avoid situations where they have to.

      For this abomination to end quickly, there would have to be hundreds of people each week trained in unarmed combat, killing in a single blow the first TSA agent to touch them. That would lead to their own death, or life imprisonment, pretty quickly. There aren't many people willing to do that, and understandably so. We're not the people we were in 1775, more's the shame.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    120. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I am not a TSA agent. My wife is, even though I hate TSA and want them to go away, but I am thankful for the income in a tough economy.

      At the risk of Godwinning the thread... My grandpa died at Auschwitz. Got drunk and fell off the guard tower. Hey, we're not Nazis, but our family was grateful for the generous pension benefits.

      If your wife had any ethics, she'd quit and find honest work. If you had any ethics, you'd encourage her to do so.

      So long as you're only "grateful for the income in a tough economy", you're as much a part of the problem as she is.

    121. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Only polar bears? What have you been doing to keep the grizzly bears out there from tipping over your trash cans?

    122. Re:2 questions for the TSA by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      A terrorist is not a terrorist because it is convenient. Why would the TSA deter a terrorist from being a terrorist? Wouldn't they just deter him from bombing a plane? There are many different targets a terrorist could choose if they just want to kill people, and honestly, since 9/11 a plane is probably the least likely target, as it is the most obvious.

    123. Re:2 questions for the TSA by russotto · · Score: 1

      There have been incidents where people have refused to cooperate, and they've been treated viciously. You haven't been paying attention.

      I remember the one where they strangled a woman for being obnoxious to them. Of course the claim was she strangled herself with the handcuffs. Everybody pretty much nodded and said she had it coming.

      Most people just want to get where they're going, and their responsibilities (to their family and their employer) don't give much range for striking back against the TSA.

      No actual "striking back" would be necessary; refusing to the point of arrest would have been sufficient for there to be more than "no hope".

    124. Re:2 questions for the TSA by PAjamian · · Score: 1

      Actually America puts its own screening points in foreign airports for flights bound for the US. I'm not fully certain if they had this for the flight with the underwear bomber, though.

      Also, while this is the case, it's usually just an additional passport check.

      --
      Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
  4. Airport security... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...is an embarrassment to America.

    We really could be better than this.

    1. Re:Airport security... by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 2

      We really could be better than this

      I honestly can't decide whether or not I think that's true.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    2. Re:Airport security... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      We can do better. I think the examples of when we want to do better make that pretty clear.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Airport security... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We really could be better than this.

      If only by 'this' you mean to stop whining and try to do something real. Nope, I didn't think so.

    4. Re:Airport security... by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hah, my wife was just applying for a non-immigrant visa today because her old one expired. Now you have to submit an online application. There are about a million questions, all the buttons are counter-intuitive (usually continue goes on the right and back goes on the left), and the website says it will log you out after 20 minutes of inactivity, which is false. It logs you out after 15 minutes - activity or no. Considering that these forms take far more than 20 minutes to fill out (list the exact dates of your last 5 visits to the US please, never mind that US immigration likes to stamp wherever the hell they feel like it in your passport), it's a major hassle. We were logged out no less than three times during this process.

      And don't forget, you need to give travel dates (even if we're not sure when we plan on going to the US in the next 10 years) and name/address of a contact person in the US (I'm sure I have the name and address of the guy who works at the hotel I'll be staying at...). Oh and of course the "trick" questions where they try to "catch you out". My favorite was "have you ever participated in torture/extrajudicial killing". I wonder how many American government employees actually would not be allowed a visa... but I digress.

      Put it this way - I'm glad I'm Canadian and don't have to do this crap every few years but America - if you don't want tourists why don't you just say so? I mean, the Mexicans will still keep jumping the border fence anyway no matter how many questions you put on that form, but we law abiding people can take a hint.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Airport security... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You do better than this!
      Those TSA goons and their leaders are not Americans anymore. They are enemies of the state!

      Because they not only ignore the constitution, they deliberately rape and destroy it.

      Protect your country from those true terrorist (= create terror for own benefit) fascists! You helped us back then, we will help you now!

      Germany,
      on behalf of the entire EU.

    6. Re:Airport security... by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Funny

      We really could be better than this.

      We could, but there's a major roadblock: citizens who are terrified that terrorists are out to get them and vote for whoever promises they'll stand between the terrorists and the voters' family. Common sense policy in national security that follows that quote about freedom vs security will always fail because of their paranoia, if they can vote.

      What we NEED to do is KILL OFF ALL THE PARANOID PEOPLE!

      ...but they probably are expecting that...

    7. Re:Airport security... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Well, you could all have done with a few more hours in the gym, it's true....

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    8. Re:Airport security... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I don't know anyone, Democrat, Republican, or The Rent is Too D*** High who likes the TSA. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard someone mention it in their campaign. Even then, it's hard to vote for someone based on a single issue.

    9. Re:Airport security... by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      TSA doesn't increase security at all... if they were *really* interested in improving security, they'd go back to metal detectors, and make everybody get the once-over from sniffer dogs before getting into the secure area. Dogs, I said. Plural. One that's trained to sniff for drugs (though I personally believe the war on drugs to be a complete waste of money), and one that's been trained to sniff for explosives and gunpowder. Between that, not allowing any bottles/containers into the secure area (except what you buy in the secure area), and the fortified cockpits on the airplanes, that would be all the security they would need.

    10. Re:Airport security... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I'm okay with banning all liquids and gels, so long as they also:

      • Ban checked luggage fees on your first bag so that I can carry a tube of toothpaste for less than $30.
      • Get all the checked luggage out of the plane and to the baggage claim in five minutes instead of half an hour.

      Besides, it's a moot point anyway. Odds are good that the next successful attack on airport security will involve airport employees (e.g. maintenance workers) who often get little or no screening. Our airport security is myopically focused on passengers, while ignoring the bigger picture. Such schemes never work for very long.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    11. Re:Airport security... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, I remember the fun of that one. I seem to recall that I ended up writing the answers in order in a text document, then just starting a new session and quickly copy-pasting them across to the web page before it timed out. The associated interview process was odd, too - call a premium rate phone number (around £10, IIRC) to book an appointment at the embassy, go to embassy, go through metal detector, have bag x-rayed and mini-stapler confiscated, sit in a waiting room, get asked extremely terse and rudimentary questions about my plans, pay visa fee (£100 or thereabouts), have visa approved, go pay another £10 or £15 to their 'approved courier service' (a private, UK company) at the side desk in order to get my passport back. Not that I object to paying for what it costs to process my application, it just seems petty and unnecessary to tack the extra little bits on either end for the phone call and the delivery, especially as it's outside companies that are profiting.

      Apparently there is a legitimate (if somewhat convoluted) logic behind the 'trick questions', though - they aren't actually expecting anyone to answer 'yes', but if, at a later date, it turns out that you were an evil dictator, they have a quick and iron-clad reason to revoke your visa: you liked on the application when you ticked 'no'.

    12. Re:Airport security... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and of course the "trick" questions where they try to "catch you out". My favorite was "have you ever participated in torture/extrajudicial killing".

      Well, I've paid my taxes. But as long as the government keeps the torture covered up, we taxpayers still have plausible deniability. :)

    13. Re:Airport security... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I agree. A candlelit dinner first, a walk on the beach, maybe even having them call the next day.

    14. Re:Airport security... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Seriously, we're requiring visas from Europeans instead of just passports?

      I think Canada needs to dig a big hole in the ground and call it the Grander Canyon and they'll be able to grab all the tourist dollars instead.

    15. Re:Airport security... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      It's not quite that bad yet, thankfully. Most Europeans can get away with an ESTA - a basic online form - for tourist purposes. I needed the visa because I was spending a year at a US university.

    16. Re:Airport security... by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Either workers, or the unsecured part of the airport. Nefarious persons could do just as much financial damage and cause just as much panic by setting off a bomb in the wait line to go through the security checkpoint, and they wouldn't have to go through any security at all to reach that point.

      The reason that kind of thing hasn't happened is because of the increased inter-departmental communication happening, which is greatly improving the intelligence-gathering capabilities of the government (though most of the plots uncovered are due to either a member of the plot having a change of heart, or somebody bragging about it to the wrong person... loose lips sink ships and all).

    17. Re:Airport security... by TheABomb · · Score: 1

      Wait, Germany's telling us we have a problem with unchecked authoritarian jackbootery? Next thing you know, Ireland's gonna tell us we're broke and drunk.

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    18. Re:Airport security... by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      I've said this for a long, long time. A bomb going off in the security line itself would be powerfully horrific on a number of levels. It shows the vulnerability of the system, it thumbs it's nose at the system by doing it just a few feet from the screeners. And it still kills people and causes panic, probably shuts down airports, etc.

      It's not hard to be creative and think up ways to harm people and destroy stuff in a free society. That's not to say we shouldn't be doing something to mitigate risk. But all what we do so far is myopically keep passengers form getting certain items on airplanes. And ineffectively at that.

      That said, if this system worked, why shouldn't you search a baby? Do you honestly think someone either sick or fanatical enough to destroy an airplane in flight and kill everyone on board couldn't use a baby to try to smuggle something on board? Do terrorists consider that a line they won't cross?

    19. Re:Airport security... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I've said this for a long, long time. A bomb going off in the security line itself would be powerfully horrific on a number of levels. It shows the vulnerability of the system, it thumbs it's nose at the system by doing it just a few feet from the screeners. And it still kills people and causes panic, probably shuts down airports, etc.

      Sure, a lot of people die, and panic ensues, the airport is shut down, and airports across America go on red-orange alert, but it stops the terrorists from blowing up planes. Those things are expensive to replace! ~

    20. Re:Airport security... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Protect your country from those true terrorist (= create terror for own benefit) fascists! You helped us back then, we will help you now!

      Germany,
      on behalf of the entire EU.

      Wait, Germany's telling us we have a problem with unchecked authoritarian jackbootery? Next thing you know, Ireland's gonna tell us we're broke and drunk.

      The Irish manager of an Irish pub told a guy that recently. Then he called him a cab. Not sure what cab means in English, but it can't be pleasant.

    21. Re:Airport security... by BillX · · Score: 1

      Why attack an airport at all? My odds - and let's pray to the deities / scientists of our choosing that it doesn't happen anytime soon - are that a future attacker will skip the hassle of trying to sneak an attack past airport security full-stop, and hit some thing with a) more people, b) packed closer together, c) with much less / zero security to get in the way. Ever been to any major US city's 4th of July fireworks show? Hundreds of thousands of people, packing sardine-dense into commuter rails, subways, buses and anything else to reach the center of the action, then packing asshole-to-elbow to watch the show. People against people as far as the eye can see. Think of the kind of damage a few "students'" backpacks worth of C-4 would do for terror there.

      Not to sound too morbid or anything, but I think watching for a subsequent attack at an airport is almost a waste of time at this point.

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    22. Re:Airport security... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Living-70-years-in-the-past FAIL. ;)

      YES, Germany is telling you this. Because we, of all countries know this best. We still are burned from it to this day, fearing someone might call us "Nazis", and putting up with every crap, just so they don't. ^^

    23. Re:Airport security... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Well, I did say the next attack on airport security, not the next attack. That said, the terrorist groups seem to like airplanes, at least in the U.S. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because people don't have much choice but to fly when they need to travel long distances across the U.S., whereas people have a choice about going to a July 4th or New Year's celebration. *shrugs*

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  5. Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    A Muslim with an obvious middle eastern accent was waved on through because the random checks didn't single him out and because it would be politically incorrect to flag Muslims for extra screening.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      This obviously has nothing to do with anyone's safety. This is about obedience and conditioning. One by one, all those predictions that the conspiracy nuts rattled off (and most rational people dismissed) are coming true. If the trend continues, the dollar will be destroyed and replaced with a multi-national currency, and there will be another push for Real ID.

    2. Re:Meanwhile in line... by 228e2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Problem?

      Contrary to public outcry, American terrorist are more likely to be Caucasian males than any other race.

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    3. Re:Meanwhile in line... by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      How many Caucasians have we had hijack airplanes in the last 20 or 30 years?

    4. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contrary to public outcry, American terrorist

      Selection bias. Terrorists are less likely to be Americans.

      American terrorists are likely to be caucasian. Irish terrorists are likely to be scotsmen. News at 11.

      Meanwhile, terrorists in general are quite likely to be both Muslim and of Arab descent.

    5. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ok. The pilots will probably kick the Muslim off the plane before takeoff anyway. No flying Muslims, no terrorism! Yay!

    6. Re:Meanwhile in line... by 228e2 · · Score: 1

      Since when is hijacking an airplane the only form of terrorism?

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    7. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Have you seen a lot of white Christian suicide bombers and terrorists lately? Because aside from Tim McVeigh and a few nutbags bombing abortion clinics, I haven't seen many of them in the last 20 years. Even the IRA put its C-4 away a long time ago.

      Methinks the fact that pretty much every suicide bomber and terrorist these days is a Muslim *might* just suggest a pattern. But then, granted, I'm no Batman-level detective or anything.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re:Meanwhile in line... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Which everyone was pleased about because the Muslim, like millions of others, was simply travelling on business and like most people would be shocked at the idea that he might commit an act of terrorism.

    9. Re:Meanwhile in line... by 228e2 · · Score: 1

      Its not selection bias. Its numbers.

      School shootings, bomb threats, mail and building bombs . . . these are all terrorism activities. Which are carried out by people non-Muslim or Arab descent.


      But you already knew that . . . .

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    10. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The 9-11 hijackers, the shoe bomber, the diaper bomber, etc. were all innocent when they boarded too.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    11. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if we accept that terrorists are usual Muslim, then we can conclude that Muslims are usually ... oh right, not terrorists.

    12. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Haedrian · · Score: 2

      Not to mention if you do it near the naked-body-scanners you'll damage something worth a few million dollars.

    13. Re:Meanwhile in line... by j-beda · · Score: 1

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

      They do not list ethnicity explicitly, but there certainly are a a number of "Caucasian" last names of hijackers listed.

    14. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Combatso · · Score: 2

      So by that logic, pat down brown people at the airport, and pat down white people near abortion clinics?

    15. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      honkies don't fly planes, they use box trucks to blow people up.

    16. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You think that patting down a random person who doesn't even come close to fitting the profile of a modern terrorists, while completely ignoring the guy behind her who does is a smart way to approach screening, do you? Because us morons think that taking a more focused approach might be in order. Profiling works to catch serial killers, so why not use it to screen for terrorists too?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    17. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      !?

      well if weird logic is the way to go... i believe the saying goes innocent till proven guilty. by that eveyone in Gitmo is innocent (which may well be true).

      using more ratinal thinking, correct me if i'm wrong, i'm often confused by americas arms laws, but aren't carrying live explosives illegal? conspicy to murder ring any bells?

      i'm sorry

      you, sir, are still a moron

    18. Re:Meanwhile in line... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      How many crimes can we lay at your feet because we can arbitrarily label you as not one of us?

    19. Re:Meanwhile in line... by rjstanford · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Show me a profile of a modern terrorist that would have caught Timothy McVeigh, arguably one of the most lethal domestic terrorists ever. Just remember, he was white, had some college, got an honorable military discharge, Christian...

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    20. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      No, genius. Most Muslims are not terrorists. But most terrorists *are* Muslim. Given those two facts, if you're trying to catch a terrorist, who do you look for? Do you just randomly flail around pretending there is equally as much chance that the Greek Orthodox priest standing in line is a terrorist as the Saudi Muslim standing beside him?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    21. Re:Meanwhile in line... by random+coward · · Score: 1

      Of course, if we assume the TSA is trying to protect people then it would be a TSA failure. When you realize they don't give a rats ass about people but just want to protect airplanes then you realize what a success they are even in your case/scenario.

    22. Re:Meanwhile in line... by muridae · · Score: 1

      Using that same logic, we just say that aside from a few nutbag flight-school drop-outs, all the terrorists have been christian. Or that aside from a few religious nutbags, all of the terrorists have been athiests.

    23. Re:Meanwhile in line... by 228e2 · · Score: 1

      Yes.
      I recall there was a hostage situation right outside of dc in a bank or something like that. I only heard about that because I live 10 miles from where it happened and all my coworkers were talking about it.

      Ofcourse I could go on all day listing hostage situations, school shootings, racial violence, but none of these has the sex appeal of 9/11 . . . .

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    24. Re:Meanwhile in line... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      American terrorists, as in domestic American citizens, I suppose..but I don't think that's the group or ethnicity that the TSA should be most concerned with, based on recent history.
      The overwhelming majority of airline related terrorist attempts in the past 10 years -if not all- have been from Islamic extremists with an arabic or similar ethnicity and name, and who don't need to be American citizens to board domestic flights. Further, while many Islamic-based terrorists show no reluctance to use children or women (though not babies) in their attacks, we haven't seen that from homegrown caucasian militant/terrorists such as McVeigh. The 19 hijackers of 9-11 all had arabic or similar ethnicity and names, as did the shoe-bomber, and the underwear bomber sure wasn't caucasian.

      This is all about political correctness, and apparently the TSA would rather get us blown up than "offend" someone. When political ideology trumps common sense, we're in trouble.
      Note that I am not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, that'd be idiotic; but that the terrorists who try to blow up planes are generally (radical) Muslims. One is a super-set, the other a subset. We're concerned with that subset. Logically, when you search for something, you use the process of elimination, among other tools. Removing the logical process of elimination via "randomizing" searches is illogical.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    25. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Even the IRA put its C-4 away a long time ago.

      By some accounts the IRA quit after 9/11, when American donors suddenly decided that terrorism wasn't cool.

      Methinks the fact that pretty much every suicide bomber and terrorist these days is a Muslim *might* just suggest a pattern.

      There's a shocking amount of stuff going on in the USA these days, especially since the last election. Fortunately law enforcement has busted most of it up before it bears fruit. (E.g., the plan to murder a couple of cops and then kill everyone at the funeral.)

      Unfortunately our "liberal" media portrays it as an endless series of isolated incidents - when they mention it at all.

      Oh, and these aren't the acts and conspiracies of Muslims, either.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    26. Re:Meanwhile in line... by 228e2 · · Score: 1

      I wish I could stab whoever started that damn 'most terrorist are Muslim' nonsense. Because thats so far from the truth.

      Could you please point me to some statistic, it can even be 100% fabricated, so I can be happy? Because im sure you're just a parrot.

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    27. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Extra screening isn't being "found guilty." It's a security precaution. Hell, even I've been patted down before. I'm saying that smart screening is a lot more effective than random screening. Just because our politically-correct sensibilities are offended by the idea of singling out people by race or religion doesn't mean we should act like a bunch of blinded jackasses when it comes to potential terrorists. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure Al Quaida doesn't have a lot of Christians, Jews, and Buddhists in their ranks.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    28. Re:Meanwhile in line... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      it's the most important one. 9/11 was a hijacking. it wasn't a bomb threat.

      Bombs only kill those in the plane and a few on the ground. Control of a missile loaded with fuel causes a *lot* more damage.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    29. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually there appear to be a few.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

      And pre-9/11, it appears that there were others that tired the same thing, even an American, tried to crash a DC-10 like a "missile". And that was 1994. So only 17 years ago..

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auburn_Calloway

    30. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Not to mention if you do it near the naked-body-scanners you'll damage something worth a few million dollars.

      And then the manufacturer will get to sell another one to replace it.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    31. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Missing.Matter · · Score: 2

      Profiling != Racial Profiling.

    32. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy, your single example from 15 years ago sure disproved his point!

    33. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      This is some extra security screening, not throwing someone in jail. So you can take your cape off, Captain Equality.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    34. Re:Meanwhile in line... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      but it's a whole lot less people than 9/11. 9/11 wasn't a bomb threat. apples to oranges.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    35. Re:Meanwhile in line... by j-beda · · Score: 1

      The problem is not profiling as such, but rather thinking that profiling as generally practiced is an effective method of finding the "bad guys". If 70% of the "bad guys" have side-burns yet side-burners still make up significant fractions of the travelers, but only one out of a thousand travelers is a bad guy, pulling out all the side-burners for increased scrutiny is not really effective and it tends to cause resentment when innocents are treated poorly.

      Random screening does not need to be biased equally on all travelers - game theory systems could be used where the screener checks off various "profiling" boxes on their hand-held and the device "rolls a dice" to decide if a random screening should occur. If the device designers can come up with some estimate of increased danger probablyity for any characteristic - put it in. You could then also have a feedback mechanism so that if they found a problem while doing a more thorough search those characteristics would get increased in importance, and if no problem was found, they would get decreased in importance.

    36. Re:Meanwhile in line... by rjstanford · · Score: 1, Redundant

      In case you hadn't noticed, we don't actually have that much terrorism in the US. Hell, for a population of just under 7 billion there really isn't that much worldwide. There wasn't 10 years ago, there wasn't 50 years ago, there probably won't be 10 years from now.

      Reinventing every standard just because of a single act of terrorism is stupid. Ignoring the 2nd-most-lethal act of US terrorism completely because "everything changed" on 9/11 is also stupid.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    37. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      military

      There ya go.

    38. Re:Meanwhile in line... by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Have you seen a lot of white Christian suicide bombers and terrorists lately? Because aside from Tim McVeigh and a few nutbags bombing abortion clinics, I haven't seen many of them in the last 20 years. ...

      So, if you ignore the vast majority of US terrorism activities over the last 20 years, including one of the most deadly (although not the most deadly) one, then there's not a lot of white Christian suicide bombers.

      Gotcha.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    39. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Okay since we're talking specifically about U.S. airline screening here, can you give me a list (assuming you can fit it all in one post) of all the non-Muslims who have attempted to blow up or hijack U.S. airplanes in the last 10-15 years? Since most terrorists aren't Muslim, and I can name at least 25 Muslims off the top of my head who have either succeeded or tried to do this--then your list must be huge. Aside from a few unruly passengers pissed about their seating arrangements and some mental patients who tried to open the emergency door, I can't think of even one non-Muslim that caused so much as a *disturbance* on a U.S. plane in that time period. But I'm sure your list will prove me wrong.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    40. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you just randomly flail around pretending there is equally as much chance that the Greek Orthodox priest standing in line is a terrorist as the Saudi Muslim standing beside him?

      Of course you do. Otherwise that would be racism and the terrorist would have won.

    41. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the IRA put its C-4 away a long time ago.

      Excuse me?! I think you need to read some recent news sites from this side of the pond mate. It doesn't surprise me that the US media isn't reporting that loudly, since you lot are guilty of helping to hide a good few of them from justice. But I would've thought that the more prolific posters on /. would have the sense to read more than Fox and WSJ.

    42. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exception to every rule...

      More telling would be general statistics.

      Profiling is a general response.. you need general statistics to confirm ot dispute it's effectiveness.

      Personally I think it is very effective. Stereotypes do tend to have a little truth in them, and while I accept that it would be politically incorrect and morally wrong to treat everyone from a given race of background with more scrutiny as statistically they are more likely to be a terrorist, I do think it is effective (again, from a purely non-ethical standpoint).

    43. Re:Meanwhile in line... by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      Hijacking, airline bombing, etc. The TSA is supposed to stand against these all. As it is, now it only stands against US civil liberties.
      There were bombs in WTC too, timed to blow when the firefighters got there and started trawling the rubble. Sort of an additional 'Fuck you'.

      And who cares about the number of casualties? The terrorists need to kill just one person in the US to win, the US needs to foil every attempt to break even. Differing weights on differing priorities. The situation clearly favors terrorists...

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    44. Re:Meanwhile in line... by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      Have you seen a lot of white Christian suicide bombers and terrorists lately?

      Lately? You mean this week? Yes.

      Even the IRA put its C-4 away a long time ago.

      That may be so, but the sectarian hatred and violence lives on. It's not even for a cause any more, just people who despise each other because of what football teams they support.

    45. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tim McVeigh was one attack, involving only two terrorists, that killed 168 people. Muslim terrorists have killed TENS OF THOUSANDS of people over the last 20 years, with attacks that happen on a DAILY BASIS (there was one this morning that killed 80 Pakistanis, and the day isn't even over yet).

      Got YOU.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    46. Re:Meanwhile in line... by toriver · · Score: 1

      That he had to go 15 years back certainly does.

    47. Re:Meanwhile in line... by mikechant · · Score: 1

      By some accounts the IRA quit after 9/11, when American donors suddenly decided that terrorism wasn't cool.

      Which is a fine theory, except that the IRA stopped 'active operations' in 1997, before the 1998 Good Friday agreement was signed, effectively ending their military/terrorist campaign with a political settlement three years before 9/11.

    48. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Big+Smirk · · Score: 1

      No, they were not innocent.

      Planning an illegal act and making an overt step to put that plan in motion is illegal in itself.
      Buying weapons, explosives, potentially the training with the weapons and explosives. Lying on some forms etc. all potential violations of law.

      --
      TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
    49. Re:Meanwhile in line... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      There were bombs in WTC too, timed to blow when the firefighters got there and started trawling the rubble.

      BS. Sources or it's just wild conspiracy theories. And do make sure you explicitly find the bombs related to 9/11 not the WTC bombing....

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    50. Re:Meanwhile in line... by halber_mensch · · Score: 1

      but it's a whole lot less people than 9/11. 9/11 wasn't a bomb threat. apples to oranges.

      And yet again, therein lies the rub. Can you _really_ ascertain if someone is going to attempt to hijack a plane by putting them through a scanner looking for metal and explosives, or patting them down in line? No. the only thing these scanners are screening are things, things which are just as useful when applied in line approaching the scanners as when applied inside a plane. If someone is going to hijack a plane these days, it's because they've figured out a way to socially engineer themselves into the cockpit, not because they sneaked a box knife on board.

      --
      perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
    51. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Big+Smirk · · Score: 1

      Presumption of innocence is a legal term.

      It governs how a person is treated before the courts. Outside the trial, "probable cause" rules.

      Just one example:
      If a judge thinks someone who is being charged with a crime is a flight risk or a danger to society (based on probable cause) bail is often denied (i.e. the person is kept in jail). No presumption of innocence there.

      --
      TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
    52. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Big+Smirk · · Score: 1

      I kinda hope the lives of the people in line would be worth more than the stupid scanner.

      --
      TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
    53. Re:Meanwhile in line... by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      How many abortion clinic bombings have there been in the last 20 or 30 years?

    54. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      I was always under the impression that planes are checked for bombs simply because the plane itself is worth a lot of money.

      You don't have scanners in bus stops, public locations and train stations. And I'm sure you can sneak in more explosives around the airport to kill more people than just the equivalent of people who are on the plane, with less trouble. Seriously you could just pack a bunch of suitcases of the stuff and put it all over the place. If you're fast enough (and/or use copous amounts of sensors) you won't even need to kill yourself doing it.

    55. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      No, my profile wouldn't have caught Tim McVeigh. But it might have caught the 9-11 hijackers; the shoe bomber; the diaper bomber; the Ft. Hood shooter; the Madrid, Bali, and London bombers, the Mumbai terrorists, and the thousands of other Muslim terrorists around the world who've lately decided that god has a hard-on for dumbasses who walk into crowded places and blow themselves up.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    56. Re:Meanwhile in line... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      We're making the same point :) All the post 9/11 security stuff is just about useless to stop hijackers. And the things that hijackers could get through are thwarted completely by 1. the reinforced cockpit doors and 2. the passengers who are going to beat the living snot out of them.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    57. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Too bad they didn't have some common attribute that might have singled them out for more scrutiny.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    58. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      What's that? Do I hear silence?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    59. Re:Meanwhile in line... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      The 9-11 hijackers,

      Boarded before "middle easterners" were associated with terrorism, so there wouldn't have been any profiling of muslims.

      the shoe bomber,

      Caucasian/Jamaican with an English accent.

      the diaper bomber,

      Black African with a Nigerian accent.

      So racial profiling would have caught none of them.

    60. Re:Meanwhile in line... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Setting aside your logical fallacy.

      You do know they the suicide bomber are an incredibly tiny percentage of Islam practitioners, right?

      If we are going to profile for something, then it should be for people you feel disenfranchised.
      THAT is the largest group of suicide bomber, regardless of religion.

      "I'm no Batman-level detective or anything."
      No need to restate the obvious.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    61. Re:Meanwhile in line... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That's not true at all.

      They split after that, and the 'Real IRA' kept functioning.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Irish_Republican_Army

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    62. Re:Meanwhile in line... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Except you are over looking the hundreds of terrorist acts done by Christians along the 10th parallel. Sponsor by Gilly Graham church, no less.

      In fact, I could argue that Billy Graham is responsible for far more deaths then OBL.
      I wonder what the US would say if an African country sent men it to kill the leader of that church organisation for it's ongoing support of terrorism in their country?

      So if you want to include attacks outside America, then Muslims are n the minority.

      So I suggest you actually look up some fucking facts before you think you got anyone.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    63. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      Now you're just spouting some tired old "Well, you support evil dictators too!" shit, because you know damn well what religion the suicide bombers who are going to walk into some police station, or mall, or marketplace tomorrow (and the next day, and the day after that) and blow themselves up after screaming "Allah Akbar!!" will belong to. And it damn sure isn't Buddhism.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    64. Re:Meanwhile in line... by 228e2 · · Score: 1

      Relax. It was lunchtime, and I wasnt going to miss it to disprove someone on the internet.

      Like I have been saying all day, not all terrorist hijack airplanes. Clinic bombers, racial violence, school shootings, and hostage situations are all terrorist acts.

      But only a certain type of "terrorist" bothers you, so who cares who may be the next person to shoot at your kid or hold your wife hostage . . as long as you can fly with no Muslim people next to you, right?
      America, F*** yea, right?

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    65. Re:Meanwhile in line... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I'ms ore, McVeigh killed how many children?
      19 Children. Dead. Children eh knew where there and he excused their deaths way in pursuit of is ideological goal.

      The TSA had NO REASON TO SEARCH THAT PERSON. That's the point.

      "; but that the terrorists who try to blow up planes are generally (radical) Muslims. "
      The only time that is true is when you try to narrow it down to a specific, and unreasonable, time range. Over the lifetime of airlines, more have been not Muslim.
      \
      "The 19 hijackers of 9-11 all had arabic or similar ethnicity and names, as did the shoe-bomber, and the underwear bomber sure wasn't caucasian."

      names? NAMES? wtf does that have to do with anything? oh I get it. The lacks of facts, many examples that you are wrong, your cherry picking of data. You're a racist.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    66. Re:Meanwhile in line... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, you are proposed screening of a specific religion type because an extremely few of them did terrorist acts.

      PLUS you ignore all the hijacking done by people who aren't Muslims.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    67. Re:Meanwhile in line... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "There were bombs in WTC too, timed to blow when the firefighters got there and started trawling the rubble. "
      nonsense.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    68. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm disappointed in this plan, as it is not nearly grand enough

      If you're pre-checkin, you can easily be carrying around one of those massive oversized suitcases. Heck, have a second carry-on with additional boom (or leaflets or whatever).

    69. Re:Meanwhile in line... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      This is some extra security screening, not throwing someone in jail.

      Hey - injustice is alright as long as it's just a little inconvenience. Meanwhile, we'll just spend all our resources looking at all the wrong people instead of actually doing something productive. That way, the bigots can feel better which adds value to our security theater.

      So you can take your cape off, Captain Equality.

      I'll shed my cape after you drop the mask, Dr. Bigot. Next, you can accuse me of wearing tights and I'll talk about your monocle and cat. Or we can drop the childish name-calling and discuss real points to the issue.

      Just to be clear - I'm not the champion for political correctness. I fully realize that there are profiles that can be drawn concerning the individuals who perpetrated these attacks. But I also note that the only profile you outlined was race and speech patterns which, as 91degrees pointed out, can be attributed to a pretty large population. Racial background and speech patterns may be a tick mark in the list of things to watch - but they are hardly the red flag you seem to want them to be. Too much focus on entirely the wrong thing is just as damaging as turning a blind eye for the sake of political correctness - both detract from paying attention to the real issue at hand.

    70. Re:Meanwhile in line... by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      Mod Parent UP

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    71. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Combatso · · Score: 2

      6 murders, 5 attempted murders, 9 bombs/arsons, 1 anthrax threat (hoax letters with white powder mailed to 554 clinics).. in the US, in the last 20 years,.

    72. Re:Meanwhile in line... by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      You think that patting down a random person who doesn't even come close to fitting the profile of a modern terrorists, while completely ignoring the guy behind her who does is a smart way to approach screening, do you?

      Yes.

      Because us morons think that taking a more focused approach might be in order.

      Yep. And that frustrates the hell out of me.

      Profiling works to catch serial killers, so why not use it to screen for terrorists too?

      Because in the case of catching serial killers, you're trying to catch a specific someone and he can't change who he is. You're profiling a specific person based on their already executed actions and how well they fit with established data. If you stop screening people who don't fit your profile for a terrorist, you're giving the terrorists a hole in your security that they can exploit in future actions. You're telling them to recruit some caucasians, they're the ideal agents to attack an airliner. It's not like that hasn't happened before, there was one white american fighting with the Taliban when we started the Afghanistan war. Furthermore, it's not like middle-easteners are the only terrorists...everyone freaks the hell out when they crashed planes into buildings, but when Andrew Stack crashed into an IRS building because he got screwed by taxes everyone starts talking about how he might have a point and the tax code is set up against developer entrepeneurs. When Timothy McVeigh bombs a building, the police are enough to handle it, no need to pass the likes of PATRIOT act legislation.

      If you're not looking for a specific person, random is much better than looking for behavior or physical features, because if you're ignoring certain types of people, those are the ones that will be recruited next.

    73. Re:Meanwhile in line... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Profiling works to catch serial killers

      Only in movies and on TV. In the real world it's just a part of an overall investigation, and it's only useful when there's existing evidence from which to create a profile. You can't just say "Something might happen, we want to know what it will be and who will do it. Go."

      And while the McVeigh reference might be 15 years old (which is only a long time for someone who's too young to know better), I'm pretty sure that the last person to intentionally fly a plane into a building in this country was a white male. As was the last person to go on a shooting spree, the guy who ran the biggest Ponzi scam of all time, probably most of the people responsible for the housing bubble, and certainly the person responsible for our last unprovoked ground war in southwest Asia. So who's really the bigger threat?

    74. Re:Meanwhile in line... by X.25 · · Score: 1

      Have you seen a lot of white Christian suicide bombers and terrorists lately? Because aside from Tim McVeigh and a few nutbags bombing abortion clinics, I haven't seen many of them in the last 20 years. Even the IRA put its C-4 away a long time ago.

      Methinks the fact that pretty much every suicide bomber and terrorist these days is a Muslim *might* just suggest a pattern. But then, granted, I'm no Batman-level detective or anything.

      Go ask people in Iraq and Afghanistan if they have seen any white terrorists lately.

      Let me know what they say.

    75. Re:Meanwhile in line... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I'ms ore, McVeigh killed how many children? 19 Children. Dead. Children eh knew where there and he excused their deaths way in pursuit of is ideological goal.

      The TSA had NO REASON TO SEARCH THAT PERSON. That's the point.

      "; but that the terrorists who try to blow up planes are generally (radical) Muslims. " The only time that is true is when you try to narrow it down to a specific, and unreasonable, time range. Over the lifetime of airlines, more have been not Muslim. \ "The 19 hijackers of 9-11 all had arabic or similar ethnicity and names, as did the shoe-bomber, and the underwear bomber sure wasn't caucasian."

      names? NAMES? wtf does that have to do with anything? oh I get it. The lacks of facts, many examples that you are wrong, your cherry picking of data. You're a racist.

      Before I address your flamebait, asinine accusation of racism, no one said anything about killing children as targets, that was completely off the mark and not at all what I was talking about. I was talking about terrorists who use their *own* children in bombing plots, basically training them to become suicide bombers. McVeigh did not do that. The airlines did not institute all this high level security until *after* 9-11, so clearly, that is the form of terrorism that is relevant, and that's been the past 10 years, roughly. Besides that, it was also the first time anyone deliberately flew planes into buildings on suicide missions, simultaneously killing thousands, where any hijackers from the past were, by comparison, much less of a threat. My facts are just fine, yours are rather irrelevant. Names? Just another common tie that jihadist tend to have. Guess what, radical islamic terrorists generally don't name their kids, "John Smith" or "Audrey Peterson". Every one of any airline islamic terrorist in the past 10 years, of any note whatsoever, was islamically named. Imagine, an islamic radical from the middle east with an islamic name, what was I thinking?

      I have already clearly said not all muslims are terrorists, but fact remains that historically, and more importantly, more recently and pertinently, the main threat airlines face today comes from the islamic brand of terrorists, but you in your ideological fervor can't resist tossing the race card out there to assert your moral superiority. Obviously you have major reading comprehension issues.
      I included "names" as one criteria because I know that there are other ethnicities other than Arabic, such as Persian or Pakistani, and I believe there are others, I didn't want to say that all islamic terrorists were Arabic because they're not; but I wasn't sure what they all were -so I used another common tie among jihadists- the islamic name. Therefore, process of elimination; names are just one more common thread of the airline jihadists.
      Nowhere, no way, did I suggest that *all* people with such names are terrorists; again, we're talking about a tiny subset of a larger set, but which necessarily have some commonalities. God forbid I acknowledge those commonalities though, that makes me a bigot? That's idiotic. You should work for the TSA.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    76. Re:Meanwhile in line... by X.25 · · Score: 1

      No, genius. Most Muslims are not terrorists. But most terrorists *are* Muslim. Given those two facts, if you're trying to catch a terrorist, who do you look for? Do you just randomly flail around pretending there is equally as much chance that the Greek Orthodox priest standing in line is a terrorist as the Saudi Muslim standing beside him?

      Would you consider the acting of US military in Iraq and Afghanistan as act of 'terrorism'?

      Now go and ask people in Iraq and Afghanistan that same question.

      Thanks.

    77. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is always the possibility that they could get some white Christian guys in there to beat the system. But I imagine that it will be a HELLUVA lot harder for them to recruit those guys than it is to recruit radical Muslims. Not many Christians I know are willing to kill (and certainly not commit suicide) for the glory of Allah and Islam.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    78. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The biggest threat is the religious nutball who thinks god wants him to kill as many unbelievers as possible. Now, if this were the middle ages, I would say the Catholic crusaders best fit that profile. But today? There is little doubt where most of the modern "I must kill masses of heathens for god!!" religious zealots come from. And it ain't out of some bible camp or kibbutz.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    79. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      You do know they the suicide bomber are an incredibly tiny percentage of Islam practitioners, right?

      Yeah, no shit. I also know that people wanting to blow up my airplane are an incredibly tiny percentage of the population too, but we still screen for them. I'm just proposing that we screen smarter. And I'm not talking about disenfranchising anyone. It's not like we're going to tell all Muslims that they can't fly, or throw them in jail, or take away their right to vote. We're talking a little extra security screening because they more closely fit the modern terrorist profile--that's it. We're not going to send them to separate schools and make them drink from separate water fountains.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    80. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, the old "Well, you do it too!" argument--as if that makes it okay to walk into a mall and blow up a bunch of kids, or means that I should give a terrorist a "Well, we do bad things too" hall-pass. Frankly, when I get on a plane, I don't give a rat's ass what the Iraqis and Afghans think of the U.S. All I care about is making it to my destination without having some Koran-thumping nutball blow a hole in my jet fuselage because he thinks he'll finally get laid in heaven.

      It's not the job of the TSA to ponder on the philosophical issues of whether the U.S. was justified to invade Iraq or Afghanistan. It's their job to keep bombs and hijackers off our planes.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    81. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there is always the possibility that they could get some white Christian guys in there to beat the system. But I imagine that it will be a HELLUVA lot harder for them to recruit those guys than it is to recruit radical Muslims. Not many Christians I know are willing to kill (and certainly not commit suicide) for the glory of Allah and Islam.

      1. How do you know the religion of any given person by looking at them, assuming they're trying to hide it. You can't convert white guys to Islam?

      2. There are other terrorists than radical islamists. In fact, radical islamists do not make up the majority of terrorist attacks in US soil over the past two decades. It's even less if you go back further, and even less if you don't go back at least a decade. Granted, that's because we don't have that many terrorists attacks in US soil in the first place, so it's hard to get a good sampling, but what that indicates is that the US does not have a terrorism problem.

    82. Re:Meanwhile in line... by jimicus · · Score: 2

      I've already commented so I can't mod you. Which is a shame because I think you're absolutely right. Put simply, terrorism is not that big a threat - and even when it is, the single worst thing you can do is declare "war" on the terrorists. It doesn't work because as a rule, armies aren't really trained to deal with guerilla warfare. Police are better because they're generally locals who know the area and know who's likely to be a troublemaker - but you don't often find effective police forces in countries where you've just gone and destroyed the entire government machinery.

    83. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      First of all, let's be honest, radical Islam is more than "an extremely few of them." In Egypt (always a fairly moderate country, by middle eastern standards) they did a poll in the wake of the recent uprising and found that 62% of the country favors establishing Sharia law as the legal system of Egypt. Does that mean all of that 62% are looking to be terrorists? No. But it does give you a pretty good idea of just how mainstream some pretty radically intolerant Muslims really are. We're not talking a tiny little minority here.

      And secondly, I'm not proposing that non-Muslims NOT be screened. Just because I'm a white non-Muslim doesn't mean I'll get a free pass to just blaze on through the line with no screening. I'm just proposing *extra* scrutiny for those who more closely fit the profile instead of extra scrutiny for every random Joe (including babies) who stumbles through the line. That's how they do it in Israel, and it seems to work pretty well for them (and their airlines are WAY more targeted than ours).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    84. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Whatever, 9/11 was a one off. They never caught the anthrax guy, and tim mcVeigh and the unabomber were white. The beltway snipers were black. Middle eastern terrorists mostly don't come over here.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    85. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Extra security screening is "injustice"? Are you fucking retarded? Yeah, this isn't the first step towards shipping them off to concentration camps, asshole. It's a few minutes of extra hassle at the airport. I'm pretty sure that's not going to have anyone singing "We Shall Overcome" in front of an airport, or inspire Steven Spielberg to make a movie about the plight of the slightly annoyed airplane passenger. It's just a little common sense applied to a screening system that has become ridiculous.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    86. Re:Meanwhile in line... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      All all three Muslim.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    87. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      So what? THERE ARE A BILLION MUSLIMS! There are at most 10,000 terrorists operating at any one time (probably less), so at most one in 100,000 muslims is a terrorist. This is not actionable data.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    88. Re:Meanwhile in line... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Extra security screening is "injustice"?

      It's called harassment.

      Are you fucking retarded?

      Considering your inability to have an adult conversation, I suspect that's too subtle a point for you to grasp.

      It's just a little common sense applied to a screening system that has become ridiculous.

      No - it's not a little common sense. Trying to spend extra time putting extra scrutiny on everyone with brown skin and an accent would be a draw on resources for no good reason. Let me repeat this for you; an inappropriate draw on resources. Extra screening takes time, it takes energy, it takes attention, it takes money. We have to apply those limited resources to the threat in the most effective manner or we're squandering what little we have. Since having brown skin and an accent is equally applied to a rather large population of people who are not terrorists, focusing on that is entirely inappropriate.

      What's even more amusing is that you note "a screening system that has become rediculous" but at the same time hand-wave that concern away as being an "inconvenience" as long as it applies to a very specific subset of people which I suspect wouldn't apply to you. So let me go back to my original point - what makes those people more worthy of suspicion than you? And at what point is it OK for me to label you "not us" and also subject you to the same degree of ridiculous inconvenience?

    89. Re:Meanwhile in line... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Yes. And none of them match the profile of a terrorist in any way except religion. The first ones didn't even match that since at the time the profile of a terrorist wasn't Islamic.

      Can you tell someone's religion by looking at them? Demonstrably not.

      So, you would propose profiling that would have explicitly excluded the three you mentioned.

    90. Re:Meanwhile in line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contrary to your apparent beliefs, it is not "harassment" to verify that you aren't trying to carry a bomb onto an airplane.

    91. Re:Meanwhile in line... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with reasonable checks. The problem is what is reasonable. Heritage and language is not a valid basis for reasonable suspicion. Contrary to your apparent beliefs, cultural background is not a crime and it takes more than the mere possibility of a crime to impede on civil liberties.

    92. Re:Meanwhile in line... by mikechant · · Score: 1

      Right, I should have said 'The Provisional IRA', not just the 'the IRA', but most people would take IRA=PIRA in a recent context unless otherwise indicated.
      The original statement about is still wrong. PIRA effectively quit before 9/11 and RIRA never quit at all. Nobody quit due to 9/11.

  6. Papiere bitte. by cpu6502 · · Score: 0

    That's the kind of society we are headed towards. (Some would say we are already there, with naked body scanners, sexual assault patdowns and random stops/searches along highways.)

    "Papers please.
    "Or jail.
    "Choose citizen."

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:Papiere bitte. by sauge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or checkpoints against drunk driving
      Police cameras on the roads
      "Zero Tolerance" in schools
      Drug testing
      ID requirements for just about anything, including purchasing cough syrup

      When was the last time one heard "Go ahead, it's a free country!"

      -----
      Would George Washington taken his boots off?

    2. Re:Papiere bitte. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      There is no right to drive drunk. I'm not even sure which portion of the constitution could be used to justify that point of view. The typical view is that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Which coincidentally is another freedom that they've taken away, simply because a lot of other people don't want to go around getting hit in the nose by all those swinging fists.

    3. Re:Papiere bitte. by sycorob · · Score: 2

      There is no right to drive drunk.

      Sure. But I would argue that if I'm sober, I have the right to drive from one place to the other, and not be forced to stop and have my car and belongings searched. That's why people have an issue with the checkpoints - for every 1 drunk driver you might catch, many more innocent drivers are subjected to a search. A search that you could reasonably argue is unconstitutional.

    4. Re:Papiere bitte. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, but there is a right to drive while you're not drunk, and there is a right to not be searched without any justification other than you're driving and it's a checkpoint.

      When I see in the news that 600 people were stopped at a DUI checkpoint and 10 DUI arrests were made, it simply makes me think of the 590 people who had to endure their rights being trampled in order to arrest 10 people who were breaking the law. That is all.

      I'd really be okay with it if they simply pulled people over, shined their flashlight at them and got a good look at their face, and let them move on if there were no obvious signs of intoxication or drinking (visual or odor) or containers of alcoholic beverages in the vehicle. But I wholeheartedly believe that mandatory sampling of bodily fluids (air is a fluid) without probable cause violates the 4th amendment.

      Furthermore, requiring you to show them your ID before they have any reason to suspect you of a crime is exactly what is referred to by "papiere bitte".

    5. Re:Papiere bitte. by Combatso · · Score: 1

      There was a guy who was the subject of a nationwide manhunt in Canada... why? Becuase he purchased a large amount of fertilizer.... when they found him (he called them), they uncovered his plot to fertilize his crops.

    6. Re:Papiere bitte. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, the part of the constitution that mentions nothing about drunk driving? As has been pointed out many times here, the whole point of the US' idea of justice is that rights are not given, they exist, and parts of the constitution describes what government may NOT do to restrict actions of citizens.

      Laws made affect this, but this is a restriction of a right. You have a right to do whatever you want, laws restrict that. A law restricts drunk driving, but it is not restricted because you 'don't have a right to drive drunk.'

      Be careful how you view 'justice.' The idea that rights are 'granted' is a dangerous viewpoint to have.

    7. Re:Papiere bitte. by Samalie · · Score: 1

      Actually, and I'm am an adament 4th supporter, and agree that our rights are being smacked to shit right now...but I have to disagree with your statement.

      Getting a drivers license is not a "right". And as part of the contract of the privlidge of having a drivers license is that you agree to submit to roadside inspections, whether for vehicle safety or sobriety or whatever else your state allows.

      You are not being searched or seized, merely delayed. Anytime that the 4th comes into play in these cases, there is (or should be) probable cause.

      But the TSA is a different beast...we are directly being searched and having items siezed without probable cause, and with no formal or even semi-formal "contract" in place ala Driving & sobriety checks.

      I realize that they are both similar...but seriously, one is annoying while the other is downright illegal.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    8. Re:Papiere bitte. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are not being searched or seized, merely delayed.

      Having a testing device inserted into a body cavity (mouth) and requiring you to submit a bodily fluid for analysis (air) is not considered a "search" according to your definition?

      But the TSA is a different beast...we are directly being searched and having items siezed without probable cause, and with no formal or even semi-formal "contract" in place ala Driving & sobriety checks.

      Absolute bollocks. The exact same arguments you used to argue that the DUI checkpoints are okay work just as well for the TSA. You ARE entering a formal contract when you buy a plane ticket. It still doesn't give them the right to perform unreasonable searches without probable cause. Neither does having a driver's license give them the right to perform unreasonable searches without probable cause.

      I realize that they are both similar...but seriously, one is annoying while the other is downright illegal.

      They are both downright unconstitutional.

    9. Re:Papiere bitte. by Samalie · · Score: 1

      You are not being searched or seized, merely delayed.

      Having a testing device inserted into a body cavity (mouth) and requiring you to submit a bodily fluid for analysis (air) is not considered a "search" according to your definition?

      I realize that I'm a sample size of one, but I have never had a testing device inserted into a body cavity, requiring me to submit a bodily fluid analysis without probable cause. And yes, smelling alcohol in your vehicle is probable cause of a crime being comitted - DUI, to be percise.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  7. This is out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This needs to stop now.

    1. Re:This is out of control by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      At least they didn't put the baby through the scanner...

  8. THINK OF THE CHILDREN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Won't someone please think of the children? We need to protect them from the TSA!

    1. Re:THINK OF THE CHILDREN by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Perhaps rather than spending 41% of its budget on child porn, the FBI could save money and just arrest all the TSA applicants. You know damn well that a lot of them are just pervs looking to illegally cop a feel.

  9. Guess That's What Happens When... by wbav · · Score: 2

    You put security theater together with stupid people.

    The TSA people really believe they are keeping everyone safe while creating targets for terrorists to attack.

    Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be getting better.

    --

    =================
    Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
  10. While we're at it... by tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think we should be able to request a woman do our patdowns instead of a man.

    The idea of some mustachioed 50 year old man grabbing my balls is a lot more offensive to me than a woman doing it.

    1. Re:While we're at it... by Combatso · · Score: 5, Funny

      Careful what you wish for, you will get a 50 year old mustachioed woman grabbing your balls... and she hates men.

    2. Re:While we're at it... by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      There's no guarantee the woman would not be 50 years old and mustachioed.

    3. Re:While we're at it... by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Funny

      Leave my wife out of this.

    4. Re:While we're at it... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I am offended by being patted down by anyone who's is not female, 21-28, weight no more the 115, naked, with all their teeth where they belong.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:While we're at it... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      What happens if your forget the safe word?

    6. Re:While we're at it... by Sectoid_Dev · · Score: 1

      Careful what you wish for, you will get a 50 year old mustachioed woman grabbing your balls... and she hates men.

      Hey, some people pay extra for that.

    7. Re:While we're at it... by Labcoat+Samurai · · Score: 1

      They could make that a perk of first class. I'd consider upgrading my tickets.

  11. privacy by PktLoss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The thing that bothers me most about the TSA responding to issues is the privacy of the people going through screening. I feel like the entire process should be treated as confidential, the number of people in the party, wether or not they had a stroller, what set off what alarm, how old the child was, etc. I don't feel like the TSA should be sharing that information publicly.

    1. Re:privacy by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Well, they didn't comment on this until it became public. As much as I dislike the TSA, at this point they ought to have the right to respond.

      Also personally I'd much prefer the process to be in public. As soon as you introduce "privacy" into that, you'll find yourself shielded from sight, in some cubicle - just you and 2-3 TSA agents. No thanks, I'd rather the other passengers would watch - I trust them more then the TSA.

    2. Re:privacy by PktLoss · · Score: 1

      I don't feel like other people taking pictures of me in an airport waves the TSA's obligation to respect my privacy.

    3. Re:privacy by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Pressing for an (theoretically maybe implied) right to privacy will only give the TSA another smokescreen to hide behind. It will merely afford them not to be accountable to the public because they "have to protect the victim's privacy". And of course people photographing, or reporting what the TSA does would then have to be treated as criminals. That's the very last thing we need.

    4. Re:privacy by gknoy · · Score: 1

      If it's not public, how would you have any oversight if there were extreme violations of proper conduct? (Some might say there are, but it could be less professional than it is.)

    5. Re:privacy by geekoid · · Score: 1

      But having pictures taken of anything inproper happening gives you recourse.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:privacy by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

      ohh you mean like patting down a 8 month old isn't an extreme violation but OK since the stroller set off some alarms?

    7. Re:privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would bet the TSA would love to keep that information secret, along with all of their actions. The fact that there is light being shone on this security theatre is probably the only reason the abuses are not much, much worse.

    8. Re:privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I dislike the TSA, at this point they ought to have the right to respond.

      The TSA has no rights. They are a government entity, and the government is not entitled to rights. The government is entitled to privileges that we, as a society, may remove from them at any given time.

  12. The kids loaded by mprindle · · Score: 1

    I'd be willing to bet the "explosive" they detected coming from the kid was the load that was left in his diaper. When kids explode is really messy!

  13. *sigh* by Haedrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes a terrorist can hide a bomb in a baby. A terrorist can also surgically insert a bomb into a baby if they wanted to.

    They could also just detonate the bomb at the airport itself (remember russia?) and skip all of this.

    All this stupid theatre does absolutely nothing, except give the 'terrorists' (and the general population) a little grope before they get blown up. Wouldn't want them to die unhappy would we?

    1. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the high costs of health care, why don't they just throw in a medical screening for free as part of these privacy violations?

    2. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they actually would do, and I have this from a direct interview of the actual no.1 most dangerous terrorist in the world, is not land the fucking plane in the USA at all.
      Their plan is, to put a Pakistani nuclear warhead on a plane (of innocent origin), fly it over the target area, and detonate it in the air.
      Seriously, that guy laughed his ass off at that pat-down theater. "Landing? We don't need no fuckin' landing!"

      And the CIA/DHS knows this exactly. Since the reason this interview happened at all, is because the reporter followed some proof that that nuke guy and a couple of CIA agents were good friends.
      But you'll all soon see this in a documentation movie made for cinema. (If nobody gets shot.)

    3. Re:*sigh* by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Yes a terrorist can hide a bomb in a baby. A terrorist can also surgically insert a bomb into a baby if they wanted to.

      What? Terrorists can sugically insert bombs into people? New regulation! All passengers must undergo surgery to make sure no bombs are implanted in their chest cavities. Survivors of the procedure (who aren't found to be carrying surgically implanted bombs) will be allowed to board their flights (provided the Keep Americans Safe Surgery doesn't delay you too much). Those who don't survive will be dumped in bins next to the confiscated shampoo bottles.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:*sigh* by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      that's a pretty good point. There's usually more people lined up at security than there are on a plane. If a terrorist wanted to cause a lot of damage, the crowd at the security bottleneck is a much better target than the plane anyway.

    5. Re:*sigh* by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A terrorist can also surgically insert a bomb into a baby if they wanted to.

      [citation needed] The last time they put a bomb into an adult the ratio of available space to force needed to get the explosion to hurt anyone else after spending its energy blowing him up didn't work out, and you think that it would work out with a baby?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not like they need to be alive for too long. Do you think they'll urgently need their intestines?

    7. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, but all these stupid theatre isn't about the best way to reduce terrorist attacks. It's about ability to make a new law that allow government To gain more power and reduce the citizen rights. The more people fear, the more they willing to give up their rights for the safety of themself or their country, even if it isn't real.
      I mean if the government want a new law pass and it's not having an anti-terrorist stamp, it will just have an anti-child porn stamp instead. Pick your poison.
      May be we just need something like a pirate party that Sweden has to balance things out.

    8. Re:*sigh* by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Its not like they need to be alive for too long. Do you think they'll urgently need their intestines?

      They also have to not be in obvious distress, or appear to be very ill, or they won't be permitted on the flight. There is more to this equation than you pretend. That is convenient if you want to spread FUD but has nothing to do with the truth.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. Apply Standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just treat everyone equally, search everyone.
    If you don't pat down or search children then people would start using children more frequently as drug mules, because they know the children are not going to be searched.
    As the article noted it was the explosive screening. It doesn't matter that it was a false positive. Better safe than sorry.
    Do some better parenting, let the child know that they have done nothing wrong and show them by being searched first, joke about it with them, put on a happy face. Children often emulate their parents/guardians.

    Its just the price you pay for the convenience of flying vs driving.

    1. Re:Apply Standards by Samalie · · Score: 1

      "Convenience of flying"?

      Are you fucking kidding me?!?

      Lets see...if I want to go home and visit my parents, I can either:

      (a) Pay $600 round-trip. Have to take a cab to the airport ($40) or park my car there for a week ($35). Rent a vehicle at my destination ($150). I have to arrive at the airport an hour and a half in front of my flight (minimum), which requires me to leave home 30 minutes before that. I realistically have around a 50-50 of being put through "secondary screening" and either pictured semi-naked or groped (that has been my average over around 50 flights). I then can take my 2 1/2 hour flight, wait 30 minutes at my destination airport for my baggage to show up, take the shuttle to the rental car facility (20 minutes), go through the counter (20-30 minutes) and finally be on my way. Then the reverse of it all basically coming home, except the rental car location is only around 5 minutes.

      Total: Minimum $785 and around 10 hours of my life.

      (b) Pay $325 round-trip by car. Total travel time: 25 hours. I don't have to worry about what I pack, if I have a bottle of water or liquid medications, or any of the other bullshit. I'm travelling on comfort, with a 0% chance of being fondled without probable cause.

      So I save 15 hours of my life flying, which costs me ~$460 more than driving, and with a likelyhood of getting fondled against my 4th Ammendment Rights at least one direction.

      Yeah...REAL fucking convenient.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Apply Standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [..] let the child know that they have done nothing wrong and show them by being searched first, joke about it with them, put on a happy face. Children often emulate their parents/guardians.

      And so in a few generations, peoples accept been RFID tagged inside their skull. I mean, it's not that bad, their parrent was accepting and joking about similar thing just one step below. How bad can it be to accept this tiny step up. It is for our safety afterall...

      The correct parenting to do is explain the child, once on board the plane, that the bad mens that touch him will eventually get punished and that some day he might be free like his parent and grand parrent use to be. This is how you educate a generation to do the right thing when they become adult.

    3. Re:Apply Standards by Pi1grim · · Score: 1

      In another words: "Bend over and take it like a man". And what does this "price" have to do with convenience? The point here being is that this searches are serving no purpose. Except for making money for those providing the equipment.

  15. We are not alone by poptones · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does France have such patdowns in their airports? What about Canada? What about Germany? Belgium? China? Japan?

    Why is it we also have not heard of ANY foreign terrorist activities on airliners since all this started? Are the american airport patdowns such a deterrent they can stop a "potential terrorist" from boarding a plane in S Africa with a bomb or a knife?

    This needs to stop. I really don't care personally, because I don't fly - but all the other people being displaced from the planes are filling up the trains, and I miss the extra elbow room.

    1. Re:We are not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. I got to experience a rather personal moment with a french security screener in Charles De Gaulle's international terminal.

    2. Re:We are not alone by dbc · · Score: 5, Informative

      More to the point.... does Israel? I've flown in and out of Tel Aviv 3 times on business. They take security seriously -- and have for much longer than the USA. You get a thorough interview from a well-trained, intelligent professional. No pat downs. They *gasp* profile. Israeli airport security is not theater, it is effective, yet it is not degrading. Fly in and out of Israel once and you will want to strangle everyone associated with the TSA.

    3. Re:We are not alone by mortonda · · Score: 1

      Why is it we also have not heard of ANY foreign terrorist activities on airliners since all this started?

      I suspect it's because after 9/11, they know that any shenanigans on a plane, the passengers *will* band together to either bring down the terrorists or bring down the plane.

    4. Re:We are not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Canada, I was groped behind my belt buckle last week. After going through the naked thursday machine.

    5. Re:We are not alone by zill · · Score: 1

      This needs to stop. I really don't care personally, because I don't fly - but all the other people being displaced from the planes are filling up the trains, and I miss the extra elbow room.

      The solution is simple, have TSA inspect train passengers too. That'll stop the crowding issue for sure.

    6. Re:We are not alone by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      I know Australia doesn't, but they swabbed me for explosives and illegal drugs. No worries! TSA did make up for the lack of pat downs when I reached the US. I think chemical detection may be more accurate and less invasive than backscatter anyway.

      To be fair, Canada, Germany, Belgium, China, Japan, and Australia aren't on the top of the extremist target list either. More to the point, Timothy McVeigh demonstrated that we need to watch out for homegrown extremists too.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    7. Re:We are not alone by ironjaw33 · · Score: 1

      I was in China last month and set off the metal detector while leaving Shanghai. Indeed, I was treated to a patdown. I've also seen patdowns in European airports -- I've even had my bags searched after passing through screening in Sweden.

    8. Re:We are not alone by horza · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can talk about Nice, France. On the way in they will X-ray your bag. They may or may not ask you to remove your belt or your shoes, it's pretty random (they never ask me but I've seen it happen). There is one person for every two lines who will to a cursory pat-down of anybody that gets 'beeped' when walking through the X-ray doorway. It's definitely not intrusive.

      England security is awful to the point I avoid going back when possible. It's not just being treated like a potential terrorist, and having to strip off my shoes and belt like some kind of prisoner, but the insane queues this produces. In Nice I bank on about five minutes to go through security, so I allow ten minutes to be sure, but try going through a London airport during the summer...

      My sole trip via New York the only thing I found objectionable was the finger-printing. Being an affluent white middle-class male I had no experience of the TSA, only passed a few laid-back quite cool security guards. I broke my US boycott due to a promise to a friend. I really enjoyed the trip, and the people were great, but the security theater is still off-putting.

      Phillip.

    9. Re:We are not alone by ace123 · · Score: 1

      I must say that I felt safest in Germany. They don't have any of the stupid rules the U.S. inherited over the past 10 years--I didn't have to take off my shoes or get any patdowns, but they thought out the whole process much better. They actually check where you are going before you get on an international flight, they have multiple people look at your passport and they stamp it both coming into the country and going out (and I had a close friend who was interrogated and put on a watch list because of a missing stamp--so they actually check them).

      UK is a lot more like the US. They don't have the newfangled full naked body scan machine, but aside from that, London airport feels a lot like any of the U.S. airports--and the airport was so confusing that I wouldn't be surprised if there were some way to inadvertently bypass the security checkpoint by going through a couple back doors.

      The U.S. security is a sad joke. Sure, their security checkpoints might be very secure, so no explosives will make it through -- but their entire process feels like it is not thought through at all. For example, I once made it all the way through security for an international flight looking at the wrong boarding pass, and it seems like this sort of thing shouldn't be possible.

    10. Re:We are not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In France, you put your bags, laptop whatever in the xray, you go thru the usual metal detector thing, if that beeps you try again after checking your pockets for change etc, if it still beeps you get a pat down.

      If they find liquids in your bag, they ask you to open it and either drink the liquid now or throw it away.

      It is that simple.

      However lately on big international hubs like in Paris they have introduced body scanners, then I dont know what the procedure is then.

    11. Re:We are not alone by gknoy · · Score: 1

      I almost wish I could go through Israeli customs just to experience that. It feels bizarre to even say that, because I really don't enjoy going through customs anywhere, and have no reason to fly over there anyway, but I hear so often about how different + better it is that I'm curious how it feels as a passenger.

    12. Re:We are not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... you will want to strangle everyone associated with the TSA.

      Congratulations! You've just been added to a no-fly list.

    13. Re:We are not alone by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      Yes, France does, or at least did in 2007 when I was there. I was selected (along with a number of other men) for a frisk. Women were waved through. I know I must have looked like a threat with my pasty American skin.

    14. Re:We are not alone by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Israeli airport security is not theater, it is effective, yet it is not degrading.

      How many actual terrrorists has it caught?

      That's not a rhetorical question: I can't remember any reported instance in recent years of the much-vaunted Israeli security catching a terrorist at an airport. I would also say that after my experience of it I decided I'd never travel to Israel again.

    15. Re:We are not alone by geekoid · · Score: 1

      There is no proof their method works any better. None what so ever.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:We are not alone by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      In the past 30 years it caught at least 3 or 4 it publicized.

      That's not that many, but unlike American security, how many have slipped through?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    17. Re:We are not alone by anyGould · · Score: 1

      What about Canada?

      Canada doesn't (at least didn't last time I flew).

      Although I find it telling that the last time I did fly stateside (arrived in Vegas the day of the "bottle bomber" - that was wonderful news to wake up to, by the way), when we flew home to Canada a week later, the Canadian customs staff were *still* more through and inquisitive than the US folks - and this was a week after The Big Terrorist Threat.

      Actually, for all the noise you Americans like to make about it being so easy for the Bad Guys to get into Canada, even as a Canadian I get questioned far more coming back to Canada than I ever do flying into the US.

      (But that trip five years ago will be the last time I go stateside until you folks figure out that groping != security.)

    18. Re:We are not alone by Magada · · Score: 1

      Speaking from personal experience: Yes, they do, and they're damn serious about them since before 9/11. Thing is, they do profiling. You get pulled out and groped because something in your passport or your ticket or your looks doesn't quite jive or because the metal detector thing pinged.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    19. Re:We are not alone by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      But we can't use profiling that's racist, it's much less offensive to force all passengers to take naked pictures and grope them, then it would be to question the people most likely to commit acts of terrorism.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    20. Re:We are not alone by dbc · · Score: 1

      I would also say that after my experience of it I decided I'd never travel to Israel again.

      Yes, well, that's relative, isn't it? I can understand how you feel that way. Was your experience with Israeli airport security before or after the TSA instituted invasive procedures? How a person reacts to the experience is going to be shaped by what you have experienced in other places. Having gone through many US airports, Tel Aviv, Zurich, Frankfort, London, Stockholm, Oslo, Taipei, Kuala Lumpur, and Kota Kinabalu, I think the Israeli's are doing a decent job of security without sacrificing personal dignity. No Israeli security agent has ever cut me any slack and I wouldn't go so far as to call the experience pleasant, but on the other hand, I felt I was treated with respect.

      Israel has to take security seriously. One day the front page of the news contained a photo of the lobby of a high-end business hotel I had stayed in -- except this time with bullet holes and blood on the walls. That certainly drove home the point for me.

      As to how many bad guys they have actually caught -- I wouldn't know, and if they are managing their intel correctly, they shouldn't say.

      My basic assertion here is that the TSA could learn a thing or two about treating travelers with respect, and they would do well to look at the Israeli model.

    21. Re:We are not alone by Michael.LTN · · Score: 1

      2 years ago I flew between Ottawa and Toronto about 6 times in 3 months. (I haven't flown since, so I can't speak to the current level of security.) At the time, security screening involved emptying your pockets, removing your belt and sometimes you shoes, walking through a metal detector and then picking up your items on the other side. If you set it off, you'd get the wand. I'm subjected to a more thorough search attending a concert than I was at the airports in Ontario.

    22. Re:We are not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More to the point.... does Israel? I've flown in and out of Tel Aviv 3 times on business. They take security seriously -- and have for much longer than the USA. You get a thorough interview from a well-trained, intelligent professional. No pat downs. They *gasp* profile. Israeli airport security is not theater, it is effective, yet it is not degrading. Fly in and out of Israel once and you will want to strangle everyone associated with the TSA.

      More to the point.... does Israel? I've flown in and out of Tel Aviv 3 times on business. They take security seriously -- and have for much longer than the USA. You get a thorough interview from a well-trained, intelligent professional. No pat downs. They *gasp* profile. Israeli airport security is not theater, it is effective, yet it is not degrading. Fly in and out of Israel once and you will want to strangle everyone associated with the TSA.

      I /haven't/ flown out of Israel and I /already/ want to strangle everyone associated with the TSA.

      It's Amtrak for me until they decide to fuck that up, too.

    23. Re:We are not alone by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      you can't really believe that - they're surrounded by a bunch of countries that want to erase them, practice genocide on their own citizens, and they're still there. It's a near certainty that lots of attempts have been made, and lots more will be made. Because it's fucking israel.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    24. Re:We are not alone by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I got an El-Al security interview in Paris at what was about 3am on my body clock. I would have rather just stood there and been patted down than answer all the questions they asked. The interview went on and on until I pointed over at my (Jewish) boss and his wife and said "Look, I'm with them." Apparently that was good enough.

    25. Re:We are not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada definitely does, at least at the Winnipeg, MB Airport. Leaving Winnipeg after a family visit last year I refused the full body scan and was required to do the feel-up....err....pat-down.

    26. Re:We are not alone by GNious · · Score: 1

      Does France have such patdowns in their airports? What about Canada? What about Germany? Belgium?

      In Belgium, Brussels Airport, they pulled my pants down in public .... Think I'll prefer the US-style handjob, thank you.

    27. Re:We are not alone by steelfood · · Score: 2

      You get a thorough interview from a well-trained, intelligent professional.

      Good luck finding those working for the U.S. government, especially the runts of the litter known collectively as the TSA.

      And therein lies the problem.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    28. Re:We are not alone by SeximusMaximus · · Score: 1

      No pat downs. They *gasp* profile.

      See, when you say they profile - it has a different meaning that the typical meaning over here in America. Profiling in America means 'what colour/creed are you' whereas over there, a profile is a set of answers to common but well placed questions. It is much more intensive and requires much more training for the profilers. Not saying I am against real profiling over here, but the likely outcome would be a mismash garbage where brown people are terr'ists

    29. Re:We are not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for maybe Israel: NO OTHER COUNTRY. I travel a lot in Asia and Europe so I know first hand! It's why I avoid travel to the US (yet I'm a US citizen). It's all 100% bullshit.

  16. Re:Mistreatment of a child! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    Are you saying that a chiropractor is any less fraudulent than the TSA?

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  17. honor among terrorists by hort_wort · · Score: 1

    I'd just like to point out that a terrorist draws the line as using children to blow things up. No one would *ever* think to sacrifice a child for their religious views. They should obviously be allowed to pass through any security points without any problems!

    1. Re:honor among terrorists by Combatso · · Score: 1

      and terrorists also only use airplanes.. they wouldnt use a car bomb at a crowded cafe or detonate something on a packed subway.. so it makes sense that they only search babies at the airport. i for one feel much safer, that baby looked sinister and nervous.. i mean, he wouldnt answer any questions, and when pressed would just cry... obviously a threat.

    2. Re:honor among terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation please because this isn't true.

  18. Meanwhile in line... by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

    ... the kilogram of home-brew RDX in my backpack, surrounded by another kilogram of small iron nails oriented outwards and dripped in anticoagulant rat poison, explodes, peppering the meters-long queue and anyone nearby with poisoned shrapnel, ensuring that many victims bleed to death before the medics can get to them.
    Good Job, TSA!

    Sure, I'll die, but I'm going to take at least a hundred more people with me if I time the blast right. Nobody would pick me out beforehand, because I'm not through the security checkpoint yet, so it's basically risk-free. And I'd die if I bombed the airplane anyway, the queue at the checkpoint just makes for a cheaper and less risky target.

    --
    Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
  19. Violation of Human Rights by applematt84 · · Score: 1

    Seriously ... a pat down of a baby? TSA has gone too far if they are going to give infants (children are probably next) pat downs that can't even speak for themselves. Someone has to put a stop to the overzealous security czar that's known as TSA. If that had been my child, I would have been extremely outraged.

    1. Re:Violation of Human Rights by maxume · · Score: 2

      It isn't any more outrageous just because it is a baby.

      Do you really think someone with the will and desire to kill a few hundred or thousand other humans would be reluctant to use a child to accomplish that goal?

      (I'm not supporting the pat downs in general, just pointing out that there is nothing less risky about children; and most of them do have a guardian to speak for them, hopefully TSA procedure would have allowed the family to walk away rather than have the baby inspected)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Violation of Human Rights by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough I have the opposite view. If we're going to have security theater, it should at least be effective security theater, without having gaps in it a mile wide. If you're doing random searches "Except for well known group of people xyz" then there's no point in having them at all.

      By the same token, if you're going to try to convince me that my accidentally-packed full-size toothpaste is dangerous, don't just drop it from a height of five feet into a big bucket of similarly "dangerous" items you'll stand next to comfortably for the rest of your shift. At least pretend.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  20. some babys to survive unending passover holycost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    due to identified advanced dna features. the majority of them, & us, have not been chosen, even though, or because, there's billions of us. disarm. weapons, media etc.. read the teepeeleaks etchings, please. thank you.

  21. Re:Mistreatment of a child! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who takes a child to a chiro should lose their kids for putting them through abusive and unnecessary quackery.

  22. idle? by locallyunscene · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is this idle? We only idly wonder at controversial and arguably ineffective security procedures being followed to the letter? Especially when "I was just following orders" are the dirtiest words a lackey can speak?

    1. Re:idle? by tobiah · · Score: 3, Informative

      because it's not tech news.

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    2. Re:idle? by kvothe · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's in idle because the editor never leaves his house, so he felt that it doesn't apply to him? :)

    3. Re:idle? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Sure it is. :-)

      A baby stroller has been discovered to trigger a false-positive on a high-tech bomb detecting scanner. Obviously we need better bomb-detecting methods. Plus it puts the effectiveness of these scanners at actually detecting bombs into question.

  23. the whiners are gonna whine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When that happens people still whine about it.

  24. Ignorance nor indifference is no excuse by Joviex · · Score: 1

    A charge to freedom should not include wreckless behavior that endangers all those who enjoy said freedom. A douchebag drunk on the road is already on the road. They made a choice to endanger others. Police cameras on the road are not cameras in your house, and what would you have the police do? Go back to hoping someone in society helps identfy people for them because of their limited resources? Drug testing where? Private buisnesses or schools or what? ID requirements for drugs, what is the problem? If you can buy the drugs, you most likely have ID.

    1. Re:Ignorance nor indifference is no excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I don't drink and drive, yet I still have to go through a checkpoint, wait for all of the other people who don't drink to go through, I cannot just drive through because I don't drink. So where is it a good thing, I got a better idea, shoot the drunk drivers, leave the rest of us alone.
      Why do I need an ID to buy my cough syrup? Is it a crime to have a cough? I had to show ID to buy something for my asthma, I had to show ID. Is it a crime to have Asthma? I cannot choose to handle my asthma without prescription medicine without being hassled, is it a crime to not need a doctor for everything?
      I have mixed feelings on drug testing, in some places it is needed, most of the places that have drug testing don't need to have drug testing.
      Why don't police actually watch a road instead of a coffee shop. Using cameras is just plain lazy, here is a point, hire more policemen, don't have the money you say, I bet you I can find enough. Take Michigan State police, they have a few million laying around, I know this because they just spent it on a device that can scan Cell phones on the fly. They obviously don't need any more money for things

  25. Re:hmm by Haedrian · · Score: 2

    Well they didn't call me in the morning.

  26. Texas vs. TSA by Picass0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Texas has had enough. Other states will soon follow. On top of states rights, there are individual airports excercising their "opt-out" privileges and replacing TSA with private security.

    This morning CBS in Dallas/Fort Worth reports:

    "The Texas House passed a bill that would make it a criminal offense for public servants to inappropriately touch travelers during airport security pat-downs.

    Approved late Thursday night, the measure makes it illegal for anyone conducting searches to touch “the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person” including through clothing."
    Source:http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/05/13/texas-house-bans-offensive-security-pat-downs/

    If TSA ignores the new Texas law Texas has grounds to go to the US Supreme Court and challenge TSA's authority.

    1. Re:Texas vs. TSA by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      If TSA ignores the new Texas law Texas has grounds to go to the US Supreme Court and challenge TSA's authority.

      Is there some reason you think our current SC won't side with the TSA?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Texas vs. TSA by 3vi1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's incredibly weird to see a story on Slashdot where I agree with the way laws are being implemented or enforced in Texas.

      Maybe there's hope for us yet.

    3. Re:Texas vs. TSA by Picass0 · · Score: 2

      >> "Is there some reason you think our current SC won't side with the TSA?"

      The TSA has been begging for a Forth Amendment challenge to it's authority.

      Will the US Supremes do the right thing? (*shrug*) Only if they still enforce the Constitution.

    4. Re:Texas vs. TSA by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      I think it's a nice political stunt for the local politicians, but I think you'll find out that the states probably don't have jurisdiction to dictate how the federal government should screen passengers at the airport.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    5. Re:Texas vs. TSA by Picass0 · · Score: 1

      >>"...states probably don't have jurisdiction to dictate how the federal government should screen passengers at the airport."

      Texas doesn't. The US Supreme Court does. Texas is positioning itself to sue TSA.

    6. Re:Texas vs. TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like it hasn't been voted on by the house yet. It left committee yesterday. HB1937

    7. Re:Texas vs. TSA by burris · · Score: 1

      It's already been decided, it's an administrative search and you consent to it anyway, you can always hire a private vehicle. Nothing will fix it until the airlines and congress perceive that the only way to save the airlines is to fix it.

    8. Re:Texas vs. TSA by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      Apparently the security personnel who fondled the kid in this instance were in fact private contractors and not TSA. Doesn't matter . . . they still have to abide by the retarded Federal regs.

    9. Re:Texas vs. TSA by hpa · · Score: 1

      If TSA ignores the new Texas law Texas has grounds to go to the US Supreme Court and challenge TSA's authority.

      No, they don't, as it'd pretty much be a crystal-clear application of Article VI of the United States Constitution. Sadly, in this case.

    10. Re:Texas vs. TSA by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      The supreme court may only rule on the jurisdiction of Texas' law not the constitutionality of TSA searches.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    11. Re:Texas vs. TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theoretically British soldiers had the consent of colonists when they searched their homes....

      What happens when someone says "No" to TSA? We've seen enough Youtube videos to have a pretty good idea it doesn't go down well. "No" is not really an option. Therefore, it's not really a choice, is it?

      I guess the courts will soon decide.

      Political pressure is forming against TSA, Janet Napolitano, and by extension Obama. If he wants to be re-elected he will need to change TSA. It is a constant source of embarrassment to him.

    12. Re:Texas vs. TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sad thing is that even though they are doing it for all the wrong reasons, they are doing the right thing by standing up to this travesty. My enemy has become my friend, because even crazy people know it's fucked up...

    13. Re:Texas vs. TSA by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Political pressure is forming against TSA, Janet Napolitano, and by extension Obama. If he wants to be re-elected he will need to change TSA. It is a constant source of embarrassment to him.

      I hope this is true. I was pretty irked myself when Obama joked about inappropriate pat-downs during the State of the Union, as if he had no control over it. And he's not exactly someone who has to watch his wife and kids getting felt up every time they travel, which just adds insult to injury.

    14. Re:Texas vs. TSA by MJMullinII · · Score: 0

      "Will the US Supremes do the right thing"

      Translates in right-wing speak as : will the Supreme Court agree with our preformed opinion.

      --
      "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
    15. Re:Texas vs. TSA by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      FFS Texas! We we're just hating on you last week
      Now we have to like you again? Make up your damn mind!

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    16. Re:Texas vs. TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      HELL YES! This is one of the few times where I've looked at Texas with respect and admiration. If the Texans can get rid of the ridiculous TSA then I will gladly call them the smartest people in our country.

    17. Re:Texas vs. TSA by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Even better, the actual police at most airports are local. So for instance, at DFW the TSA might be Federal employees, but the cops who are on hand to do any arresting are employed by the Texas Department of Public Safety. Guess which laws they enforce first and foremost?

      I'm so looking forward to my upcoming vacation so I can see if I can get a TSA goon put on the sex offenders registry.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    18. Re:Texas vs. TSA by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Sanity coming out of Texas laws? Surely this is one of the signs of the apocalypse!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    19. Re:Texas vs. TSA by MJMullinII · · Score: 1

      He may have control, but no choice.

      We're not letting ANYONE get on something that has been proven can be used as a missile without checking everyone from head to toe.

      The President was exactly right, you don't like it, take a train (I would add a boat for overseas trips).

      --
      "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
    20. Re:Texas vs. TSA by Picass0 · · Score: 2

      I am not a right-winger. By hoping for the "right thing" I hope the US Supreme Court forces TSA to modify their intrusive and humiliating searches. How does that make me right wing, @sshole?

    21. Re:Texas vs. TSA by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Fuck you, you take a train. Why should I suffer just because you're a coward? Let the pussies ride trains and the rest of us can go back to enjoying life without worrying about every possible, though statistically improbable, scenario that might kill us.

    22. Re:Texas vs. TSA by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Anyone? or public servants?

      Given the choice, I'll take a public servant because the government is far more open then private corporations.

      And texas will lose if ti goes to the supreme court if the apply it to any flight that goes beyond the border of texas.

      Ah:
      " though the measure may be superseded by federal law."

      Yeah, it's a do nothing law they know will fail so the can garner votes.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    23. Re:Texas vs. TSA by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, so they can then turn over the security to private corporations. Not, the proposed rules only apply to public servants, not to private employees.

      In every case, turning over this type of thing to private corporation cost the citizens more money and give them less privacy, and less control.

      So this isn't a blow for freedom, quite the opposite.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    24. Re:Texas vs. TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Texan. and as much as I loathe my elected Rep's incompetence on the majority of legislation, I feel this is one issue that I doubt many Texans are against. It really has gotten out of hand.

      In 2005, at our local airport, the TSA made my 14 month old nephew go through the metal detector by himself. He could barely stand up, much less walk. My family of 9 were all fuming with disgust and anger at what we were witnessing. Of course my nephew didn't know w.t.h. was going on, so he's scream bloody murder. The whole situation still burns me to this day. Absurd doesn't begin to define this theatre of farce.

    25. Re:Texas vs. TSA by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      I suggest you Google the definition of TSA. Hint: TRANSPORTATION.

      They have jurisdiction over the train travel industry too.

    26. Re:Texas vs. TSA by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      New Texas motto: "Don't Fondle Me"

    27. Re:Texas vs. TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to hell with challenging authority. Just pass a law stripping qualified immunity from civil suits, and do the same thing that happens to cops when there's a civil rights complaint filed--the moment it's ascertained there's a good chance they may have done it (e.g. you can try it), their union and department is no longer allowed to pay their bills.

      Take two or three of the 'officers' and throw them in the pen and make them register as a sex offender.

      Sure, it'll go up through courts--but they'll still spend time in the grey bar resort.

      If the government rules its citizens through fear, maybe it's time we rule some of the government workers in the same way. TSA workers should be terrified to lose everything they have as result of a sexual assault charge--and their management should be working to find ways around this.

    28. Re:Texas vs. TSA by glenstar · · Score: 1

      I had the same thing happen with my son when he was maybe 3. I began screaming at the agents and came VERY close to being arrested. I actually crossed back through the screener and grabbed my son since he had thrown himself on the floor and threw a fit. You don't fuck with a parent when their child is in distress. :-)

    29. Re:Texas vs. TSA by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      Texas has had enough. Other states will soon follow. On top of states rights, there are individual airports excercising their "opt-out" privileges and replacing TSA with private security.

      Except this *was* private security. TSA isn't stationed at KCI/MCI it's a company called First Line Security.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    30. Re:Texas vs. TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot on a gargantuan scale.

      This has nothing to do with whether you get patted down or not.
      This has nothing to do with respecting our rights as American travelers.

      This is all about so the dickhead republicans that run Texas can can have THEIR companies make the money from groping travelers, instead of the TSA doing it. This is more of the same "we need to destroy the government" krap from the right.
      Oh, and lets make some money while were at it.

      Trying to spin this as somekind of feel good, "Yea, we're standing up for our rights" bullshit is pretty sad.

    31. Re:Texas vs. TSA by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It takes time to get to the US Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, putting a large number of TSA agents in a nasty state jail and publicizing it will go a long way toward generating better behavior.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  27. Re:hmm by Combatso · · Score: 1

    the flip side is, we aren't dogs... I dont have to smell your asshole to determine if you are a threat.

  28. In the US the babies are merely felt up.. by countertrolling · · Score: 0

    while overseas the 'coalition' hellfire rains down upon them. I suppose the Americans should be grateful..

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  29. toddler's first pat down, November 2001 by awilden · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In November 2001 we were traveling and didn't realize that our return flight had been canceled. We were able to rebook but of course that gave us a XXX rating for risk (though we didn't understand that until later). But our 13 month old (and the rest of us) had to go through three different screens between the ticket counter and the gate, the last of which was a full pat down for all of us.
    First I was screened, then our baby was made to stand away from both of us (since he wasn't screened and they were screening my wife) while my wife was being screened. This step took a long time, because of course the kid was screaming bloody murder about being kept from his parents, and several times he broke free and ran to his mother and if she moved (not reached, just moved out of her crucifixion position) or the kid touched her, the agent yelled at her and started over again. After about the third time when she got yelled at w/o moving, I was about ready to punch somebody but the supervisor intervened, patted down the baby and got him into my arms, at which point they could finish the stupid screen on my wife. This was the closest by far I've ever come to physical violence in my adult life. And it wasn't caused by a false-positive on an explosives test, it was because our flight was canceled.

    1. Re:toddler's first pat down, November 2001 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This should go into their baby book with all of the other "firsts".

    2. Re:toddler's first pat down, November 2001 by hellop2 · · Score: 1

      You're a patient man. Something to be admired. I pray that someday the guy who yelled at your wife gets punched in the face for no apparent reason and is helpless to do anything about it.

      --
      How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    3. Re:toddler's first pat down, November 2001 by Magada · · Score: 1

      Nothing admirable about letting this happen, not in the "land of the free".

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  30. If you didn't pat down everybody... by HockeyPuck · · Score: 0

    Then you'd set a nice example of how to beat the system. Some terrorist could bring their/a baby on a flight and hide a bomb in their stroller/diaper etc..

    If the TSA posted a list of "We will search/pat down all people except for the following people/items." This would provide a nice list to those looking to do harm/hijack the plane etc.. for what they can do to get past security.

    I know I know... someone will say this will cause irreparable harm to the child. Well, when I took my child to get their measels/mumps/rubella shots, that was a lot more "traumatic" (resulting in lots of crying), but prevents not only my child from getting sick but many others.

    1. Re:If you didn't pat down everybody... by Chrisq · · Score: 0

      Then you'd set a nice example of how to beat the system. Some terrorist could bring their/a baby on a flight and hide a bomb in their stroller/diaper etc..

      very true we know that the Muzzies want their children to become martyrs, in that perverse religion there is no better way to bring the whole family to heaven.

    2. Re:If you didn't pat down everybody... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree with you that if you screen, you have to do it to everyone, but are such severe screenings; i.e. a mandatory full pat-down even necessary in the first place? It probably wouldn't have caught the Underwear bomber (who is the supposed reason for the full-body scanners).

      I suspect the real reason is to try stopping drug smuggling and to increase the security theater, but both won't work. (It's not like these measures have stopped drugs from getting into prisons)

    3. Re:If you didn't pat down everybody... by glodime · · Score: 1

      If the TSA posted a list of "We will search/pat down all people except for the following people/items."

      The TSA does post this information. They only search people who attempt to cross an arbitrary plane. Terrorists don't need to cross that plane to do harm.

    4. Re:If you didn't pat down everybody... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, when I took my child to get their measels/mumps/rubella shots, that was a lot more "traumatic" [...]

      Vacine shot are for the good fo the kid. These are done for no good reason. This agency was created to give the aparence of government action. Like all organisation, it has a life of its own, and will justify its own buget so you can't kill it.

    5. Re:If you didn't pat down everybody... by Big+Smirk · · Score: 2

      You are an idiot. You sir, would qualify for a job at the TSA.

      The point trying to be made is that since the TSA is almost totally ineffective (by all evidence so far) whether they include everyone or not in their searches is completely irrelevant to security.

      Try this for size, the odds that your plane will be blown up by terrorists are estimate at 1:30million. The odds of getting cancer from the screening machine are also 1:30million. Its just the second option costs you a boat load of money and time and your privacy.

      http://boingboing.net/2010/11/19/odds-of-cancer-from.html

      --
      TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
    6. Re:If you didn't pat down everybody... by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Then you'd set a nice example of how to beat the system. Some terrorist could bring their/a baby on a flight and hide a bomb in their stroller/diaper etc..

      Search the stroller, by all means. But let's take a moment and think about babies - where are they going to hide explosives? Asking the parents to change the diaper will pretty much cover the complete inventory of "where can you hide a bomb on a baby".

      You don't even have to look in the diaper - it's pretty trivial to check if one is empty or full (as any parent will tell you)

    7. Re:If you didn't pat down everybody... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Muzzies? really? are you really that stupid? DO you honestly thing the tiny few who commit the heainois acts have the correct view of the religion, and the billion+ that condemn these acts are doing it wrong?

      Seriously, stop being an irrational twit.

      And using disrespectful terms doesn't help at all. When someone does that, one of the very few idiots who are using a corrupt version of their religion just uses it as fodder for requiting disenfranchised kids.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  31. Terrorists are not the biggest threat by devent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Terrorists could hide a bomb in a diaper, and we don't seem to have anything much better than pat-downs to detect it. "

    Terrorists could just go to the next mall in kill 1000 people with a bomb. Or they could go to a train station and kill 500 people. They could just go to the next restaurant and kill 50 people.

    What we really should be doing is just accept terrorists as a threat but not overreacting. We should spend our tax money for real things that are proven to save lives, like improving highways, get more police officers, improving hospitals and health care, invest in more public transportation.

    We could even just give capital to the third-world countries, or invest in their education and infrastructure. Even that would reduce the risk of a terrorist attack way more then the stupid TSA. But instead we giving Millions of money to people to search babies, kids and some random people so we have a one in a million chance to find anything.

    --
    http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    1. Re:Terrorists are not the biggest threat by Seumas · · Score: 1

      "Terrorists could hide a bomb in a diaper, and we don't seem to have anything much better than pat-downs to detect it. "

      The thing is, they do have something better. They said in the article itself that they ran the stroller through a bomb chemical trace detection system. So why didn't they take the baby through it? In fact, why aren't people going through it? That's what these were made for. You walk through it and it blows a puff of air at you that has a higher detection rate than anything else. After 9/11, these were going in all over the country in every airport (in fact, I invested in the company that makes them as a result). And now? No, we can't be bothered with those. Having something that can detect the most minute traces of explosive chemicals is no solution, when we can take naked photos of citizens and stick our hands down their pants.

    2. Re:Terrorists are not the biggest threat by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 2

      Terrorists could just go to the next mall in kill 1000 people with a bomb. Or they could go to a train station and kill 500 people. They could just go to the next restaurant and kill 50 people.

      But if a terrorist attacked a mall or a restaurant, only that mall or that restaurant elicits fear from the public. If the terrorist attack airplanes, all airplane travel becomes suspect. In this way the terrorist impacts the entire US economy, instead of just ruining one local mall or restaurant.

      They could have the same effect by attacking the train system, but it's not used as much as the air travel system and isn't as tied in with the economy. They'd have a bigger economical impact by attacking freight trains, but then nobody would die and they wouldn't get the fear response they want.

      Remember, the point of terrorism is to frighten the public into both altering electoral outcomes and damaging the economy of their country. If the target's government or economy fails, the terrorists win. It doesn't matter how many of their restaurants you take out.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    3. Re:Terrorists are not the biggest threat by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      We could even just give capital to the third-world countries, or invest in their education and infrastructure. Even that would reduce the risk of a terrorist attack way more then the stupid TSA. But instead we giving Millions of money to people to search babies, kids and some random people so we have a one in a million chance to find anything.

      Because there's no profit in education. Someone is making a killing selling the TSA x-ray machines and agent services. Those are the people that need to be stopped. Them and the senators/congressmen in their pockets.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    4. Re:Terrorists are not the biggest threat by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Terrorists could just go to the next mall in kill 1000 people with a bomb. Or they could go to a train station and kill 500 people. They could just go to the next restaurant and kill 50 people.

      Or, if they wanted to keep an air travel focus, they could just detonate themselves in the security line of a busy airport. Those expensive explosive detectors won't be worth anything if the terrorist goes boom while waiting on line.

      What we really should be doing is just accept terrorists as a threat but not overreacting. We should spend our tax money for real things that are proven to save lives, like improving highways, get more police officers, improving hospitals and health care, invest in more public transportation.

      I agree. Real security is needed, of course. And real security would probably cost less than the theater we're getting now. Ditch the expensive explosives detectors and look to how the Israelis do airport security.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:Terrorists are not the biggest threat by dlgeek · · Score: 1

      Terrorists wouldn't attack just a single mall or restaurant, they'd attack several simultaneously. That would spark a "You're not safe anywhere!" fear in the public.

    6. Re:Terrorists are not the biggest threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the terrorist attacks two or three malls. Probably at least as easy as attacking one. Or buses or trains in a couple different cities; again, easier, and would have the same effect as attacking a plane.

    7. Re:Terrorists are not the biggest threat by sjames · · Score: 1

      A real terrorist would get hired at minimum wage to vacuum out the airplanes between flights with practically no background check and a show your employee ID security checkpoint.

      Or, a terrorist could just get in line for his TSA patdown and kill several thousand people by detonating when his turn comes up. That would cause just as much fear of flying.

    8. Re:Terrorists are not the biggest threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the terrorists attacked a mall, the soccer moms all across the nation would be terrified to go to the mall. That would be a serious blow to an already weakened economy.

    9. Re:Terrorists are not the biggest threat by devent · · Score: 1

      No, the real difference is that in front of a restaurant, mall or train station the people are not willing to get a pat-down, x-ray or to be forced to take their shoes of. Thus there is no money for the TSA or any manufacture of the expensive X-ray and bomb detectors.

      This whole thing is just a big scam, just like the US military bases across the world. It's just a big run for tax money. Just like the US military bases does nothing the whole time and are basically holiday mansions, so does this TSA does nothing and is living from the fear of the people.

      Mark my words: the TSA will not go away for the next 30 to 50 years. The x-rays and detector machines will get more expensive and the search will get more invasive. The politicians will do nothing against it and will just they "yes" to everything the TSA demands, because of fear of a terrorist attack and that the public will blame them.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    10. Re:Terrorists are not the biggest threat by Arlet · · Score: 1

      But if a terrorist attacked a mall or a restaurant, only that mall or that restaurant elicits fear from the public

      If it's one isolated attack, you're probably right. If it's a series of attacks, all on similar targets, people will start avoiding those kinds of targets. It may not cripple the economy, but it would make a big difference in daily life. Look at what happened during the Beltway sniper attacks. Now imagine he was using bombs instead.

    11. Re:Terrorists are not the biggest threat by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But if a terrorist attacked a mall or a restaurant, only that mall or that restaurant elicits fear from the public.

      You might as well say that only that airplane elicits fear from the public. Or maybe an airline? It's a nonsensical argument. The more mundane the place the bomb goes of the more effective it is for inciting terror among the populace, because it leaves the question as to what the next target is completely open.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Terrorists are not the biggest threat by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      We could even just give capital to the third-world countries, or invest in their education and infrastructure.

      That's called foreign aid, one of the most expensive blunders we've made over the last century.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    13. Re:Terrorists are not the biggest threat by joeme1 · · Score: 1

      billions. 8.1 annually if I remember right

  32. Re:hmm by berashith · · Score: 1

    hell, they didnt even walk me to the door!

  33. This isn't funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why do people think this is something to be joked about?

    Don't you see what's happening?

    You don't care as long as you're not impacted right?

    What will be your stance when you ARE impacted?

  34. How is this news? by aclarke · · Score: 2

    I have a hard time understanding how this could be news to anyone who has travelled with children in the last few years. While travelling from Canada through London to Amsterdam last year, our then 7 month old girl was given a patdown (at LHR IIRC). It was pretty comical, really. My wife stood her up, and my daughter stood there looking a little confused, like babies do, while some woman patted her down. I guess if I'd been a blogger with a sense of self importance, I'd have taken a photo and informed the world about it.

    I'm sure ours can't have been an isolated occurrence. There must have been thousands of little kids given a patdown by now. Maybe it's not news because it didn't happen In America.

    1. Re:How is this news? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      In some ways, it's not as bad with a baby as with an older child. When we went on vacation earlier this year, I was stressed about TSA patdowns. We've talked with our older son (age 7) about inappropriate touching. He knows that nobody but his parents or doctor is allowed to touch him "there." Yet, a TSA patdown might involve some intensive "there" contact. How do you explain this to your child? "Nobody but mommy, daddy, your doctor and a few random TSA agents are allowed to touch you in your private areas"???!!!!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:How is this news? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Clearly they heard you where an Cold Fusion expert and thought you might blow something up.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  35. Re:hmm by zill · · Score: 1

    First they cupped my balls,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't sexually repressed.

  36. Re:Mistreatment of a child! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    :-) Look in the mirror my friend...

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  37. Re:hmm by Prikolist · · Score: 1

    To continue your thought, the argument can be made that the loudest supporters of the TSA are overly nymphomaniac and likely sexually expressive. So a TSA touched you, it's not like they actually want to have sex with everyone they grope. What are you, a free love hippie, not having physical contact is a crime against humanity?

    --
    I think Linux isn't better than Windows hence in the slashdot realm I'm a troll
  38. Re:hmm by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

    Personally I think the argument can be made that the loudest protestors against the TSA are overly neurotic and likely sexually repressed. So a TSA touched you, big deal. What are you, a Victorian schoolmarm, any physical contact is a crime against humanity?

    That's not the point: the point is that it's an unnecessary procedure and, in the case of groping a baby or a 3-year-old girl and prohibiting someone of carrying water into the airplane, hyperbolically stupid. Some people are more sensitive to this kind of stuff, some people less, but they both agree that it's stupid and expensive!

    --
    I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
  39. end this kind of crap now that bin laden is dead by Dan667 · · Score: 2

    America is safe so the tsa needs to have their budget slashed and these draconian measured ended. The US is suppose to be free right?

  40. They need a sign at the airport. by Combatso · · Score: 2

    The sign should read "if we think you have a bomb or weapon, we will stick fingers in your butt".

    I'm no islamic scholar, but I am thinking, that would be enough to deter anyone from trying.

    1. Re:They need a sign at the airport. by toriver · · Score: 1

      I think you mis-spelt "flying" there.

      What I want to find out is whether this has lead to brisker business for Amtrak and the bus companies. Or car rental companies for that matter...

    2. Re:They need a sign at the airport. by Combatso · · Score: 1

      oh I missed that, damn auto-correct...

  41. I have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a just society, everyone associated with the DHS and the TSA, including the lawmakers who devised and voted for it, would be permanently incarcerated at Guantanamo, with a free Koran to read (who knows, it might do them some good).

  42. Tired of Exceptions by Seumas · · Score: 1

    I'm tired of everyone pissing their pants when it involves a child or a mother or an elderly person. How about when it involves any person? Why is it okay to dismiss the experience and violations of me, because I'm a middle aged single male? Why are we only concerned with the value of people's rights if they fall into the above exceptions?

  43. Smart terrorists know there are soft targets by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Smart terrorist bent on doing maximum damage on a one-shot suicide run:

    1. List all emotionally or financially valuable targets in your target zone, from day care centers and nursing homes to the largest skyscraper and largest sporting venue.
    2. Eliminate hardened targets since there are plenty of soft ones on your list.
    3. ???
    4. Kill yourself and a bunch of other people and PROFIT!*

    *SURPRISE: Instead of "72 virgins in paradise" you'll get what people with moral bankruptcy usually get.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  44. Re:hmm by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

    the argument can be made that the loudest protestors against the TSA are overly neurotic and likely sexually repressed

    I think you'll find that the loudest protesters against this are people who care about the principle of the thing and not so much people who are otherwise known to be neurotic or sexually represent in any other part of their life.

    I might agree with you in a way, in so far as I also have the impression that the sexual aspect of this may be exaggerated, and perhaps not very genuinely felt. It seems like a convenient angle of attack allowing to apply the arguments used in the context of sexual harassment. Those are rather widely respected, and of course they do very much apply in this case.

    However I believe what's really driving the protest is the desire not to live in an authoritarian police state. That's exactly where you live, as soon as you enter a US airport though, and it looks like it may well expand from there. That's a much more complex argument to make though, and one which is no longer widely accepted.

  45. HUMMM by BudAaron · · Score: 0

    So you think some radical sh** might NOT put explosives in a babies diaper? Give it a fu****** rest folks - the world has changed sadly.

  46. "Followed proper current screening procedures..." by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

    Our officers followed proper current screening procedures by screening the family after the alarm

    Gee, folks. They followed proper current procedures, so I don't see how they could have done anything wrong. What more do you want from the TSA? You have to follow procedure after all, and procedures are always right! I'd almost think you people would suggest that the procedures may be misguided, detrimental to our liberties, damaging to our Constitutional rights, or even criminal in nature, and I'm sure none of you think that, right?

    Note: All responses to this comment will be logged for review by authorized agents of the federal government, as per proper current procedures.

  47. Good job, guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The comments on this article are even more retarded than YouTube comments.
    I knew you could do it!

  48. car/bus/train v airplane deaths/mile not favorable by glodime · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, because of the perfectly rational like minded people that increasingly make the same choice, there has been a proportionate increase in the number of deaths as a result of using significantly less safe modes of transportation compared to flying for a larger percentage of their distance traveled annually.

  49. Makes no sense... by ThreeDeeNut · · Score: 0

    I mean, a pat down in a congregation of hundreds of people... why wait till the plane ride, why not just do it at the place where all the people congregate for the security screening. I was in the JFK airport not so long ago... Id say people numbering somewhere in the thousands were online at the first security checkpoint well inside the airport. If terrorists really cared to attack they wouldn't wait to be on the plane where they could only damage one plane and a couple hundred people. Instead they would strike at the heart... in the airport on line waiting for screening. An attack like this and the airport would be closed, revenues would plummet, hundreds of planes would be massively delayed etc. In my opinion the TSA only does one thing. Make an even bigger, fatter, juicier target for a would be bomber (which i believe exist far less commonly than the govt would like us to believe). I just don't buy it. I never did. There are just far too many opportunities that offer much better and far easier targets. If mad bombers really wanted to hurt us they would. Security or not. Of course the war machine would grind to a halt should we actually admit that terrorists are actually quite rare and less deserving of public fear than they have been given. So, Johnny get your gun, cause they are comming to get us and we need all the TSA, NSA, FBI, and CIA help we can get. Bring on the security cameras and point em all at me... i need to be safe. lol.... what a crock of $H17.

  50. That would not be profitable. by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    rather than $10 an hour rent-a-cop types, they needed to pay some behavioural experts who can recognize potential threats.

    Except the whole security thingie is farmed out to private company that does not exactly consider security its top priority.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  51. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  52. Ah see, but we ARE alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As Gary pointed out in Team America, we're the dicks that goes around the world fucking assholes. The assholes of the world don't like being fucked with, so they send idiots to our midst and blow themselves up...

  53. The French are doing it too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My nine month old son was patted down at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris last October. Nothing went off, my wife was selected for additional screening and he was in her arms. So he got a pat-down as well. They did accommodate his modesty and it was a male screener that patted him down while a female screener patted down my wife. My job was to hold him up in the air like a trophy.

    1. Re:The French are doing it too by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in France this is expected. They love their Polanski after all.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  54. Que the... by MJMullinII · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Limousine Liberals and the Pickup Truck right-wingers.

    If they had let this cute little kid pass unmolested, just to have the 10 pounds of high explosives planted in his/her diaper go off on the flight and blow, perhaps, a ten hole in the side of an airliner at 35,000 ft., it would be accusations all the way around.

    YOU PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP. The type of people the TSA is looking for are NOT the type of people who are above doing what I just described.

    You don't like the time it takes for security, take a train/boat.

    --
    "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
    1. Re:Que the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Que the Limousine Liberals and the Pickup Truck right-wingers"

      and the frightened, basement-dwelling psychopaths?

    2. Re:Que the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 lbs of explosives hidden on the infant would be apparent by picking it up. No need to molest. Also, what you're describing could happen anywhere. Why do you only apply it to airliners?

    3. Re:Que the... by aseth · · Score: 1

      You don't like the time it takes for security, take a train/boat.

      Don't worry, they're working on that too.

      Schumer proposes no ride list for train travelers.

      "Land of the free, and home of the brave." Remember that? It used to apply..

    4. Re:Que the... by ThreeDeeNut · · Score: 1

      "YOU PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP. The type of people the TSA is looking for are NOT the type of people who are above doing what I just described." No, your all wrong about that. Who the tsa are looking for are not mad bombers, They are looking for you and i to be criminals in some way... mad bomber or not. At one time in history, you could not legally treat a person as a criminal until you proved he was guilty of a crime. but every day we move closer to a point where "we" individually do not matter. This is not about a bomber, it's a way for you to willingly give up your freedoms for convenience and safety. Now "we" can search through "your" stuff, gps track "your" whereabouts, know who "you" have kissed goodnight this week, have access to a million cameras & rifd stations across the us, and turn "your" cell phone on at will to record "your" conversations. For with fear and eager willingness to hype everything up to epic cacophonous proportions, you will give anything you hold true away. It's a basic human instinct turned against the world... time and time again. "You don't like the time it takes for security, take a train/boat." Also makes no sense if your follow this out to its conclusion. If this security idea were to work, and i mean to really work... you would have a world where everyone is tracked 24/7. It would start with real criminals and it would end with free thinkers. Once you eliminate the free thinkers you have obedience. then you have safety. At first certain things like pot would be let to slide so as to make the pill a little easier to swallow but eventually anything deemed by societies upper orders would be considered a grave injustice and punishable. It starts with the airplanes. It ends with complete 100% tracking of your every movement, conversation and otherwise. Whats really scarry is there are people willingly submitting themselves already to rfid tracking. No, it would begin with planes but soon trains, then (technically they already do) cars, then your phone, then just put a chip in you at birth. honestly, its not too far off. You see, im no criminal by any means, but thats just not a future that sounds good to me. I think the laws in effect pre-911 were substantial enough to secure our country. No new legislation was needed. Only a more aware citizenry, alert officers and armed flight personnel were ever needed. Your personal rights need not apply for the job to catch a mad bomber. So, we were sucker punched with 911 and we are reacting with the most irrational, unjust, unacceptable legislation our country has possibly ever seen. All to defend ourselves from the boogie man who went boom in the night over a decade ago.

    5. Re:Que the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see the authoritarian-loving boot-licker apologists have graced this thread. Please emigrate to Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, or some other authoritarian/totalitarian shithole country, and leave the freedom loving citizens of the US alone. YOU'RE RUINING THIS COUNTRY, YOU NEOCON DUMB FUCK!

    6. Re:Que the... by sjames · · Score: 2

      If they're not above that, why do you think they're above body packing (including surgical body packing)? After all, it's a suicide mission so it's not like they're afraid of a bad outcome from the surgery. Shall we have the TSA perform exploratory surgery?

      All we know for sure is that the only 2 times since 9/11 people have tried to get explosives on a plane, they succeeded. They were prevented from detonating by a combination of their own incompetence and passenger intervention.

    7. Re:Que the... by MimeticLie · · Score: 1

      The TSA has never caught anyone trying to smuggle explosives onto a plane. All such attempts have been foiled by passengers. Patting down the kid does as much as patting down the rest of us (i.e. fuck all).

  55. Papers please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Biggest waste of money on security theater going.

    Are you kidding? This has been one of the most successful indoctrinations into the police state mentality ever.
    This baby (and countless other children) will only know a world where 'random' groping from the government is normal.

    We've got checkpoints on the road (in the name of sobriety testing) and the NSA listening to every phone call and reading every e-mail.

    The Stasi would be jealous.

  56. trauma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you don't like this:
    - opt out each time
    - and write your representant
    - let the TSA agent know politely you are traumatized by their behavior

    1. Re:trauma by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      Accuse them of "inappropriate and unprofessional behavior". This happens to be a killer.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  57. Why pat down the Baby... by Stregano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    when it will fit through the x-ray machine?

    --
    The world is how you make it
    1. Re:Why pat down the Baby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the backscatter machines can be harmfu... ummm.. wait... nevermind.

    2. Re:Why pat down the Baby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful? When did TSA agents start getting mod-points on Slashdot?

    3. Re:Why pat down the Baby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when it will fit through the x-ray machine?

      I always mail both my babies and my laptop when flying to avoid this nonsense.

    4. Re:Why pat down the Baby... by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Child porn. No go.

    5. Re:Why pat down the Baby... by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      Insightful ? hahahahhahahaah

      Dear TSA,
            I don;t like to be touched by fellow human beings, but I do LOVE being bombarded by carcinogenic ionizing radiation.
      KThnxBye

  58. Bring children through the airport by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

    Does anyone seriously bring a child through the airport these days? Travel by air is somthing that should only be done if there is absolutly no other choice.

  59. Just gets worse. by anyGould · · Score: 1

    Or checkpoints against drunk driving

    I don't have a particular complaint about this, so long as they're checking just sobriety with cause. (And really, you can tell a drunk person from "hello" to get probably cause.)

    Police cameras on the roads

    I know I'm a minority on this one, but I have zero problem with photo radar and red light cameras - it's more cost effective than paying officers to sit all afternoon on the side of the highway. (Or, if you prefer - it frees up officers to look into more important crimes).

    "Zero Tolerance" in schools

    Show me a school that actually has zero tolerance, and I'll show you an empty building - all "zero tolerance" means is that the administration either is very sneaky about how they do discipline, or that discipline is a yes/no proposition - either you get in no trouble or you get expelled. The whole concept is horse-hockey.

    Drug testing

    Very overused in my opinion - unless you can show imminent harm, why do you (as my employer) care what I'm hopped up on during the weekend? (It's Dr. Pepper and rum, if you're curious). If I'm driving truck all day, then yes, let's make sure I'm clean. If I'm a desk monkey, then what's the point?

    ID requirements for just about anything, including purchasing cough syrup

    Agree with you here - although most of us just hand over those loyalty cards anyway, so picture ID is pretty redundant.

    1. Re:Just gets worse. by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      I know I'm a minority on this one, but I have zero problem with photo radar and red light cameras - it's more cost effective than paying officers to sit all afternoon on the side of the highway.

      Damn right it's "cost effective". It's all about the money. And it has nothing to do with safety, so let's get that hammered out right up-front. Getting a ticket in the mail 3 days later dosen't stop some reckless driver from mowing little timmy down because they're doing 80 MPH in a residential neighborhood.

    2. Re:Just gets worse. by anyGould · · Score: 1

      I know I'm a minority on this one, but I have zero problem with photo radar and red light cameras - it's more cost effective than paying officers to sit all afternoon on the side of the highway.

      Damn right it's "cost effective". It's all about the money. And it has nothing to do with safety, so let's get that hammered out right up-front. Getting a ticket in the mail 3 days later dosen't stop some reckless driver from mowing little timmy down because they're doing 80 MPH in a residential neighborhood.

      Well, the odds of the cop being set up on your residential street on that particular day is pretty close to zilch, so I wouldn't call paying the cop more effective.

      I think the safety would be increased if there was *more* photo-radar cameras out there. Getting one ticket every six months or so if one thing. Getting three different tickets on the same day (because you sped all the way home and set off multiple traps)? That might get some people's attention.

      And I refute the whole "cash grab" argument - at *worst*, it's a tax on stupid people. And if we can have a machine that just keeps dinging those stupid people, freeing up (or maybe paying for more!) police officers to chase down murderers and thieves? Sounds like a win to me.

    3. Re:Just gets worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the odds of the cop being set up on your residential street on that particular day is pretty close to zilch, so I wouldn't call paying the cop more effective.

      In other words, you concede my point. Speed limits, and the enforcement of speed limits, do jack squat when it comes to safety.

      And I refute the whole "cash grab" argument

      No you don't. You contradict it. You don't refute anything.

      I often have to drive a few miles (I just checked Google Maps: 3.0 miles) down a decent-sized street and the speed limit changes between 35, 25, 30, 25, 30, 25, 30. I'm not exaggerating. The speed limit changes 6 times in 3 miles. Now, one of those 25 MPH zones makes sense because there's a small mall with road-side parking and usually a bunch of pedestrians, but the other ones are just obvious money-grabs by small towns where there's no reason whatsoever that the speed limit should alternate between 30 and 25.

      The other day I probably got a ticket (we'll see if it shows up in the mail soon) because the asshats in one of those small towns, rather than having a cop car sit there and hand out tickets at one of the 25 MPH stretches like they usually do, finally found the money in their budget to acquire one of those automated speed cameras (first time I've ever seen one). It said I was going 30 in the 25 MPH zone and it took my picture.

      Doing 30 in a 25 zone is hardly unsafe (if it was an actual cop manning the speed trap they probably wouldn't have even stopped me - I've 30 or a hair under 30 going past their speed trap plenty of times), moreso in that particular 25 zone which really had no business being a 25 MPH zone anyway. It's just to catch people passing through and bolster the police budget. Obvious money grab, nothing more or less.

      The photo radars are just a way to extort money from a lot of people faster and easier than paying a cop to actually write the tickets.

    4. Re:Just gets worse. by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Well, the odds of the cop being set up on your residential street on that particular day is pretty close to zilch, so I wouldn't call paying the cop more effective.

      In other words, you concede my point. Speed limits, and the enforcement of speed limits, do jack squat when it comes to safety.

      So you're saying because a system doesn't catch *every* instance, we shouldn't bother trying to catch *any* instance?

      And I refute the whole "cash grab" argument

      No you don't. You contradict it. You don't refute anything.

      (snip) Obvious money grab, nothing more or less.

      The photo radars are just a way to extort money from a lot of people faster and easier than paying a cop to actually write the tickets.

      I agree in your case, but it's not the fault of the photo radar - you said it yourself: the towns are being jackholes. I can sympathize - one of my neighboring towns likes to have all their speed limits about 10 kph less than standard as well.

      But you know what? You know that they're doing it, so why aren't you slowing down? If that's your usual commute (and you know they like to speedtrap there), why are you still speeding through them?

      (BTW, you might want to try contesting the tickets - if they're spamming them out they might not bother showing up to defend it.)

  60. My wife freaked by howe.chris · · Score: 0

    My daughter's first pat down was about 3 years ago. She was close to a year old then. They canceled a flight, put us up in a hotel, and then put us on another airline without our luggage. The luggage stayed with the original airline. So we were flagged as a family/group of 3 adults and 2 children purchasing tickets a mere 2 hours before the flight without luggage. So everyone of us got the "royal" treatment. This was before today's molestations, so we were NOT expecting anything like this. My daughter was (thankfully) asleep in my arms as they were feeling up the wife, followed by my adult brother, followed by my 5 year old son. By this point my wife was "actively" questioning why they were patting down a five year old. Then they said they needed to "pat down the infant". She freaked. Started crying, asking what they were going to do, are you going to molest my baby, do you think we have a bomb, what is wrong with you people, etc... She was not quiet, she was crying, full blown panic. She was telling me to just get over there and help her so her baby won't get molested (they had just checked her 42 DD bra for bombs while she was still wearing it). I am on the other side waiting for them to feel up my jumblies (still with my daughter) in a very surreal, how the f*** am I supposed to get on that side of security without first GOING THROUGH SECURITY? Security stopped and there was actual silence throughout the line. No cell phone cameras though. Not really the fad for recording yet, I guess. Anyway a female TSA (was it TSA in 2008?) agent took my sleeping daughter gently to my wife and proceeded to gently pat her down in my wife's arms. They were very sensible with the daughter and really only patted down her back. I guess my wife got to them. Then they moved around my jumblies, asked me to cough, and told us to have a nice flight.

    So anyway, these "searches" have been going on for a while now.

  61. So its about prudity, not security? by fantomas · · Score: 1

    Sounds like this Texas law is about Texans not liking their private areas being touched rather than thinking about the implications for security?

      I would have thought laws concerned about security would focus more on what people are carrying? (e.g. limits on volume of liquids, etc).

    And if the law is about only letting security touch people where they feel comfortable, aren't you heading into hopeless territory where somebody could tell you that touching their belly, or under their arms (or any other place they might actually hide stuff) is offensive to them? Sounds like a legal nightmare to me judging what is 'inappropriate'. Some cultures might say any contact with a female traveller or an under-18 traveller is inappropriate.

    Though if this gets passed in a few US states, will that mean that some states are more attractive than others for people to fly into and out of? I assume this includes international as well as internal flights?

  62. train security, bus security, park security, by decora · · Score: 1

    i invite you go read the article on wikipedia about VIPR teams (which i may have uhm,, written.. )

  63. TSA = Pedophiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The groping of little kids wrong! Saying they are just doing their job or following protocol does not excuse it! That would be as stupid as saying the hit man for the drug cartel is innocent because he is just doing his job. Congress needs to put a stop to the criminal activities of the TSA!

  64. Catholic priests flock to join TSA by David+Gerard · · Score: 2

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  65. we recovered from the 2002 recession instantly by decora · · Score: 1

    This has been described over and over, perhaps best in Alan Greenspan's book "The Age of Turbulence".

    The dot-com crash of circa 2000 and the 9/11 attacks led to a minor recession. Unemployment did not rocket up, the stock market did not crash that badly, and it recovered, and so did the bond markets. Many attribute this partly to Greenspan lowering interest rates on treasury funds so everyone could borrow cheaply for a while. There is absolutely, positively no economists who would tell you that 9/11 caused "trillions of dollars" of damage to the economy.

    the crash of 2008 had nothing, whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form to do with al qaeda. and that crash is what cost trillions of dollars. the crash of 2008 was related to the Synthetic CDO market, the fraudulent mortgage market, the CLO / private equity market, and a bunch of other stuff. but it had nothing at all to do with 9/11.

  66. linking the bank bailouts to bin ladin by decora · · Score: 1

    is about like linking saddam hussein to bin ladin.

    there is absolutely zero, not one shred of evidence that those two events are linked.

    there is not a single credible economist in the entire world who would link 9/11 to the financial crisis of 2008.

    the only way they are even tangentially connected is that 1. the country was preoccupieid with iraq and afghanistan so that 2. they stopped paying attention to the financial markets for a few years, the crucial ones being 2005, 2006, and 2007 when most of the synthetic CDOs were pumped out. some would also argue that Greenspan made interest rates too low in the early 2000s.. but he did that not only because of 9/11 but because of the dotcom bubble crash.

    i dont think that even fringe economists would link 9/11 to the crash of 2008. hell i dont even think 9/11 truthers link 9/11 to the financial crash of 2008.

    1. Re:linking the bank bailouts to bin ladin by sznupi · · Score: 1

      ...like linking saddam hussein to bin ladin.

      Ah, but there actually is a very clear link here. Sure, not when it comes to actual relationship between the two. But how a lot of people were convinced in one... was enough for quite an events.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  67. where can i get a tiger rock? by decora · · Score: 1

    jesus im sick of these fucking tigers attacking me.

  68. would the TSA have stopped timothy mcveigh? by decora · · Score: 1

    just curious as to what the point of all this stuff is.

  69. the head of Amtrak police banned TSA from by decora · · Score: 1

    Amtrak property. actually he temporarily banned the TSA VIPR teams from Amtrak property.

    so yeah. if you read the web forums about this, people are invariably outraged. i mean you have to dig for a while before you find anyone who has posted on the web that this was a good idea.

    the head of the Amtrak police is named John O'Connor.

    you can read about VIPR by checking wikipedia, i uhm just wrote an article and it could use some help from the public!

  70. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm still trying to figure out what freedoms we lost?

    The freedom for unscrupulous people to plant bombs on children like they have successfully done in Iraq?

    If somebody is enough of a fanatic to blow themselves up, why not their kid as well, or perhaps somebody else's kid; who knows.

    The price of freedom is eternal vigilance; and vigilance can be a very high price.

  71. if you don't let me in your door by decora · · Score: 1

    and rummage through your computer and your bathroom then, you know, that only teaches the terrorists that they can make bombs inside of their houses.

  72. number one: stop yelling by decora · · Score: 1

    number two: get your hands off my kid

    number three: get your hands off my balls

    number four: you are under arrest.

  73. The real tragedy here by seyyah · · Score: 1

    ... was using "alarm" as an intransitive verb:

    'The child's stroller alarmed during explosives screening...

    NEWSPEAK

  74. We opt out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We simply refuse to fly with our pre-teen kids since the TSA started the Gate Rape theater. The TSA defies all logic when comparing risk vs screening procedures.

  75. I just died by Vernes · · Score: 1

    The coroner is going to have a field day on my corpse.
    After they measure the shape of the hole in my skull they will have to come to the conclusion I facepalmed my skull in.

  76. 8 Billion? by davevr · · Score: 1

    Geez, they could have bought Skype for that!

  77. Newest Scanner Technology by LeeMeador · · Score: 1

    What I can't figure out is how we are buying all these new scanner machines and patting down everyone that can't or won't go through them BUT we don't seem to have the technology or extra money to get a machine that will scan you with your belt and shoes on.
    I think people would applaud spontaneously when told by TSA that they could leave their shoes on and, no, the belt can stay on the pants. But millions of dollars later, you can't leave your shoes on and you now have to remove your belt.
    (Bulky jewelry and clothes with grommets could be left on your person for version 2.0 of the scanner machines for another few million.)

  78. Re:end this kind of crap now that bin laden is dea by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

    The people in the United States are free. As long as they do exactly as they are told.

  79. TSA x-ray machines by sfm · · Score: 1

    The TSA groping is "optional", and intended for those that do not wish to use the new full body xray machines. So the
    terrorist with a Bomb-On-Board should probably choose the grope line. I'm betting that there are even some terrorists
    out there that can figure this out. What this means for us, the grope option will soon go away and we will have to visit
    the x-ray machine if we want to fly.

    I find it incredible that poll after poll finds "most" americans are not bothered by the full body x-ray machines. Is the news
    media lying to us or is the slashdot crowd just more upset over this than the average american?

  80. Touch my children? I'll have you arrested. Period. by Wintermancer · · Score: 1

    You want to grope me? Knock yourself out. Just be prepared for some colour commentary on my part ("Ooooh yeeaah. Cup those balls!", "How much for a happy ending?", etc.). It makes my regular business travel that much more entertaining.

    However, you do not touch my children. Ever.

    We recently had to go on a family vacation, and were randomly selected for an enhanced security screening. The agents wanted to pat down our two children, and we flat out refused. They insisted, and the TSA agents' delivery tone was the standard issue "You are going to do as we say, Citizen" intonation that law enforcement officers are coached in, but I'm immune to it after having had spent my early life in the military.

    I slowly, clearly and forcefully replied, "Listen very carefully. If you lay a hand on any one of my children, I will have you arrested for sexually assaulting a minor. Do not touch them. You do not have our permission."

    One scoffed: "Sir, we have to subject them to a pat down."

    "Wrong. Officer?" (waving to get the attention of a LEO that was posted in the screening area)

    He walked over and matter-of-factly asked, "Sir? Is there a problem?"

    "If either of these people touch my children, in any way, I will officially press charges of assault, sexual touching of a minor, and anything else that is applicable."

    He genuinely perked up at this point. (He must secretly hate the TSA as much as the rest of us), "Understood, Sir." Turning to them he said, "He's not joking. I'm not joking. Don't touch their children. If you need to see what's under their clothes, the parent will disrobe them in a private screening area removed from public view. Clear?"

    The TSA agents were far more cooperative and humbled after that, for some reason. We were waved through after the parents were given a good one over, along with everything else we were toting through. But they didn't touch the kids, or ask to see them disrobed.

  81. Rams Horn and Tanning Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have it on good authority that there were positive readings for ammonia, nitrates, and complex organics. And perhaps methane. Clearly suspicious. There was also some residue of a white, powdery substance. And some floral scent - probably meant as a distraction.

    In order to concentrate on this specific heightened threat, they turned off the radiation alarms on monitors that kept going off when flights from Fukushima arrived.

  82. The Benefits Of Welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If people are on welfare you don't have to hire them to do a job they're unqualified for.

    [Underlying Assumption: The State provides enough to live on to all citizens]

  83. Translation required, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The child's stroller alarmed"

    What does this mean? It doesn't seem to follow any grammatical rules I'm aware of. Are press releases usually written by illiterates in the USA?

  84. Re:car/bus/train v airplane deaths/mile not favora by pcolaman · · Score: 1

    I'll take my chances. Rather that than subject myself and my family to such ridiculous searches.

  85. Re:car/bus/train v airplane deaths/mile not favora by glodime · · Score: 1

    Thus highlighting the insane policy of the USA's Federal government to trade security theater on an already lower risk for increasing use of higher risk activities nation wide as the economics of time and convenience of various modes of travel are altered.