Slashdot Mirror


Science Fair Entry Shuts Down Airport Terminal

OverTheGeicoE writes "A graduate student was returning home from a science fair in Omaha with his handmade entry in his carry-on luggage. When the TSA discovered it, they shut down the airport terminal for several hours, until they could determine it was harmless. All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again, so before you fly with your homemade Minty MP3 player, make sure you take a look at TSA Blogger Bob's warning or it could wind up looking like this."

380 comments

  1. Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    1. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you see the word unreasonable in there? The governments stance is that it is reasonable to screen you for explosives prior to boarding a plane.

    2. Re:Who gives a fuck? by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      I just love it when people quote entire passages from our historical documents in some sort of futile effort to try and remind all of us of our "Rights", like they actually exist anymore.

      It's almost as futile as replying to AC posts.

    3. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      It is reasonable to search everyone if they want to travel?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    4. Re:Who gives a fuck? by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      Rights are inherent, and exist independently of any government. The Constitution does not grant rights; it doesn't even promise to protect them. It just says that the Federal government promises not to violate certain rights enumerated in the Constitution. Whether or not they've kept that promise is a different issue.

    5. Re:Who gives a fuck? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      if you read the news story, it's pretty light on details.

      There are pretty good reasonable reasons why you might get searched and seized. Until we get more details about what the fuck happened, it's really asinine to just quote the 4th Amendment.

      BTW, if you read the TSA blog entry, the Minty MP3 player got blown up because someone left a weird box full of wires, plugs and batteries unattended in an airport.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    6. Re:Who gives a fuck? by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      actually it's not a simple promise, it's the foundation of the Union I believe, as the States had to ratify that particular historic document in order to agree to the federation. So the only question remains: how much longer before it's dissolved, because the contract has been not just completely broken, but crowds of people walked all over it, took a dump on it and used parts of it as toilet paper.

    7. Re:Who gives a fuck? by S.O.B. · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The founding fathers did a job on you. There are no "inherent" or "natural" rights independent of any government. That's a bunch of philosophical rhetoric that they used to sell The Constitution. It looks great on paper but in the absence of government or society it's not even worth wiping your bum with it.

      In the real world, in the absence of government, I could walk up to you and smash you in the head with a rock killing you and then take everything you have without consequence. There's your "inherent" rights.

      And if you still think those rights are "inherent" then I suggest you take a trip to Somalia or Afghanistan or Syria or Bahrain.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    8. Re:Who gives a fuck? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nope. The US predated the Constitution. Go back to elementary school history and try again.

    9. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay. Fine. Irrelevant, but fine.

      Now, is it "reasonable" to shut down an airport for hours over a perfectly harmless and legal bit of electronics? Because that's what we're talking about in this case.

    10. Re:Who gives a fuck? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      That's not what I said, is it? I said that Constitution must be ratified in order for States to agree to the federation. Didn't I say STATES? Yes, United States existed prior to ratification of the Constitution, but the Constitution is the law, under which the federal government operates, and if the law is broken, and it is, then the States have the contractual power to leave the federation. They should exercise their contractual rights.

    11. Re:Who gives a fuck? by McDrewbie · · Score: 1

      Rights are inherent, and exist independently of any government. The Constitution does not grant rights; it doesn't even promise to protect them. It just says that the Federal government promises not to violate certain rights enumerated in the Constitution. Whether or not they've kept that promise is a different issue.

      no right is inherent. That is just wishful thinking.

    12. Re:Who gives a fuck? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      You say that as if local governments don't walk all over your rights and local police haven't been shooting and tasing people for virtually any form of disobedience.

    13. Re:Who gives a fuck? by AlgUSF · · Score: 1

      Rights, who needs them. Now bend over while we inspect you for a rectum bomb. Warrant? We're the government we don't need no stinking warrant.

      --


      I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
    14. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      If you have something that someone thinks looks like a bomb, how is that unreasonable?

      Also, you have those rights, but you also have the right to travel on your own. You are using the airline system, a shared service, so some limitations are being pushed on you to hopefully keep people safer. Yes, I say hopefully, since I don't agree with everything the TSA does.. and people should fight against the stupid things they do.

      Blindly quoting the U.S. Constitution doesn't solve anything.

    15. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Fjandr · · Score: 2

      So, in the absence of laws against murder, it's alright to murder someone just because you want to?

      "Inherent" doesn't mean you have protection against being murdered. It's an abstract concept, not a description of something tangible or functional. Unfortunately, many people cannot grasp theory and separate it from what they see in the physical world. Abstract concepts do not necessarily align completely with actual practice. "Inherent" is an assumption about the nature of a thing. It has very little practical bearing, but most people won't fault me for killing you if you assault me with a deadly weapon. That's the practical part of the abstraction "inherent."

    16. Re:Who gives a fuck? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are still incorrect. The United States existed as an informally organized group arguably since the Declaration of Independence (all states represented and signed). And unarguably since the first govevrnment, under the Articles of Confederation, prior to the Constitution. That it wasn't the same government and arguably not the *same* united states because the government was different doesn't change the Fact that the United States as a country existed and was recognized prior to the ratification of the Constitution.

      Again, all basic elementary school history. We now know who isn't smarter than A 5th grade redneck (roman_mir for those too dim to follow this conversation).

    17. Re:Who gives a fuck? by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Interesting

          Well, it's reasonable in that these guys work day in and day out to protect the nation against the boogie man ... err ... terrorist ({BOO}). Day in and day out, they're searching the same bags, with the same crap in them. Seizing 5 oz of lip balm, and half empty drink bottles. Once in a great while they get someone who forgot they were carrying a weapon, or forgot to move it to their checked luggage.

          Then the day comes! A terrorist has picked *THEIR* airport! Finally a bad guy to fight against. The public will be safe. They'll be on the front of every newspaper in the country saying "This TSA agent saved hundreds!" The whole reason they've been doing this job, to defend their nation against the terrorist threat!

          Unfortunately, it turns out to be some little homemade toy, that had absolutely no dangerous qualities. Well, unless you count sending angry text messages after their phone is charged. They may twitter "TSA Sux! They broke my toyz"

            One again, the nation is safe from the boogie man ... err.. terrorists.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    18. Re:Who gives a fuck? by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      > The governments stance is ... irrelevant. The government derives its authority from the governed, serves at the will and pleasure of the governed, and exists to facilitate the lives of the governed.

      If We The People say it's not reasonable, then it's not. They can take their stances and policies and have an orgy with them for all I care, but they can't tell me the wholesale groping of the travelling public, or the destruction of "minty mp3's" is reasonable.

      Shred the TSA.

    19. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The founding fathers did a job on you. There are no "inherent" or "natural" rights independent of any government. That's a bunch of philosophical rhetoric that they used to sell The Constitution. It looks great on paper but in the absence of government or society it's not even worth wiping your bum with it.

      In the real world, in the absence of government, I could walk up to you and smash you in the head with a rock killing you and then take everything you have without consequence. There's your "inherent" rights.

      The Founding Fathers believed (accurately, I believe) that even if no one witnessed your actions, you would suffer negative consequences from taking such a course of action. My experience with people who act as if rights only exist insofar as government is willing and able to enforce them is that they are miserable, lonely, unhappy, paranoid people.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    20. Re:Who gives a fuck? by pete6677 · · Score: 2

      That's pretty much the trend in nearly ALL modern journalism: light on the details, heavy on the inflammatory rhetoric.

    21. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what can we do?

      "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order"

      Soap: We've been talking people's ears off about what a bad idea the TSA was for almost a decade now. Unfortunately, people don't care. And as the next Generation grows up, they'll be too used to it to even see how wrong it is.

      Ballot: See above: people don't care. And they certainly don't care enough to vote for a candidate that's anti-TSA.

      Jury: Not too many cases see the courtroom. The TSA just does their 'DoYouWantToFlyToday' shtick, and that's it.

      Ammo: Sure, I'd see a certain...karma... in TSA agents getting sniped. But it won't help in the long run- the TSA would just use the attacks to claim they need more money and more power.

      So, what can we do??

    22. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I saw that and kept reading... and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Even if you argue it's reasonable there still has to be specifics as to why you are searching a particular person and what things you are looking to seize and why you think that particular person has what you're looking for. Without that, there's no real point in having that amendment.

    23. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Vastad · · Score: 1

      Rights are inherent

      No...no..not really. 150 years ago...a laughable notion, dinner table talk good for a titter with your bourgeoisie friends. 1,000 years ago and onwards back into human history: Might makes right, always.

      What you feel is your natural sense of fairness, which appears to be present amongst all higher animals, not just humans (studies on monkeys sharing food through a little hole where only one gets fed et al.) and it's given these nice Emperor's clothes in the 21st century that calls it "Our Rights" (capitilization important).

      Rights will only be "inherent" if we can get a God or a Culture AI to enforce them. And to be ruthless about it. Until then, it's only if the affected group or society agree and proactively enforce it. Usually with threat of legal force....or possible armed force. The more money and power you have, the more "Our Rights" you have.

    24. Re:Who gives a fuck? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      When the constitution was ratified in 1791 there was no bill of rights. They were introduced in the first congress and ratified a couple of years later. That's why they're called amendments.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    25. Re:Who gives a fuck? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you consider to be a right. Different countries seem to have arrived at different lists of rights. Your country includes things like owning arms, my country includes things like being able to vote if a citizen.
      Judaical decisions on rights vary quite a bit as well. Our countries supreme courts seem to have arrived at quite different interpretations of the basic right to be free of unreasonable searches, in my country it is a right to privacy. In your country it is the right of your home being inviolate.
      There's the ranking of rights as well, is freedom of expression more important then due process? Seems to vary from country to country.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    26. Re:Who gives a fuck? by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      Sure, I'd see a certain...karma... in TSA agents getting sniped. But it won't help in the long run- the TSA would just use the attacks to claim they need more money and more power.

      So, what can we do??

      Explode bombs in the queues. One a day. For one week.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    27. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that terrorists don't do it shows how much they love the current crappy situation of air travel that they helped create.

    28. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      He didn't say anything about it being right or wrong. What he said was that, in practice, you only have those rights that you or someone acting on your behalf can enforce.

      Are you confusing the different meanings of the word "right"?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    29. Re:Who gives a fuck? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You know, it would be pretty simple to rig up a GM tube as a detonator, attach it to a bomb, and slip it into someone's carry-on luggage at an airport. When they get near the backscatter X-ray machines (or the luggage X-rays), boom. Since the TSA's job is anticipating threats and responding to them, I wonder what they're doing about this, other than crowding people together in the blast radius.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    30. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The Founding Fathers believed (accurately, I believe) that even if no one witnessed your actions, you would suffer negative consequences from taking such a course of action.

      Do you mean that when you die a man with horns will prod you with a fork for a long long time?

      If not then what the hell (sorry) do you mean?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    31. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      someone left a weird box full of wires, plugs and batteries unattended in an airport.

      Well, then it's most likely NOT a bomb. That would be like expecting all terrorists to wear a turban, or more exact, expecting all turban wearing people to be terrorists.

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    32. Re:Who gives a fuck? by sco08y · · Score: 2

      It is reasonable to search everyone if they want to travel?

      If people are actively trying to kill them by blowing up the plane, yes.

    33. Re:Who gives a fuck? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Rights are inherent

      No they're not, or else they wouldn't have to be spelled out. Having food, water and not being too hot/cold or else you die are inherent. Breathing iand breeding are inherent. Everything else is stuff developed by human civilization.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    34. Re:Who gives a fuck? by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between rights and morality. Rights are what a body agrees to grant you or protect you from being violated against. Morality is what logically can be proven right or wrong. In our society, most things that are immoral are protected from us as rights. Without our government, the morals still remain, but we lose our rights to them as there are no longer any protections.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    35. Re:Who gives a fuck? by smelch · · Score: 1

      That is unreasonable. People actively try to rob stores, we don't search everybody who goes in to a fucking store. People actively try to rob banks, we dont' search everybody who goes in to a fucking bank. People actively try to murder people every where you go, we don't search people when they leave their houses.

      Do you even really believe that terrorists insist on only blowing up planes? What about the terrorists that blew up that Russian airport terminal? It is an ineffective way to do security anyway, and a violation of rights. This isn't a simple run your bag through an xray and step through the metal detector, this is invasive shit that we don't have to deal with anywhere else because of a couple of fluke incidents and you are part of the problem. I mean that from the bottom of my heart. Thanks for letting the terrorists win.

      I know that sounds trollish, but I really do mean that. You now feel the way the terrorists wanted you to feel. You gave up some of your rights and became scared. That was exactly the goal of 9/11.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    36. Re:Who gives a fuck? by smelch · · Score: 1

      Local governments are different in that it's much easier to travel between them and have much less power in that once you leave, they can't get you. Further, they should be more representative of the people they govern because the people have more in common and are fewer. Having said that, yes, the police are out of hand and state laws that are proposed making it illegal to videotape police officers (specifically or implicitly) should result in serious, serious backlash for anybody who wrote, supported, voted for, or upheld it. Not just political ramifications, either.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    37. Re:Who gives a fuck? by smelch · · Score: 1
      Wow, you sure got him! Good for you for picking a minor detail to argue against and miss the point, which is valid. The states agreed to be governed by a federal government with the constitution as its guidelines. Since the federal government has violated these guidelines, none of the states should feel obligated to recognize it's authority. Didn't Jefferson write something about it being the right of the people to revolt against their government? What was that document again? If only I could remember.

      ...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

      The constitution ratification was the consent of the governed. The shitting on that consent is the cause for people to alter or to abolish the government and institute new government.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    38. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just remember its not a RIGHT to flight, its a privilege since its run by private companies. No one is forcing you to fly.

    39. Re:Who gives a fuck? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Last time I bought something at Best Buy, their guy at the door yelled at me when I walked out without letting him look at my receipt and into my bag. It may be wrong, but it's really happening everywhere.

    40. Re:Who gives a fuck? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Doesn't that usually require explosives?

    41. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're saving it for if we ever get our shit together and reduce or eliminate the TSA. THEN the terrorists start bombing the lines, thus bringing the TSA more power and making sure we'll never get rid of them.

    42. Re:Who gives a fuck? by smelch · · Score: 1

      This isn't a simple run your bag through an xray and step through the metal detector

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    43. Re:Who gives a fuck? by operagost · · Score: 1

      The founding fathers did a job on you. There are no "inherent" or "natural" rights independent of any government. That's a bunch of philosophical rhetoric that they used to sell The Constitution. It looks great on paper but in the absence of government or society it's not even worth wiping your bum with it.

      Duh.

      In the real world, in the absence of government, I could walk up to you and smash you in the head with a rock killing you and then take everything you have without consequence. There's your "inherent" rights.

      Sure, and as the great philosopher Wayne once said, "monkeys might fly out of my butt," with a small enough monkey and large enough rectum. Of course there will be some sort of consequence. And you could do so with a governed society and suffer no consequence. Your argument is like claiming there is no entropy in the universe because around you are several ordered objects.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    44. Re:Who gives a fuck? by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      Doesn't that usually require explosives?

      What's really amusing is the TSA are using less effective techniques for checking for explosives. My representative (Jason Chavetz) and I have had an interesting conversation about this recently. He mentioned the pentagon's latest report on explosives detection stated that dogs were still the number one method of choice today in detection.

      But the TSA still insists on using something less effective.

      Like I've been saying for years, they are highly under trained if they still believe they are doing the best job possible.

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    45. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and how will that help? "the TSA would just use the attacks to claim they need more money and more power."

    46. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      There are certain morals that are nearly universal, and a point where the concepts of roghts and morality are essentially the same thing. Calling something a right when there's a governing body to protect it and morality when you protect it yourself is silly.

    47. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      In the absence of government (the premise behind "no" inherent rights requires they disappear with government) there is no difference between right & wrong, and the defense of what were previously "rights 'granted' by government." In that case, both definitions of "right" may as well be the same thing.

    48. Re:Who gives a fuck? by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      I see little point in killing anybody - a revolution can be bloodless.

      If we went out sniping baggage screeners and bombing security queues we'd be labelled terrorists and lunatics, the label would be pretty much correct, and our cause would be set back by years.

      If there is spilling of blood, let it be the government that does the spilling, so all can clearly see who the lunatics and terrorists are.

      India gained independence from Britain using this strategy. Home in on a few laws that only hurt the people, peacefully but boldly disobey those laws, and force the government to either change them, or use violence against its own peaceful citizens in plain sight.

    49. Re:Who gives a fuck? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Are you as bomb expert? do you have experience working with impromptu bombs? do you expect everyone building bombs to be experts in the field? You fall into the mental trap of since you're not an expert n the field, you expect everyone in the field to act expertly.

      You're argument in nonsense,.

      Point in fact, had this been a 'terrorist' attack, it worked.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    50. Re:Who gives a fuck? by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear.

    51. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      Not bombs, but I do have experience working with electronics. And it's easy to make it look more professional.

      Some metal sheets, a file, drill, glue gun and some blind rivets, a spray can or two for finish. Maybe an hour's work..

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    52. Re:Who gives a fuck? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      You don't need a turban to set off a bomb.

      however, a tiny box full of electronics is always handy for doing such a job.

      Here's a tip: don't leave your shit unattended at the airport.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    53. Re:Who gives a fuck? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Whatever, you dumb ass. The States have the power to kick the federal government in the nuts if they just realize that they have been had with this entire scam, for over 100 years now.

    54. Re:Who gives a fuck? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Bill of rights is irrelevant, as people's rights do not need to be 'recognized' by the government, the people's rights are inalienable. Amendments should never have existed, the problem with people they don't understand that they actually have all the rights and the government only has the rights that are given to it by the people. The government's rights are in the Constitution, and the government has long abandoned those principles and had its way with the law, by which it is supposed to be governed itself, simply because nobody challenges the government on this (and it should be challenged by the people.)

    55. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Yogiz · · Score: 1

      Jesus fucking christ, that makes me sick. Thank god, it isn't happening everywhere. Proud not to be an american.

    56. Re:Who gives a fuck? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I tend to walk right past these situations - for example if the store alarm goes off because they forgot to deactivate a DVD. If they dare touch me, they'd better know that the police would consider that assualt.

    57. Re:Who gives a fuck? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The states agreed to be governed by a federal government with the constitution as its guidelines. Since the federal government has violated these guidelines, none of the states should feel obligated to recognize it's authority.

      That's not how contracts work. If you feel the other party violated one clause in the contract, you don't get to just unilaterally declare that the entire contract is void. Attention and recognition of such details is what rule of law is based on. You can dismiss it as a minor detail irrelevant to the point, but if it were adjudicated, such minor details would be the focus of the inquiry. We formally gave consent. We can't informally withdraw consent by unilaterally asserting that we no longer recognize such consent. There must be some formal process to censure the government (such as an amendment that repeals all powers granted to the government).

    58. Re:Who gives a fuck? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How? Another constitutional convention? Mobilizing the state national guards under the control of the individual governors, and marching on Washington? Starting the Amendment process to amend the powers of the government (the quickest way to kick the feds in the balls being to repeal the 16th Amendment)?

    59. Re:Who gives a fuck? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Never mind 'marching' on anything. Kick any federal authorities out of the States and stop sending them any taxes for starters. Shutdown all federal offices in the state. Recall all of the Senators and Congressmen.

      What do I call refusing to pay federal income taxes and abolishing all of the federal regulations and shutting down all of the federal departments on State by State basis? A good start.

    60. Re:Who gives a fuck? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      States receive a much greater amount of tax from the feds than they send to the feds. Just stopping sending the feds taxes would affect not much more than excise taxes collected locally on behalf of the feds. So the feds would lose about $0.20 per gallon, and the states who tried that would send in trillions in income tax and get back hundreds of billions less in education and highway funding. No state could do that and "win" Even if every state did that, the feds would still win because of how the income taxes are collected by the feds directly and taxes in general aren't collected by states and forwarded on. I can't select to not pay income tax. That's my employer's choice. They will continue to take them from me and send them along regardless of my personal choice, so there's nothing people can do, only employers, and the first few will be targeted hard.

    61. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Home in on a few laws that only hurt the people, peacefully but boldly disobey those laws, and force the government to either change them, or use violence against its own peaceful citizens in plain sight.

      Nothing's stopped them so far.

    62. Re:Who gives a fuck? by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      What has been tried?

      Perhaps the problem is that one person's civil disobedience doesn't attract much attention, and it's easy to marginalize one person.

      What we probably need to start with is a constant, relentless, public attack by lots of people on a particular bad law. Maybe repeated flash mobs at an airport security queue refusing to submit to an invasive, warrantless search. Or hundreds of cars lining up at some DUI checkpoint and refusing alcohol testing. Always with the media present.

    63. Re:Who gives a fuck? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      When I say: "States must stop", I OBVIOUSLY mean that States must declare that they are out of the Union, and then protect their freedom from the federation, should it try to impose its will upon the States that leave. This means that if you are in a State like that, you are in a group of people who are all now not paying federal taxes to the union.

      As to States receiving more than they pay - excuse me? Cut the federal income tax, SS and Medicare and the separate States can raise money in sales taxes within the State borders.

      As to employees: it's not about "first few" employees, it should be all employees within the State.

    64. Re:Who gives a fuck? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      When I say: "States must stop", I OBVIOUSLY mean that States must declare that they are out of the Union, and then protect their freedom from the federation, should it try to impose its will upon the States that leave.

      You are advocating a course that failed miserably preivously with nothing to make (or indicate why) this time any different than the previous bad result. As such, that makes you an idealistic troll. Go join the Teabaggers and whine to everyone who doesn't run away fast enough why government is bad, despite the fact that everyone is currently under a government and essentially chose to be. Everyone wants government because everyone wants to tell their neighbors what to do (or not do). That some realize that such actions will result in their neighbors being able to influence what they are able to do and all that government will cost them money doesn't change the fact that they actually wanted the government in the first place. Like HOAs. Everyone claims they hate them, but a large number of homeowners got together and voluntarily formed HOAs, or people voluntarily chose to buy into HOA neighborhoods. People desire and seek out governments to give their power to. And the last time there was a secession, it ended badly for everyone in the US and your advocation for insurrection against the North is without indication of why it won't result in many of the citizens of that state geting killed, and all states being stripped of more power, like last time. Your blatant ignorance and lack of thought is obvious in your comments.

    65. Re:Who gives a fuck? by smelch · · Score: 1

      So issue a new declaration of independence. I wasn't suggesting the states just give the federal government the silent treatment and stop paying taxes. I'm sure a state that seceded would certainly declare it and along with that declaration list the grievances. And I'm sure before that there would be a vote within the state.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    66. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      In the absence of government [...] there is no difference between right & wrong

      I blame idiots like you for the plague on this planet that is organized religion. The mindset that right and wrong have to be dictated from some higher power, be it government, or some god, is just so fundamentally flawed it's appaling. How little must a person think of themselves that they give no weight to their own opinions and common sense that they must look to someone else for guidance? Nothing more than children running around masquerading as adults, always looking to Mommy and Daddy to make their decisions for them. Mommy can I take that other boy's baseball? Daddy can I knock over that little girl's sand castle? No. Put yourself in their shoes. Would like that little boy to come over and take away your tonka trucks? Would you like that little girl to come over and smash your Lego house? If the answer is no, then it's wrong and don't do it.

      But then again I guess if people could actually think for themselves, religion wouldn't have taken a foothold to begin with. I guess I'm expecting too much for sheep to behave like humans.

      Yami

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
    67. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      I actually miswrote what I was thinking. It's understandable given what I actually posted that you'd assume I was religious or otherwise crazy, since that sentence is just plain dumb on its face (the one I wrote).

      What I actually meant to write was something along the lines of "in the absence of government, your rights are what you make of them." Right & wrong become pretty apparent when you step back, though there certainly can be a lot of gray area.

      No, I don't believe the concept of rights come from a higher power or whoever has the most guns on their side. A good chunk of either camp doesn't believe in rights at all, simply preferring to have someone else tell them what is okay to do on a given day.

    68. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Actually, I take back what I said. Just woke up, so I misread what I wrote. Your cutting the quote in half helped confuse the issue for me since my brain hadn't engaged yet.

      You assumed I meant there was no difference between right & wrong, when what I actually wrote was there's no difference between "right & wrong" and defending your rights. The morality concept is self-evident, rather than being provided by an external force. What is right and what is wrong is pretty easy to see when you are being assaulted.

    69. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      My apologies for the misplaced personal attack then. Just strike the first sentence of my previous post. :-)

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
    70. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      Right, my bad for misreading then. My rant still stands, personal attack aside. No hard feelings mate.

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
    71. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      No worries. :)

    72. Re:Who gives a fuck? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Has such an action happend before, and what was the outcome? Would you consider that a good outcome?

    73. Re:Who gives a fuck? by smelch · · Score: 1

      I believe it has happened twice with the outcomes at extremes on the good/bad scale. One more time, for the rub?

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    74. Re:Who gives a fuck? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I believe it has happened twice with the outcomes at extremes on the good/bad scale.

      "I wasn't suggesting the states just give the federal government the silent treatment and stop paying taxes. I'm sure a state that seceded would certainly declare it and along with that declaration list the grievances."

      I don't think there's been more than one time where a number of states got together and seceded from the Union. A revolutionary war is different from a civil one, as such, I was not so naive as to confuse the two. In any case, the most recent (if you refuse to distinguish a revolution from a secession), how did that go, and why do you think this time would be any different?

      You are simply insane if you would like to risk millions of lives and trilllions of dollars on the reasoning of "lets give it one more go and see what happens." It's happened one before (twice by your reckoning) and we'd have lost the first if not for the long supply lines the British had, which would indicate the outcome of the Civil War is the "natural" outcome. And rather than discussing why you think it would work this time, you are instead risking everything (but only other people's something, never your own, right?)just to try again and see what would happen. That's stupid and irresponsible. Anyone displayign such firm belief in something requiring such bad judgement can't be listened to for any other points either, so you've proven youself insane and worthless, not to mention wrong on every count, and all because you have no sense of history and place zero value on other's lives and property.

    75. Re:Who gives a fuck? by smelch · · Score: 1

      There are ways to go about it peacefully without ever risking war. I'm not saying I support a civil war, I'm saying I support everybody getting together and breaking up the union. You're kind of a dick, you know that?

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    76. Re:Who gives a fuck? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There was nothing requiring the North to start a war with the South when the south seceeded. They did. You are claiming that it wouldn't happen this time. I'm being a dick because you are presenting a false opinion as fact and don't like others pointing out that. The South may have fired first, but the North started the war (a blockade is an act of war). Some people wanted to split the union then, but not everyone. So war resulted. The only way that wouldn't be true is if you believed that a vote to disolve the USA would be unanimous. Otherwise you are pushing for a civil war that you'll claim was unnecessary because you said there shouldn't be one. Me dick. You complete and total fucking moron. I can live with replying as a dick to someone spewing the garbage you are.

  2. Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strikes Back!

    1. Re:Security Theater by AdamWill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      except that this actually isn't security theater. It's the useful kind of security procedure that actually prevents bad stuff happening. Screening of cargo and investigation of suspicious looking bits of cargo is how they stopped the printer-cartridge-bomb plot, for instance.

      It's all very well to knee-jerk off about how the TSA is full of idiots and they're trampling over your inalienable rights and freedoms and blah fucking blah, but at least spend a few minutes thinking about the context. This science project was a fairly simple, hand-built electronic device with improvised casing whose purpose isn't immediately determinable. The TSA says, and I'm happy to defer to their superior experience on this specific point, that bomb detonators they catch often look like - in fact, are - fairly simple, hand-built electronic devices with hand-built cases whose purpose isn't immediately discernible. Are you seriously suggesting it's 'security theater' to screen airplane cargo and take a closer look at improvised electronic devices? Really? If so, I'm damn well not flying on _your_ airline.

      It's not like they arrested the kid and hauled him off to Guantanamo Bay or something. They found a suspicious device and performed an exhaustive investigation to figure out what it was. Which came to the right conclusion. I don't really see that anything happened wrong here.

    2. Re:Security Theater by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      except that this actually isn't security theater. It's the useful kind of security procedure that actually prevents bad stuff happening. Screening of cargo and investigation of suspicious looking bits of cargo is how they stopped the printer-cartridge-bomb plot, for instance.

      Umm.. no, they stopped the printer cartridge bomb plot because they got a tip off from prince Mohammed bin Nayef. Security checkpoints failed to detect the bombs. It sounds like torturing prisoners in gitmo did, though.
      Since you don't seem to know what you're talking about you can go read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_planes_bomb_plot

      So, yeah.. "security theater" sounds about right to me. Harass people carrying harmless devices, completely miss actual bombs.

    3. Re:Security Theater by gottspeed · · Score: 1

      If I wanted to run the lives of millions of people I'd probably set aside the cash to pay for the reason people welcome it with fanfare. Such as getting a news story printed that claims people might smuggle a bomb on a plane in a printer. It was a story. Like at bedtime. Lets be real, if the brown people we torment were really that capable and motivated they'd be suicide bombing our asinine security lineups. Wouldn't that be a chuckle? What then? If they had separate flights for adults who don't quiver with joy when corporate government takes their rights away, I'd fly on those planes instead. Once I was sure the powers that be weren't bombing those too to whip the processed people into a fury.

    4. Re:Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whose purpose isn't immediately determinable

      did they ask the person who had it? trust goes both ways. if every single thing that COULD be dangerous is so overtly scrutinized, we are fucked as a people.

    5. Re:Security Theater by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      except that this actually isn't security theater. It's the useful kind of security procedure that actually prevents bad stuff happening.

      Up until the point where they shut down half the airport, I'd have agreed. This is the sort of situation where you could ask the person to describe the contents of his/her luggage, then open the luggage, inspect the contents to verify that the story was plausible, and you're done.

      If you don't have people smart enough to figure out how to verify the safety of the device, then that's half your problem right there. Hire smarter people. But I digress. In the absence of such intelligent people, you pull the person into a screening area, and you pick up your radio and you call for somebody smarter than you.

      As soon as the words "shuts down airport terminal" appear arising out of a kid's science project, it's an epic fail. Either it means that they overreacted or it means that they don't have even one single secure storage area where they can place a dangerous device without risk to the public. Either one is a sign that these people know about as much security as the average Slashdotter knows about women....

      --

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

    6. Re:Security Theater by TheLink · · Score: 2

      The problem is the airport got shutdown. It shouldn't have to be shutdown if things were done properly: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother

      At the check-in desk, your luggage is scanned immediately in a purpose-built area. Sela plays devil's advocate - what if you have escaped the attention of the first four layers of security, and now try to pass a bag with a bomb in it?

      "I once put this question to Jacques Duchesneau (the former head of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority): say there is a bag with play-doh in it and two pens stuck in the play-doh. That is 'Bombs 101' to a screener. I asked Ducheneau, 'What would you do?' And he said, 'Evacuate the terminal.' And I said, 'Oh. My. God.'

      A screener at Ben-Gurion has a pair of better options.

      First, the screening area is surrounded by contoured, blast-proof glass that can contain the detonation of up to 100 kilos of plastic explosive. Only the few dozen people within the screening area need be removed, and only to a point a few metres away.

      Second, all the screening areas contain 'bomb boxes'. If a screener spots a suspect bag, he/she is trained to pick it up and place it in the box, which is blast proof. A bomb squad arrives shortly and wheels the box away for further investigation.

      "This is a very small simple example of how we can simply stop a problem that would cripple one of your airports," Sela said.

      Note date on article: 2009-12-30

      --
  3. I don't know much about electronics.. by jnpcl · · Score: 2

    .. but a cursory glance at the device makes me think "This is some kid's electronics project."

    The only thing in the photo that looks 'odd' is the wooden box, which is obviously (knowing that it's an MP3 player) the speaker.

    The "after" photo looks like the TSA decided to be dicks after they figured out it lacked any kind of explosive capability.

    1. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by djlemma · · Score: 1

      I don't think the item they took from the Grad student was an mp3 player. I think it was some other sort of electronic doodad- although the summary makes it confusing by posting past examples of the evils of the mintyboost. I do rather wonder what the Doctoral student thought about his work being destroyed in the name of security- it'll probably make for an interesting chapter in his thesis.

    2. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Obviously it's an empty Altoids can. Everybody knows that empty Altoids cans are used for electronic cases.

      What are Altoids used for, anyway?

    3. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by DrgnDancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly? As someone who has seen real improvised explosive devices? It kinda looks like one. It also looks like any of about a million other possible home electronics kits stuck into a mint tin, but a bomb is definitely one possibility. Important point to remember here is that many of the people that make this sort of thing aren't terribly good at it. Especially if they just plan to make and use the one. Small devices like this are a lot less common than they used to be in the major theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan) these days from what I understand, but we were trained to look for stuff just like this (common household goods with suspicious wiring/electronics) and found a few that would have taken off a hand or leg, or disabled a wheeled vehicle.

      Thankfully most of the cheap homemade jobs don't actually explode, but a few do. I can see caution at least. Seems like they could just get him to turn in on in an isolated spot though. Couldn't be enough explosives in that to hurt anyone more than a few feet away.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    4. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by djlemma · · Score: 3, Informative

      And upon further reading of the article, it looks like they didn't destroy the science fair project at all. It was a completely different situation, where somebody had a minty mp3 player (or similar) in an unattended bag at the airport, and the TSA took no chances. This summary confused me several times....

    5. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously it's an empty Altoids can. Everybody knows that empty Altoids cans are used for electronic cases.

      I use mine to keep my pot in, but fair point.

      What are Altoids used for, anyway?

      They're mints; don't be obtuse.

    6. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by statusbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, all the device needs to do is LOOK like how a dangerous device might look like to an untrained individual. Then the person would wave it around and threaten things. Also, why does it need to be looking like an improvised explosive device? it could be looking like an improvised GPS/Radar/Radio/Cockpit jammer.

      Rule #1 in first year engineering courses should be "Don't take your prototype on an airplane"

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    7. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      They used to make you take your laptop out and turn it on to prove it wansn't a bomb. Proving of course either that it wasn't, or that they detonated it at the security gate instead of on the plane.

      So this kid has what is a magnificently dangerous-looking gizmo, and they can't ask him what it is, let him demonstrate it, and get over the drama?

      Next time I fly east, I'm going seperate from my wife and bringing along a MintyBoost and maybe TV-B-Gone. I'm beginning to accept just how incredibly failed this security theater is. So far, the TSA has caught NOBODY, so far as I know, and has only succeeded in confiscating 2 Micras from me, while passengers have succeeded in preventing 1 or 2 attempted explosions, and at least one was a failed attempt.

      TSA is just not so effective that they deserve unflinching obedience.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    8. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "as someone who has seen real improvised explosive devices? It kinda looks like one."
      Fair enough. I understand why a couple boxes with wires and odd looking kludged together electronics can look like a bomb under xray.
      Here's what I have a problem with: These people said "This looks like a bomb". They then proceeded to take this object out of the suitcase, open parts of the device, arrange it on the table, put a paper ruler under the device, and take a picture of it, before conducting any render-safe operations.

      These people are fucking idiots. Are they trained to go poking around devices that look like bombs? I thought that SOP for something that looked like a bomb was as follows:
      1. DON'T FUCKING TOUCH IT.
      2. Call the bomb squad.

      What if this had been a real explosive device? They could easily have set this thing off in the terminal with all their prodding and poking, causing numerous casualties.

      On the other hand, if they realized that this was not an explosive device then they should not have blown the thing up. They either handled a potential IED in a remarkably unsafe manner or they knowingly detonated a safe object. Either way, the TSA has proven their incompetence.

    9. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Niac · · Score: 1

      Rule #1 in first year engineering courses should be "Don't take your prototype on an airplane"

      This.

      The TSA sucks and blows, at the same time. But they are there, and it's not reasonable to believe that they'll do anything to handle these situations better in the future. The practical engineer should be mindful of how they transport their projects. Need to go multi-state? Fedex it to your destination, and pick it up.

      --
      http://gabrielcain.com/
    10. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Cosgrach · · Score: 1

      1. DON'T FUCKING TOUCH IT.
      2. Call the bomb squad.

      What if this had been a real explosive device? They could easily have set this thing off in the terminal with all their prodding and poking, causing numerous casualties.

      I am okay with that provided that the casualties are themselves. Maybe that will wake them up.

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    11. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by jmcharry · · Score: 1

      That wasn't an "after" picture of the device under discussion, but of something else they claim to have blown up, and showed as a warning to be clear what you are bringing with you.

    12. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by retchdog · · Score: 1

      yeah, or that you replaced 8 of the 9 battery cells with explosive...

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    13. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      What if this had been a real explosive device? They could easily have set this thing off in the terminal with all their prodding and poking, causing numerous casualties.

      Since they have never, in the entire history of the TSA, encountered a real explosive device, its pretty low risk for them to screw around with whatever they do find.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    14. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who has seen real improvised explosive devices?

      As someone who has seen non-elaborated/cheap improvised devices of any kind, I guess you meant.

      I wonder how hard is it o pass an iPod and iPhone combination through security, which are enclosing separate parts of an explosive device. If you really wanted to hide something, I'm pretty sure there are expensive ways of doing it, with out looking too suspicious.

    15. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it doesn't. I mean, I could see someone taking a second look. But there doesn't appear to even be glue in there (i.e. nothing that could even pretend to be mistaken for an explosive.) There is a battery and a circuit board. Period.

    16. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Heck, if I could FedEx myself, I'd never take a commercial jet again.

      --

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

    17. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Informative

      These people are fucking idiots. Are they trained to go poking around devices that look like bombs? I thought that SOP for something that looked like a bomb was as follows:

      The Slashdot post is poorly - indeed, deceptively - written. What the actual article says is: "X-ray screening workers spotted the science project in a carry-on bag...Out of an abundance of caution, screening operations were suspended and the terminal was evacuated...The Omaha Police Department's Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit cleared the item with negative findings."

      In other words, exactly what you think is supposed to happen, happened. The screeners called the bomb squad and got everyone else out of the way. After the bomb squad cleared the device, they took photographs. Presumably they did so because they want to be able to communicate to their colleagues what happened in this relatively unusual incident, and hopefully they want to learn from it.

      On the other hand, if they realized that this was not an explosive device then they should not have blown the thing up. They either handled a potential IED in a remarkably unsafe manner or they knowingly detonated a safe object. Either way, the TSA has proven their incompetence.

      The blown-up Altoids tin shown in the other linked blog was from a case where a bag was left unattended with the device inside. In that case, the bomb squad couldn't determine with complete confidence that the device seen on the x-ray was harmless, so they blew it up as a precaution. In that case, no one fiddled with the object in order to take pictures before the detonation.

      While I'm no fan of the TSA, they don't deserve the particular and specific scorn you're heaping on them based on your reading of the sloppy Slashdot summary (and your failure to read the linked articles).

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    18. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by dissy · · Score: 1

      Heck, if I could FedEx myself, I'd never take a commercial jet again.

      It has been done before.
      Heck at least one man got away with it. He was packaged, put on a plane (3 planes actually), delivered and signed for.
      He only got caught because he came out of the box too soon before the delivery guy left!

      http://articles.cnn.com/2003-09-09/us/plane.stowaway_1_cargo-security-crate-kitty-hawk?_s=PM:US

      There has been at least one other man that claimed to do the same and made it.
      Of course he had no evidence of this to show, so who knows if it's true.
      But the first guy made the news so is legit.

      Makes one wonder how many others did this, made it, and kept their mouth shut about it to avoid getting busted in the future?

    19. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need a circuit board to explode a bomb you are carrying. You can just pull an adapter wire out, plug a 9v battery you pulled out of something else, then plug in the 9 volt battery to the small plug hooked to the blasting cap in the explosive.

    20. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by hrimhari · · Score: 1

      Looks like the mods looking at this article don't appreciate enough such logical arguments as yours if it doesn't match the general ranting.

      And just to add something I just realized while reading the related articles -- specifically this one -- the TSA might not allow a strange looking device to board the cabin even if they think it's safe, because it could cause panic on other passengers.

      Lesson to learn: stupidity is difficult to avoid. Could be a TSA agent, could be other passengers. It's easier to avoid giving stupidity a chance to show itself.

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    21. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I see you don't realise how dangerous all of this is becoming. If you are into home made electronics of any kind and the devices are found in your possession, you are now likely to be detained, the devices destroyed and forced to prove your innocence. This doesn't take long to stretch from suspicious things to make, to suspicious things you read or suspicious things you write.

      How long before activity like this includes computer code, code that you must prove us safe before they release you. Regardless of the number of lines of code and the ignorance of the detaining officer demanding you prove it safe.

      What activity will be required to be safe both you and your possession. Any demonstration of inflect is starting to be considered dangerous and suspicious and yet it is the ignorant knee jerk reactionaries, those that call themselves conservative but aren't that cause the bulk of the problems.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    22. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by formfeed · · Score: 1

      They either handled a potential IED in a remarkably unsafe manner or they knowingly detonated a safe object. Either way, the TSA has proven their incompetence.

      Or:

      1. X-ray shows a circuit connected to a large box with two wires. Could be a bomb, but the student doesn't look foreign enough and isn't in Arab garb. Let's have a closer look at it, Bob.
      2. Okay, circuit looks home made not store bought. Either 3rd world terrorist or real unpatriotic American who builds his own stuff.
      3. OMG! It's connected with a red wire
    23. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who has seen real improvised explosive devices? It kinda looks like one.

      That sounds a lot like the old saying "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.".

      That's also the problem with all law enforcement agencies these days. They are even more paranoid than tinfoil-hat conspiracy-theorists. In their view of the world, everybody is up to something malicious, everbody is potential criminial/terrorist.

    24. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      . I can see caution at least. Seems like they could just get him to turn in on in an isolated spot though. Couldn't be enough explosives in that to hurt anyone more than a few feet away.

      Surely they have a "bomb box" they can drop anything suspicious in, wheel it away and chat to the owner, without shutting down the whole airport.

      In the last 10 years have the TSA ever found a real bomb?

    25. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Lacking any mod points, let me say someone give this poster an electronic cookie.

    26. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, all the device needs to do is LOOK like how a dangerous device might look like to an untrained individual

      That's the problem, these are supposedly 'trained' individuals.

    27. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "Don't take your prototype on an airplane"

      That's just evil. Talk about massive chilling effects on education and commerce.

      Let's not do that.

    28. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rule #1 in first year engineering courses should be "Don't take your prototype on an airplane"

      --jeffk++

      Actually, my former graduate research group and its contingent of students, and our research advisor, purposefully hand-carried all of our projects via airplane, rather than shipping them with FedEx or UPS (or putting them in checked luggage). If you are reasonable and explain things to the TSA "agents", you will accomplish two things: first, you get to take your project with you, for no additional cost to yourself. Second, and more importantly, you educate at least one TSA employee.

      That being said, out of caution, we always took someone else to the airport with us, who could take the project back to a shipping company if the TSA wouldn't let us take it on the airplane. This was never necessary, however.

    29. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by TheLink · · Score: 1
      --
    30. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps not for this incident, but they certainly do deserve as much scorn, ridicule and contempt as we all can heap upon them.
      Send them back out into the streets as the homeless, lifeless, clueless individuals they are.

    31. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Asten · · Score: 1

      Kinda, but on an x-ray, wouldn't it be fairly clear there's no material that could actually explode?

    32. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Asten · · Score: 1

      Oh, uh, nevermind.. One supposes the metal tin would obscure its insides. Remind me never to have altoids in my backpack.

    33. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Breath mints, and great oral sex.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    34. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "But the first guy made the news so is legit."

      really? if it's on the news it's legit?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    35. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You're the idiot.
      Do you know how many things look like the might be a bomb? Air traffic would stop. And considering the size of the case, any explosive would have been minimal. Maybe kill the guy who opened it.

      It's about risk management,.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    36. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by OverTheGeicoE · · Score: 1

      Which part of the mostly-empty mint tin or the mostly-solid block of wood looks explosive to you?

      TSA has access to explosives detectors for baggage. They can swab a suspicious item and check it for explosives fairly easily. Wouldn't it have been more responsible to run that test to establish probable cause for alarm before assuming the worst? How many people were needlessly alarmed by clearing the terminal? How many flights nationally were disrupted because flights from this one airport were delayed or cancelled for several hours? What is the dollar cost of the damage done nationally by a panicky TSA overreaction?

      Won't this make students think twice about participating in science competitions? Doesn't this discourage inventors from showing valuable prototypes to potential investors? Does this really help American competitiveness in global technology markets?

      Is TSA's response to this incident really something they should be proud of? I think not.

    37. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by dissy · · Score: 1

      "But the first guy made the news so is legit."

      really? if it's on the news it's legit?

      If police reports and mug shots are on all the news outlets consistently and at the same time, then yea it's pretty likely legit.

      Are you suggesting it is not a legit story? Mind sharing why?

    38. Re:I don't know much about electronics.. by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      They used to make you take your laptop out and turn it on to prove it wansn't a bomb. Proving of course either that it wasn't, or that they detonated it at the security gate instead of on the plane.

      This was something I never quite understood. If you blow up a plane in flight you're killing what? 100-150 people MAX, and destroying a $375M plane? Even if your bomb is small enough to simply bring the plane down rather than vaporize it, the collateral damage on the ground is limited to maybe another 50-100 people and another $100M. But if you pop an explosive at a security checkpoint, and do significant structural damage to the terminal to cause a large scale collapse, you could potentially kill in excess of 500 people while likely causing less property damage (dollar wise).

      There are only two reasons I see to explain this:
      1) Liability. If a plane goes down and causes a bunch of damage, they probably don't want to be held responsible for that. Where-as if a terminal is blown up, they could disclaim liability claiming that the 'terrorist' detonated the bomb before they had a chance to counteract.
      2) Money. Planes sure as hell are not cheap, and collateral damage when one goes down isn't likely to be either (a terrorist would be smart enough to look out a window and choose a prime time to detonate for maximum damage.)

      Which leaves us at a conclusion that we already reached. It's not about the people, it's about the money. If it were about the people, they wouldn't have moved the security risk from the plane to the checkpoint where there are significantly more people to kill. But then again who among us is really surprised that the government and the airlines are more beholden to money than people?

      Yami

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
  4. Watch the video on the linked site. by mingot · · Score: 3, Funny

    Listen when he explains the FOUR items that each IED has: 1. Power Source 2. Initiator 3. Explosive Material ... I feel so damn safe.

    1. Re:Watch the video on the linked site. by Dogun · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the lack of a #4, #1 is not always present, and #2 may be confused with #3.

      Here's the reality: You fucking sue the TSA if they ever do this to your possessions. The TSA should be experts on bombs, and it should be their job to be professionals at identifying bombs. The fact that they can't only proves their negligence.

      You don't get to decide whether something is or isn't dangerous when you haven't got a 12-year old's knowledge of electronics.

    2. Re:Watch the video on the linked site. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Funny

      Listen when he explains the FOUR items that each IED has: 1. Power Source 2. Initiator 3. Explosive Material ...

      4. Profit!

    3. Re:Watch the video on the linked site. by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 2

      Actually I'm pretty sure #4 (according to the TSA manuals) is "a brown-skinned male", but they decided it wasn't PC to mention that.

    4. Re:Watch the video on the linked site. by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The TSA should be experts on bombs, and it should be their job to be professionals at identifying bombs.

      Sure, I agree, but as long as we're talking about "reality", it won't happen until we decide we want to pay what it would cost to staff the TSA checkpoints that way.

      You don't get to decide whether something is or isn't dangerous when you haven't got a 12-year old's knowledge of electronics.

      Which is exactly what happened here. The TSA staff didn't decide anything. They *presumed* it was dangerous, and called in somebody who had the training that in an ideal, non-financially-constrained world they'd have right there at the gate.

      That's what everybody ends up doing with expensive technical expertise. The person you call up on the support line for software ought to be an expert in that software, and ideally very knowledgeable about the systems that software interacts with. But it won't happen until we choose to favor companies that give us good service over those who give us lousy service at the lowest possible price.

      Geeks with Altoid can electronics projects aren't a use-case that was considered in the system design. So what? Is that really such a surprise? What should be surprising is that people bright enough to design and build circuits can't figure out that it'd be simpler and less hassle to put their tiny mint-tin projects in a FedEx envelope and ship them rather than running it through the carry-on security checkpoint. I'm not saying there's anything wrong about sort of forgetting how clueless mundane folk are; it's an easy mistake to make. But it's just silly to bellyache like it's something that *somebody else should fix for us*. Nobody is going to fix anything for us, until we persuade them to.

      Of course if you think you can convince our fellow citizens to pay what it would take to people who can be trained as experts in bomb identification and then follow through on that training, I'll cheer you on. But until you manage that I'm shipping my homebrew junk rather than carrying it on. And I'm not planning on holding my breath until you succeed.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Watch the video on the linked site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like Heavy Metal in action \../,(^.^),\../

      Breakin da law, breakin da law!

      Breakin da law, breakin da law!

      deoooooow dena dena deowowowow

      At least the right line up for a sweet hearts mix tape blast :)

    6. Re:Watch the video on the linked site. by sjames · · Score: 1

      You should read what you just wrote. There was a time in this country when if you said that to an average citizen you would be called a godless commie and told to get the hell back to Russia because here in America we don't have to worry about how things might look to authorities because we have rights and freedom.

      I mean that seriously. This erosion of rights is insidious. What scares me the most is how many people are forgetting how to think like free people.

      If the TSA is going to have the checkpoints, it's on THEM to do it right or go home. Fed-Exing everything doesn't fix the problem, it's just learning how to think like Winston Smith. The TSA cost a lot of people a lot of time and money while they stood on a stool shrieking with their skirts pulled up. They deserve ridicule.

      Personally, I think the country would be a lot better off if we just disbanded the TSA. We could have Obama announce that since Saddam is dead and Bin Laden is dead we no longer need the TSA (not that it really follows, but I assume some face saving and spin would have to happen). The psychological effects of all this fear and hand wringing is part of what is continuing to damage our economy.

    7. Re:Watch the video on the linked site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to hand carry stuff that looked like this for work at an electronics company all the time.

      I'm glad I don't work there anymore. Or fly.

    8. Re:Watch the video on the linked site. by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      I am against training the average TSA screener in the details of bomb construction. Every once in a while you find Firemen who are Arsonists.... No need to help them justify their own jobs.

    9. Re:Watch the video on the linked site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think his point was that the TSA is clueless and meaningless - it's just another delay at the airports with zero increase in safety or efficiency.
      Ban the TSA, get rid of them, they serve no purpose.

    10. Re:Watch the video on the linked site. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, the TSA has a perfectly good use. It needs to be rolled back and Homeland security needs to be defunded.

      Having a minimal check removes a certain level of threat. The more impromptu and not careful planned threat; which is most of them.

      The damage to the economy is cause by this push of austerity. Simple by looking at what we, and every other nation, did to successfully recover for a recession in the past and then do that; but since it's against certain political ideologies, we get is misdirection and a down graded rating.

      Tghe fear has no significant effect in comparison with other economic factors.

      Between the concentration of wealth, and the baby boomers exciting their primary spending years, critical economic changes must happen; in fact experts in the field know what to do; It's not a mystery.

      .

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Watch the video on the linked site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the intended use-case for the Altoid can electronics projects, in many cases, is to extend the battery life of or replace other electronics for use during extended travel(like MP3 players).

    12. Re:Watch the video on the linked site. by sjames · · Score: 1

      We managed that cursory level just fine for decades without a TSA. It used to be handled by the individual airports and the airlines themselves.

      As for the economy, indeed there are things we know to do but won't because of political ideology. However, in spite of all of that, morale has a great deal to do with things. In an atmosphere of fear, doom, and gloom, consumer and investor confidence will tend to remain low. In some sense, the entire economic problem is morale driven. We didn't run out of anything and no supply lines were cut. Need didn't suddenly evaporate. Nothing in reality changed.

      Of course, those problems can be minimized and compensated for through reasonably well understood measures, but we have two political parties that would each rather see the country burn in ruins than give up on their favorite dogmas (as long as they and their friends don't personally suffer).

    13. Re:Watch the video on the linked site. by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      I think you might be jumping to conclusions. If you're an arsonist, it's pretty much guaranteed that you like fire. What profession is better than any other to get your fill of fire? If you like making bombs and think that becoming a TSA agent is going to get you in contact with a lot of bombs... Well friend, you're just the kind of idiot we like to hire!

      Seriously, get into criminal justice and work your way onto a bomb squad. You'll see more bombs in your first year than you'll see in your entire career with the TSA.

      Yami

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
  5. That's more than just looking inside ... by Jerry · · Score: 3, Informative

    The "Minty Fresh" mp3 player wasn't just examined, or even pried open to see what was inside. It was maliciously torn to shreds. What do those Luddite TSA agents think could be hiding in a millimeter thick sheet of Aluminum lid? It looks like they put it into a blender.

    This isn't looking out for "Public Safety", this is intimidation just because they can. Light your next bonfire with a copy of the Constitution. At least the paper it's written on can be used for something, even if the words are worthless.

    --

    Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    1. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by mingot · · Score: 2

      Cross promotion with Blendtec, I guess.

    2. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by gregor-e · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm pretty sure it got that way because they attempted to detonate it without opening.

    3. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      You gave them the power to do it. STFU

    4. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by Ksevio · · Score: 2
      More information on Minty:

      Based on the comments, Nico & I felt a clarification was needed. This post purposely never mentioned a passenger because the bag was left unattended and there was no passenger available to interview. We're not implying that you cannot travel with these types of items, we're just pointing out that they could be of concern, or possibly even hold you up a little bit. Listen, we think these things are cool too, but this is just a friendly "heads up" and not a threat.

      So definitely don't leave your homemade mp3 player in your unattended bag.

    5. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by ThorGod · · Score: 1

      I hear you. With all the political air being taken up by the deficit and jobs it's hard to be optimistic stuff like this is short-lived.

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    6. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget they shut down the entire terminal in their massive overreaction, which has become the norm lately.

      I honestly don't know if the massive overreaction law enforcement tends to have over any issue lately is because they are completely stupid or because they want to get media attention in some ridiculous effort to show they are keeping us safe. I wish it were the later, but I fear it is rampant stupidity.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    7. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The device which was destroyed wasn't actually an mp3 player, it seems to have been part of a fingerbox with a nice surprise for anyone who sticks their finger in.

      The board inside the tin appears to have been this booster, which would love to send 12V/2A through your finger. :)

    8. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      It's probably a mix of option 2 and unnamed option 3. They want to get media attention so that they can get the public opinion on their side so that they can get more funding. More funding means more pork for security companies.

      Unnamed option 3 is that they would get sued to the stone age if a bomb really went off and people found out that they knew about it and did nothing. It's a "backside save manoeuvre" on their part.

      Although the rampant stupidity argument does hold water.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They didn't detonate it without opening. They opened it to take a picture and then they detonated it. (Why in the hell they were opening things and poking around inside a potential bomb BEFORE detonating it is beyond me)

    10. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by Skidborg · · Score: 2

      Look, it may not be that way in the USA, but in some parts of the world unattended bags are actually a serious threat to life and limb.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    11. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Why in the hell they were opening things and poking around inside a potential bomb BEFORE detonating it is beyond me)

      Stupidity cranked up to 11

      With luck they will try the same thing with a real bomb some day and maybe learn something

      Posted anon cuz this is definitely a hate filled troll to the tsa

    12. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by Vrtigo1 · · Score: 1

      Will it blend?

    13. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Surely with the nitrate sniffers and x-rays they could have determined the device was safe and so avoided treating someone else's property with utter contempt.

    14. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      In the USA, I'll believe they're seriously worried about what unattended bags might contain when they start blowing up the bazillions of McDonald's bags and paper drink cups that can be found laying around unattended. If I went crazy and decided to leave a bomb in a public place, I would disguise it as litter to make sure nobody (especially the sanitation dept) would mess with it until time to detonate.

    15. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Unnamed option 3 is that they would get sued to the stone age if a bomb really went off and people found out that they knew about it and did nothing. It's a "backside save manoeuvre" on their part.

      They should actually get sued for shutting down the airport. Because if they do things right they shouldn't have to:
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2370330&cid=37031702

      --
    16. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Or you could put it into the trash can - aren't they found in places with dense crowds?

    17. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Trash cans are moving to designs where you can see what's inside, so the bomb still needs to look like litter.

      It seems that the security theater experts have all seen too many movies and expect the bomb to be in a beautiful hand crafted briefcase finished in italian leather or polished metal, or perhaps in a gym bag with a prominent sponsor's logo on the side.

    18. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Back in the 1980s while doing some work at Atomic Energy of Canada's Reactor Safety Division (AECL's WNRE RSD if you are into acronyms), someone left a tooled leather briefcase against one of the many walls in the "hot" section of the lab. The bomb squad ended up being called in for a 2+ hour drive from Winnipeg because while many of us were pretty sure it looked like "Frank's" briefcase, we couldn't see the carved design on the front which would have confirmed the identity, and protocol prohibited anyone from picking it up to check. Frank was nowhere to be found - his desk did not look like he had arrived yet for the day, but his radiation badge had been checked out. A bit before the bomb-squad arrived, Frank turned up. He had stopped by the wall to talk to a colleague and had then continued the conversation in the cafeteria over coffee while leaving his briefcase.

      I don't know what lesson might be learned from that - but it did give me an excuse to goof off all morning rather than converting some reactor simulation code from Fortran IV to Fortran 77. The simulated core was described by my co-op adviser as being "Sort of like a dinosaur" because it was "thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle, and thin again at the other end."

    19. Re:That's more than just looking inside ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what lessons it holds either, but it brings a few observations to mind.

      If instead he had left his briefcase in a U.S. airport today, depending on the mood of the DHS/TSA goons, he would have been charged with a crime and his briefcase blown up anyway.

      At least in the story, the briefcase was actually in a sensitive area so some caution was to be expected, but once a reasonable explanation was found, everyone correctly cancelled the alarms. Perhaps the message is that good enough for a hot lab should be more than good enough for the airport.

  6. Yeah thats how you dispose of a bomb.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sooo they thought it was an explosive and they smashed it to pieces to stop it from exploding? Those are some pretty advanced bomb disposal techniques.

    1. Re:Yeah thats how you dispose of a bomb.. by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      No, they blew it up in a controlled detonation. Most of the time that's the safest way to handle small bombs (or suspected bombs). If you disarm it you run the risk of it blowing unexpected and hurting the tech. They probably never even opened it. If they really thought it could be a bomb, that would be dangerous.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    2. Re:Yeah thats how you dispose of a bomb.. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Bombs are smashed to pieces all the time to prevent them from exploding. It is a standard bomb disposal technique.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Yeah thats how you dispose of a bomb.. by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      That's how I dispose of all my old fireworks; I smash them with a deadblow hammer.

      What do you mean this thing has shot in it?

      Yami

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
  7. TSA is Populated by... by sycodon · · Score: 2

    ...idiots.

    Seriously stupid people who couldn't pour piss out a boot if it weren't for the instructions on the heel.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:TSA is Populated by... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course it is. But that is completely besides the point.

      In this case, something unknown was called "scary" and thus "a threat" because they were idiots. This is lowest common denominator thinking at its finest. They want Sheeple who will obey even the most stupid of requests that have no basis for except for the security theater that we have.

      And enough people WANT the security theater or worse, don't give a shit either way, that they hand over their lives to the very same idiots making such stupid decisions as this, and the poor lady that had her insulin confiscated because it violated the "liquid" ban policy.

      These cases will continue until such time as we comply to their every rule. Ensuring we are the sheeple they want us to be. This is why more people out to cry out loudly and go to jail exposing these tyrants with badges every chance they get. If 10,000 people did this every day, they'd change the rules.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:TSA is Populated by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, I'm the first to say TSA sucks. And I'm not convinced they're stupid people... they're just people that need jobs.

      However, the guy that took this on a plane should get bitch-slapped. A plane is not your living room. You know this. And you know they're going to flip their shit at the sign of anything even remotely atypical and electrical looking. Most TSA reps won't know if it's something that's meant to be used with something dangerous, because 99% of the world wouldn't be able to tell. Shit, I build circuits all the time and it looks shady to me.

      So if he didn't think that thing looks "suspicious", then he was either asking for trouble on purpose or borderline retarded. Or you're 12 years old and don't know any better.

      I award him no points, and may god have mercy on his soul.

    3. Re:TSA is Populated by... by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      they're just people that need jobs

      There are plenty of jobs that, judging by their level of intelligence, are viable for them: dog turd picker, elephant ass wiper, human guinea pig, bulletproof vest tester, human crash test mannequin...

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    4. Re:TSA is Populated by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one of the ways TSA justifies its existence . Any time there is a snafu just like this TSA makes a big deal over nothing conjuring up terrorist actions that TSA just prevented. As someone said "Much ado about nothing".

  8. Look beyond the obvious by Haedrian · · Score: 0

    If a kid was going to detonate a bomb, do you think it'd look like a bomb? When people hijack airplanes do they travel on board with "I'm a hijacker" t-shirts?

    For me it looks like a block of wood with wires coming out. Would be too obvious if it was an IED

    1. Re:Look beyond the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then i hope to god you don't work for the TSA.

    2. Re:Look beyond the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a kid was going to detonate a bomb, do you think it'd look like a bomb? When people hijack airplanes do they travel on board with "I'm a hijacker" t-shirts?

      That's actually a marvelous idea.

    3. Re:Look beyond the obvious by Duradin · · Score: 1

      So someone makes a real bomb "look" like a "bomb" and waltzes right through your "security".

    4. Re:Look beyond the obvious by Jiro · · Score: 2

      "No real bomber would be so obvious" is self-refuting. As soon as you decide not to suspect devices because they are too obvious, they become "not too obvious" because they are now the perfect thing for a bomber to use to avoid suspicion.

      It's also true that
      1) many bombers are stupid and *will* make bombs that are fairly obvious, and
      2) bombing is a high-stress occupation and high stress leads bombers to act in stupid ways anyway.

    5. Re:Look beyond the obvious by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Depends.

      Where you attempting a to pronged methodology?
      1) bomb gets through security, create explosion
      2) bomb doesn't get past security, airport is shut down.

      SO win if you're caught; win if your not.

      Why do you assume someone tossing together a bomb would be smart? Or there line of thinking was to make it 'too obvious'?
      really, what you are doing is asking them to second guess a possible bombers thinking.

      "For me it looks like a block of wood with wires coming out."
      so, like the uni-bombers bombs then?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Look beyond the obvious by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      If a kid was going to detonate a bomb, do you think it'd look like a bomb? When people hijack airplanes do they travel on board with "I'm a hijacker" t-shirts?

      I heard they hand out something like that in Islam heaven.

      "I brought down a plane in Allah's name and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
  9. Use common sense, people! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're traveling with your IED, just put it in checked luggage. The TSrApists only examine checked luggage for good things to steal, so put your IED in a mint box and not in a laptop or digital camera.

  10. In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too careful by jmcbain · · Score: 5, Funny

    We live in a post-9/11 world. We have to forfeit some of our rights in order to fight the terrorists. If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear. Think of the children.

    Vote Palin 2012.

  11. Profiling and bombs by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

    So... let's see to sum this up: 12 year olds traveling with science projects are terrorists?

    At what point do you go... "ok I don't really know what an IED is cause I've never seen one, the people that make them, make me piss my pants in 30 seconds or less cause I'm an overempowered baggage handler. cause I'm a glorified baggage handler, this looks like an IED, but wait it's a 12 year old kid, maybe I should exercise restraint?"

    1. Re:Profiling and bombs by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Maybe not a terrorist, but surely a boy genius if he's a graduate student at 12 years old... or else you failed to make it so far as the second word of the summary. It your defense, maybe you actually read the article, in which case you would have had to make it all the way to the third word to see that he is in college.

  12. They're not always wrong, you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even if the device is harmless, it doesn't mean they don't truly need to give it a few extra *really* careful looks.
    This is not a troll. I had something similar happen to me, but don't feel a burning desire to recount it play-by-play or have the FBI file re-opened.
    (Yes, really)
    I will just say that it was a perfect storm of fluke events and the fact I was carrying a home-built electronics project in my *checked* luggage that caused their BAO to take extreme interest in my bag, and myself.
    At some point, those of us who are building this stuff need to take a step back and remember that we're probably smarter than MOST of the TSA employees who will come across our devices. Fear of the uknown, anyone? Not exactly new.
    We shouldn't be surprised when they freak out. We live in the age of shiny, plastic, crap. Bare wires scare people.

    Fed-Ex may be the path of least resistance.

    1. Re:They're not always wrong, you know... by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Ignorance truly is bliss. Show them something they don't understand and hope you have a good lawyer. Encase it in a plastic box and you're fine.

      You comment on how we're probably smarter than most TSA employees is troubling. I would be more comfortable (and I'm sure the screening process would be better) if they were smarter and if they were allowed to think on the job instead of being a mindless drone following the rules. Chances of the average IQ going up amongst TSA employees seem exceptionally dim in light of today's anti-intellectual pride. I don't expect every one to be an electrical engineer but I'd hope they have enough basic understanding that a small circuit board and a battery isn't dangerous.

      It's like Boston all over again.

    2. Re:They're not always wrong, you know... by sjames · · Score: 1

      At the same time, if you can't carry it because the TSA might do a few hundred thousand dollars in damage (if you count all the missed and delayed flights, they probably did that much damage in an afternoon), then it is de-facto illegal without even a hearing.

      Some people are afraid of balloons (yes really!). Some can't deal with mice. Some are afraid of poorly trained government goons. Shall we ban everything?

  13. Three by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 1

    Mankind is divided into three kinds of people: Those who can count, and those who can't.

    1. Re:Three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three? Surely, you meant 10.

    2. Re:Three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're confusing your jokes there. That's "The world is divided into 10 kinds of people: Those who know binary and those who don't."

  14. Stupid kid... doesn't he know yet that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...any and all electronics devices and apparatuses are only permitted to be made by government-approved corporations.

    And if you really want to get the government pissed at you (like bust down your door at 4:00AM with a swat team, shoot your dog, and smash you upside your head with an assault rifle buttstock variety of pissed-offness), try adding any form of home chemistry set along with that soldering iron and a few capacitors, diodes and transistors.

  15. Electric toothbrush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try traveling with an electric toothbrush, the kind you have to plug in and an old fashion wind-up clock packed in your suitcase. It just so happens that the end of the toothbrush cord was hidden behind the brass casing of the clock. At least that's the way it looked on the X-ray.

  16. Our "officers?" by brainboyz · · Score: 1

    When did TSA monkeys go from "agents" to "officers?"

    1. Re:Our "officers?" by CelticWhisper · · Score: 1

      Around the same time the cop-a-like uniforms and fake tin badges (that don't mean anything) were introduced. It's classic psychological manipulation - people subconsciously preface "officer" with "police" and it leads them to think TSA clerks have law-enforcement authority, which they do not. "Clerk" is the classification of their government role. TSA clerks are actually no more empowered than the guy who sells you stamps at the post office. The ONE AND ONLY power they have is to say "no, you can't go into the airport terminal, come back tomorrow." That's it.

      --
      Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
      http://www.tsanewsblog.com
  17. Private Property by FranTaylor · · Score: 0

    Airplanes are private property. If you don't like what they do, don't set foot on their property.

    The airlines are not suing the government to stop the TSA, so by implication they are happy with the arrangement.

    You don't HAVE to fly. There are other means of transportation.

    When you board an airplane, you trade your constitutional rights away in exchange for the convenience.

    You do the same thing when you drive a car, you trade away many constitutional rights when you climb behind the wheel and go out on the public roadway. Again we do it out of convenience, the loss of rights has much lower value than the utility of transportation. For example, the police can ask you to get out of your car and take a sobriety test. There is no way that the police could do this to you if your were in your own home.

    1. Re:Private Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you expect me to believe that the constitution is suspended for anyone stepping on private property? Really? If you step into a grocery store, can the store employees imprison you forever? After all, it's private property and, according to you, the constitution is well and truly suspended.

      That's the most ignorant thing I've read in a very long time.

    2. Re:Private Property by txghia58 · · Score: 1

      So after they put this in every train station and bus stop you will be saying "well you should have walked".

    3. Re:Private Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah Ha! Finally, a voice of reason. Very rare these days it seems to me.

    4. Re:Private Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the point of the constitution. Constitutional rights don't magically go away when you're on private property; they just don't apply to the owners. If the airline itself wants to search you (within certain boundaries of the law) then the constitution doesn't protect you, but if some police officer wants to search you then your constitutional rights still apply. For the sobriety test, the "search" is not considered "unreasonable" so it passes the constitution test.

      Next time you compulsively spout off your radical wannabe libertarian rant, try and have a decent grasp of the laws your referencing.

    5. Re:Private Property by vux984 · · Score: 2

      The airlines are not suing the government to stop the TSA, so by implication they are happy with the arrangement.

      The fact that I'm not suing you doesn't imply I'm happy with you.

      You don't HAVE to fly. There are other means of transportation.

      The TSA has already asserted they have the right to screen those as well. Give them time.

      When you board an airplane, you trade your constitutional rights away in exchange for the convenience.

      If I were FLYING the airplane, maybe. But as a passenger in locked compartment with no access to flight controls? Why exactly is it reasonable to trade away rights for the "convenience" of being a passenger?

      You do the same thing when you drive a car, you trade away many constitutional rights when you climb behind the wheel and go out on the public roadway.

      Because they are DRIVING the car. The passengers in the back seat don't need special licenses or government approval, nor should they.

      Or do you think one should need a national id card, and be prepared to show it at any time for the convenience of being a passenger in the back seat. After all, its just trading away rights for convenience... you don't HAVE to ride in the backseat... you could always get out and walk.

      There is no way that the police could do this to you if your were in your own home.

      Why not? What's the real difference between a passenger on a plane, and a guy who lives on the 12th floor of a skyskraper? He could be building a bomb in there set to take down the whole building!! You don't know he's not... you better screen him. Its just trading away rights for the convenience of living in a tower in the city... you don't HAVE to live there, there are other places you could live.

    6. Re:Private Property by atomic-penguin · · Score: 1

      Airplanes are private property. If you don't like what they do, don't set foot on their property.

      Airports that deal with commercial travel, are public property. Those public airports may be owned by the state or other municipalities, and make up the largest percentage of airports. These public airports are where the constitutional rights are being surrendered by US citizens to US government officials, whom the citizens are supposed to be expressly protected from in their constitutionally granted rights. There are privatized airports and chartered commercial flights, that is not what we're talking about.

      The airlines are not suing the government to stop the TSA, so by implication they are happy with the arrangement.

      The airlines are not the victims. The state of Texas tried to do something about it, and the Department of Justice threatened to make Texas a federal "no-fly" zone (See: TSA vs Texas).

      You don't HAVE to fly. There are other means of transportation.

      Its the most reasonable form of long distance inter-state and international travel. Certain people who travel for work may only be able to travel in a reasonable amount of time by flight, not because it is a matter of personal choice.

      When you board an airplane, you trade your constitutional rights away in exchange for the convenience.

      There is no provision or asterisk, in the letter of the law, that one shall only have their constitutional rights some of the time, or when its deemed convenient.

      You do the same thing when you drive a car, you trade away many constitutional rights when you climb behind the wheel and go out on the public roadway. Again we do it out of convenience, the loss of rights has much lower value than the utility of transportation. For example, the police can ask you to get out of your car and take a sobriety test. There is no way that the police could do this to you if your were in your own home.

      Probable cause does not mean you waive your constitutional rights upon entering/operating a car, its a reasonable discretionary stipulation in the law. Many states even have laws in place to pre-announce holiday sobriety checkpoints to the public, so as to not egregiously violate constitutional rights.

      --
      /^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
    7. Re:Private Property by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Airports are almost all public property, and the screenings take place regardless of whether you board (though you must have a valid ticket and they must believe that you are intending to board).

    8. Re:Private Property by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Haven't you listened to any Libertarians recently? The only one with any rights on private property is the owner. It's a class system, landowners get more rights than those who don't own property. Poor have no rights. The Constitution only applies to the government, so yes, a private person can do anything that doesn't involve violence to you that they wish on their property. Oh, and not leaving their property fast enough after they ask you to is "violence" in libertarian definitions.

    9. Re:Private Property by atomic-penguin · · Score: 1

      I think that is a rather narrow view of libertarianism. It really has nothing to do with the central point of the parent's or grandparent's post. Neither poster ever brought up libertarianism to begin with.

      The parent post was countering the grandparent's point using extreme hyperbole.

      As it has been pointed out by, both you and I, the airports in question are public property.

      Please, try not to over-generalize and lump an entire political movement in with the ignorant viewpoints of the grandparent poster.

      --
      /^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
    10. Re:Private Property by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      "Airplanes are private property. If you don't like what they do, don't set foot on their property."

      I think that is a rather narrow view of libertarianism. It really has nothing to do with the central point of the parent's or grandparent's post. Neither poster ever brought up libertarianism to begin with.

      I think that the issue of domain over private property is central to the original post, and the position they offered "you stepped onto their property, you deserve what you get" is very much at the core of Libertarianism in the US. I agree I have a narrow view. Libertarians I run into are conservative Republicans who are either fed up with the religious puritans dominating the Republican party sometimes, or they want "fiscal conservatism" in the sense that they want cuts in what they don't like and *only* in what they don't like. They'd be happy with increased government spending for a large number of things (like prisons and military) and cuts in things they don't like (you'd have to ask them, I'm sure that anything I said here would be interpreted as disparaging, even if meant only as an impartial observation). They are extreme Republicans without a conscience. Having heard many official spokesmen of the Libertarian Party advocate or defend toll sidewalks just to hear self-professed Libertarians abandon an "official" position because it's inconvenient and the other things that have irritated me about them (like the stance on abortion being officially pro-choice, but anti-choice in candidates and actions in office), I have little tolerance for the Loonitarian party. When the initial respondant indicated that he thought the original post was a little over the top, I was just trying to point out that it was a mainstream view, if one considers Loonitarians in the mainstream, as many here do.

    11. Re:Private Property by j-beda · · Score: 1

      well said

  18. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why bother voting Palin? You know there's a Democrat in the white house RIGHT THIS SECOND right? And the Democrats have had control of house, senate, and white house within the last few years, and they most certainly didn't finally fight this TSA nonsense- in fact, in the 80s, they were in favor of something like this.

    Can't blame Bush anymore. Guess you'll have to accept that they are all corrupt control freaks, eh? Both major parties are opposed to freedom, privacy, and any amount of self determination. I understand that once you pick Red or Blue you want to assign all the Bad Things to the Other Color, but it's just not that simple.

  19. Science, eh? by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 2

    Meanwhile, they completely missed the real bomb he was carrying inside his bible.

    1. Re:Science, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. Can't expect them to look inside that thing, now can we?

    2. Re:Science, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, they completely missed the real bomb he was carrying inside his bible.

      Meanwhile, they completely missed the real bomb he was carrying inside his Quran

      Fixed that for ya

      .

  20. Science fair for grad students? by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

    I'm more interested in this fair. I've never heard of a science fair for graduate students. And what exactly did his device do? The sources all seem to just say it has a purpose and looks scary. If I were this kid I'd be more insulted than anything, that my project looks so shoddy it appears to be something an uneducated terrorist might make.

    1. Re:Science fair for grad students? by Interoperable · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I was really wondering what discipline the poor guy studies. He really needs access to some proper equipment if this gizmo is related to his Ph.D.

      --
      So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
    2. Re:Science fair for grad students? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTA:

      Breault said the student is working on a doctorate, but did not release the student's name or other details

      It looks like something an uneducated 4th grader would make. The super-sexy bic-pen shell conduits are a really nice touch. So glad he went all out and spared no expense.

    3. Re:Science fair for grad students? by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, it was probably intended to be an apparatus that an uneducated 4th grader could make in a classroom. See my other post.

    4. Re:Science fair for grad students? by Asten · · Score: 1

      if you read the RTFL, it had to be made for under $65. Even a cheap circuit board might not leave you with much room in the budget.

  21. And aparently some people in Omaha by kelarius · · Score: 3, Funny

    really are that stupid since the very next day some idiot was trying to bring homemade fireworks onto the plane.

    --
    Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
    1. Re:And aparently some people in Omaha by idontgno · · Score: 1

      In the interests of complete clarity, yes, the putz in question was "in" Omaha... trying to catch a departing flight to his home city... in Kentucky.

      If you want to fault Omaha, you can blame them for not catching and deporting idiots fast enough. But I suspect Omaha isn't alone in that. Just look at Washington!

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  22. Dear Youth Scientists: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To have fun, cover your Minty MP3 player with a Garmin GPS shell.

  23. oblig. Monty Python by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Cleric: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.

    Brother Maynard: Amen.

    All: Amen.

    King Arthur: Right. One... two... five.

    Galahad: Three, sir.

    King Arthur: Three.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:oblig. Monty Python by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Wrong sketch.

      "NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again."

  24. I hope he won (something) by ThorGod · · Score: 1

    Graduate students have always been the abused 'subjects' of their professoritti-elite, but man that's just downright mean.

    Stuff like this often makes me decide to drive instead of fly. Supposedly, a train ride is a good substitute for a plane trip as well.

    --
    PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    1. Re:I hope he won (something) by Missing.Matter · · Score: 2

      A train is an excellent alternative! Sure it might take a little longer and cost a little more (sometimes it's actually cheaper), but it is incredibly comfortable and convenient. Most trains have a dining car, a little car with movie, and a viewing car with large glass windows so you can sit and watch the country go by. The seats are large and there's tons of leg room. Most trains have outlets now so no need to worry about the laptop dying. Some even have wifi! Oh, bags come on for free (there's a limit to that of course, but it's pretty generous), and for longer trips you can get a private room with a pull out bed. If you have a family you can get a large private room that sleeps 4 people and has a private bathroom!

      Best of all: NO TSA GOONS. Train is the best option unless you're a real frequent traveler, and have to be there and back in a day or something.

    2. Re:I hope he won (something) by jrkotrla · · Score: 1
      --
      In God we trust,
      everyone else we firewall!!
    3. Re:I hope he won (something) by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      Did you read your own link? Apparently they were screened because something else was going on, and they didn't even have to if they didn't want to enter the station. Meaning they could have taken their luggage off the train, hopped in their car, and driven away without going through screening. So still safe for now! But for how long...

    4. Re:I hope he won (something) by jrkotrla · · Score: 1

      "The TSA says the passengers did not have to go into the terminal to leave the station. But Gamble says the TSA agents didn't give them a choice."

      who do you believe?

      --
      In God we trust,
      everyone else we firewall!!
    5. Re:I hope he won (something) by OrigamiMarie · · Score: 1

      Sadly, many trains have not gotten with the times. I considered a train for my round trip from Seattle to Minneapolis and back. Problems:

      1. Somehow, they run out of rooms months in advance. Because I guess they can't add some more cars onto the end of the train.
      2. I need refrigerated medication. Their solution? A bucket of ice. And they had no provisions for freezing my ice packs, so I would arrive at the train station at the other end with a bucket of melty ice, ice packs, and meds, and would have to bring that bucket to my final destination. Nope. Not happening.
      3. The long runs don't have wifi. If you get out of urban areas, they just don't have it.
      4. Wow, 36 hours each way is a long time for travel. That would mean a full 3 days of vacation just for travel, as opposed to a combined day or day and a half (part of which is driving with family).
      5. Quite a bit more expensive than air travel. Plus, add in that extra vacation time.

      When the trains get fast and get with this century's tech, I'll try them.

    6. Re:I hope he won (something) by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      All true points, so of course your mileage may vary depending on the specific train. However regarding the last points I've always considered the journey as part of the trip. Although with kids that probably wouldn't hold true.

    7. Re:I hope he won (something) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRONG!
      http://blog.tsa.gov/2011/02/screening-of-passengers-at-savannah.html
      http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/rail/index.shtm
      http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/02/28/why-did-tsa-pat-down-kids-adults-getting-off-train/

  25. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You forgot to add "God bless America", you filthy communist!

  26. George Carlin said it best by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 2

    As far as I’m concerned, all of this airport security – the cameras, the questions, the screening, the searches, is just one more way of reducing your liberty and reminding you they can fuck with you anytime they want, as long as you’re willing to put up with it. Which means, of course, anytime they want. Because that’s the way Americans are now. They’re always willing to trade away a little of their freedom for the feeling – the illusion – of security.

    1. Re:George Carlin said it best by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 1

      He also said this when Clinton was still in office.

    2. Re:George Carlin said it best by splutty · · Score: 1

      Which shows perfectly why the US is fucked.

      --
      Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
  27. Star Simpson by nbauman · · Score: 0

    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/09/mit_student_arr.html

    Star Simpson was charged with possessing a hoax device today at Logan International Airport for wearing a sweatshirt that had a circuit board affixed to the front with green LED lights and wires running to a 9-volt battery.

    1. Re:Star Simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the puttylike material that could have been C4 which she failed to explain when asked about it.

    2. Re:Star Simpson by v1 · · Score: 1

      "Thankfully because she followed our instructions, she ended up in our cell instead of a morgue," Pare said. "Again, this is a serious offense ... Iâ(TM)m shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to an airport."

      I think they have it backwards...

      I'm shocked and appalled that wearing such a device to an airport has a chance of winding you up in the morgue!

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    3. Re:Star Simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the puttylike material that could have been C4 which she failed to explain when asked about it.

      Yeah because everyone that's seen a fucking Hollywood movie knows that any local hardware store stocks C4. So clearly a 19yo girl could conceivably have C4, and definitely people that use C4 handle it exactly like Playdough.

      Fucking shill. You fucks are way too easy to spot with your bullshit arguments. Stick to what you do best, poisoning the masses and stealing their money.

    4. Re:Star Simpson by Duradin · · Score: 1

      So in other words, just because someone goes to MIT doesn't mean they are necessarily bright.

    5. Re:Star Simpson by nbauman · · Score: 1

      If an international traveler went through the airport with such a device and didn't speak English, he could wind up in the morgue, if the Boston cops followed their protocol.

      A lot of deaf people were killed by cops because they didn't follow spoken orders.

    6. Re:Star Simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am no shill, I merely read the article in full and responded accordingly. I have no idea what you think I'm shilling for but that's not the issue here.

      The argument of the initial poster was incomplete. She had custom circuitry and an unknown, potentially explosive material, they inquired. She violated protocol and they responded, perhaps overdoing it but the principle is sound. Heck, seems like every other day on here you hear the argument "they wouldn't target planes these days, they'd target the security checkpoints".

    7. Re:Star Simpson by petman · · Score: 1

      Isn't one advantage of C4 that it can be handled exactly like Playdough?

    8. Re:Star Simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience many educated people believe idealistic nonsense like "constitutional rights" that they were taught at school, if they are the type that focuses all their critical thinking on a narrow subject. Then they act on those beliefs, which every now and then results in cases like Star Simpson's.

    9. Re:Star Simpson by Duradin · · Score: 1

      And then they wonder why they just got a lifetime dose of lead after pointing their super realistic replica pistol with lifelike muzzle flash and sounds at a police officer at night.

      Just because something is "your right" doesn't make it the smart or correct thing to do.

  28. Troll by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 2

    Look at the picture. It's a fingerbox. The student was clearly trying to troll the TSA.

  29. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

    You sound patriotic...perhaps a little too patriotic, comrade.

    --
    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
  30. I guess they saw The Manhattan Project Recently. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1
    Since the Manhattan Project has been around since 1986, they must have seen it on cable recently.

    Every high school has at least one student that builds a fully functioning nuclear bomb for their science fair project.

  31. Separate the components of your electronic device by dissipative_struct · · Score: 2

    So it seems that TSA Bob is suggesting that separating pieces of your custom electronics may help your luggage get through TSA screening. Since this device was found in carry-on baggage I don't know how much that would help. I often travel with custom and semi-custom electronics in my checked baggage and I've never had a problem (although I regularly find the "searched by TSA" card when I reach my destination). A couple things I do:
    -Put custom electronics in my checked baggage whenever possible
    -Put the parts in separate containers whenever possible
    -Separate batteries, antennas, and other accessories from the devices
    -Try not to travel to Phoenix (nothing to do with custom electronics or TSA, I've had two bags seriously damaged at PHX)

    Also, be aware that "rubber-ducky" type antennas show up as a thin metal blade/wire on x-ray. I've had my carry-on's searched a couple times because I forgot to put an antenna in my checked baggage, although it's never been a problem once I took it out of the bag and showed it to the agent.

  32. They played with it first? by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

    From the photographs, they opened up the battery compartment and poked around, before deciding the device was dangerous and had to be destroyed with explosives.

    If they were worried it was a bomb, why were they playing around with it first?

    1. Re:They played with it first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really have to ask? Because they are morons. I've read that several times TSA agents ask people to turn on their laptop or camera to "prove it's not a bomb". Well, if it happens to be a bomb, they've just killed themselves and everyone in that terminal. Do they really think a suicide bomber will hesitate in detonating a bomb if he's caught? Morons, I tell you.

  33. There has to be more to the story by Matt_Bennett · · Score: 1

    I travel with hand made electronic boards in my carry-on luggage on virtually every flight I've taken since 2006 (as part of my job), and I fly about 2-4 times/month. The only time my bag has been searched (triggered by the x-ray scan) was when I was travelling with a isolation transformer (about a pound of steel and copper). If what Blogger Bob is talking about was commonplace, I'm sure I'd at least have gotten my bags hand-screened a few more times.

  34. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by dcollins · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Can't blame Bush anymore."

    I blame Bush for starting this stuff. I blame Obama for not ending it.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  35. Another Tale of TSA by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

    Just in case you're not bored of them already, one I found in the comments to TFA: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/28773212/detail.html. Not only do they take a diabetic's insulin, they don't even manage to find all of it!

    1. Re:Another Tale of TSA by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      My last flight on the outbound leg I was questioned for 10 minutes over USB cables and saline solution for my contacts. On the return flight no issues... despite some "contraband" that I went to no great lengths to conceal. They just had an issue with my necklace that I left on going through the rape-scanner. There are some pretty easy patterns you can discern with all of this if you wanted to exploit the system; the same weaknesses that made the 9/11 bombers pick Boston for security still exist in many other cities.

      Now... my big issue is that the systems are a waste of money. If a plane can be brought down by some firecrackers, we are all doomed.

    2. Re:Another Tale of TSA by slippyblade · · Score: 1

      Last time I flew, I realized I still had my pocket knife on me. Take not that this realization was AFTER I was on the plane. Gotta love TSA. Jackasses.

    3. Re:Another Tale of TSA by Talonius · · Score: 1

      The last time I flew was when they confiscated my entire collection of medicine: 3 bottles of insulin (I traveled at the time for weeks at a time, sometimes two flights a day), Lithium, Zoloft, syringes, my glucometer, Adderall, and some Xanax. It came out to about $1,500.00 worth of meds. When I objected, they cavity searched me because I was "acting suspiciously". When they were done and I threatened them with a lawsuit, they told me they could put me away in jail for so long that no one would ever hear from me again and to "shut up and get on my plane."

      Was the last time I flew. The TSA can bite my ass, and if one ever tries to search my car (which they claim they can do as well; I'm too lazy to look up the link) while I'm driving it without a warrant, he'll regret it. I drive everywhere now - drove from St. Louis to Seattle for a conference. I trust no one. All of you have these pretty arguments about rights and whatnot; the shit that happened to me isn't going to happen again, and it isn't going to happen to my children. That's not a right. That's a goddamned guarantee from me.

      --
      My reality check bounced.
  36. How long before airports shut down intentionally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...this way? What better way to ruin an airport's bottom line than with a daily scare?

  37. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buddy Roemer - the republican even democrats should vote for.

  38. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by magarity · · Score: 1

    I blame Bush for starting this stuff. I blame Obama for not ending it.

    I think it's clearly Bush's fault Obama has to blame Bush for everything.

  39. And what would be the intelligent thing to do? by paulsnx2 · · Score: 2

    Why not ask the guy what it is. Let him explain why it is there, what it does. Maybe bring in someone with some engineering experience.

    If the guy is a suicide bomber, you are already dead. If he isn't, then you have every reason to listen to him. If you can't find any place for explosives to be hiding, then it isn't dangerous.

    Wires alone are poor indicators that you have a bomb. Thousands of times of devices have wires and are not bombs than devices with wires that are bombs. Maybe even millions of times as many devices as a TSA agent is going to encounter.

    Bombs can be made to look totally innocent. Even if you open them and look at them.

    The Intelligent thing to do is to do a bit of training as to what might really be a bomb, and who might really be a bomber, and how to call in someone to evaluate a situation quickly before thousands and thousands of dollars are spent and people's lives are disrupted by something that can be safely evaluated quickly by someone with training.

    1. Re:And what would be the intelligent thing to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't find any place for explosives to be hiding, then it isn't dangerous.

      That's what I was thinking -- I don't care what sort of electronics you see, if there aren't explosives connected to it it's not a bomb, end of story.

  40. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by wwbbs · · Score: 1

    So the terrorists have won it seems. I'm am effectivly tormented by my government and all The Luddites whom think the sky is falling. Gets self sufficient! Educate your self. Help a neighbor, help a stranger stop the terror! Stop the complaining and do something! >> Vote Palin 2012 Sure I enjoy the farcically parody of mature decision making governments! How about taking your head out of your backside long enough to realize that it's people like her and the tea party that make the USA look so damn bad. You just about flushed the entire country due to the Palin Tea Party radical's.

  41. On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the other hand, it does legitimately look like a bomb, or at least an ignition device.

  42. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your Palin comment, while designed to be funny, isn't. Have you even seen what she thinks of the TSA and all that or you just assuming? In the end, all you've done is proved you're even more shallow than she is.

    She believes all of THESE kinds of examples are nothing more than Politically Correct Security. The problem is that the LEFT WING handcuffs how we do things because it might "offend" the terrorists ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Muslims and incite them to commit acts of terrorism. So we pat down Granny's Diaper, confiscate Insulin, Fondle little kids and least ... smash a toy MP3 player.

    http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2630366/posts

    If you're going to criticize Palin, make sure it is legitimate. This isn't one of those cases (there are plenty to choose from)

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  43. don't warn me. let me warn you by decora · · Score: 2

    keep your fucking hands the fuck off my body.

    you do not own us.

    you are the government. you serve us. not the other way around.

    1. Re:don't warn me. let me warn you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      keep your fucking hands the fuck off my body.

      you do not own us.

      you are the government. you serve us. not the other way around.

      You don't have a right to fly.

    2. Re:don't warn me. let me warn you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I do.

      "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    3. Re:don't warn me. let me warn you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. Enron? Is that you?

    4. Re:don't warn me. let me warn you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your clock is slightly off. By about 45 years...

    5. Re:don't warn me. let me warn you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh do they? i've always been aware that the government only represents the people, and is thus bestowed with powers to regulate the people...

      they are the government. you chose them, which means you, in effect, must also follow them.

    6. Re:don't warn me. let me warn you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all are the government. We get the best government money can buy. Unfortunately, the average person doesn't have enough money to buy much. Only the rich folks do.

    7. Re:don't warn me. let me warn you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you don't.
      The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, an area under which a huge proportion of flights surely falls.

  44. in soviet russia, by decora · · Score: 1

    palin sees you!

  45. Terrorists by definition by ehud42 · · Score: 1

    Looking up the phrase "terrorist organization", it seems obvious to me that members of a terrorist organization were present at the time the kid's MP3 player was destroyed.

    And the kid was not one of them.

    --
    I'm in my right mind and I have the answer to everything!
  46. Looks like a bomb and you don't joke around at the by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Looks like a bomb and you don't joke around at the airport with stuff like that.

    There are sings there saying not to even joke about having a gun there.

  47. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    > Vote Palin 2012.

    I read that as Vote Putin 2012.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  48. The unabomber used wooden boxes If was a scanner by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    The unabomber used wooden boxes If was a scanner after seeing some like that would tell some one that I have some thing that looks like a bomb.

  49. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that Democrats and Republicans are pretty much identical, right? Please tell me you're not one of those people who are all like "none of this would have happened if the guy I voted for had been elected.

    Also, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, in the last election 'the other guy, that's going to fix everything' DID get elected. Yeah, see where that went?

    You have a two party system. In your last election, you could vote black option 1, or white option 1. Next time, you'll probably have male option 1 and female option 1.

  50. A bit of clarity there. by khasim · · Score: 1

    Honestly? As someone who has seen real improvised explosive devices? It kinda looks like one.

    More correctly ... SOME improvised explosive devices have home-made electronics as components.

    Others, such as the shoe bomber's and captain underpants', do not.

    Home-made electronics do NOT look like IEDs.
    Some IEDs contain home-made electronics.

    The difference is important when you compare the number of times home-made electronics have been mistaken for IEDs versus the number of IEDs that have been caught being smuggled into airports in the USofA.

  51. Re:Separate the components of your electronic devi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's an even better way of not worrying about the TSA. I don't fly.

  52. Not a science fair by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

    Geeze, talk about incompetent reporting. No, graduate students don't compete their research in "science fairs". It was a CONFERENCE. Specifically, a physics education conference: the 2011 American Association of Physics Teachers Summer Meeting at Creighton University.

    1. Re:Not a science fair by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess they did actually hold a competition at the conference: they have an Apparatus Competition, and the device might have been built for that purpose. It's not really a "science fair", though; the focus is just showcase classroom instructional equipment, not conduct scientific research.

      Anyway, to add insult to injury, I noticed that the article referred to the Ph.D. student as a "college student", as if they were an undergraduate.

  53. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    That was a real MP3 player.

    And no, I am not going to vote for anyone who believes the Earth is less than a billion years old.

  54. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Cosgrach · · Score: 1

    We live in a post-9/11 world.

    Yeah, so what? Fucking get over it!
     

    We have to forfeit some of our rights in order to fight the terrorists.

    That have already won. America is bankrupt.
     

    If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear.

    I fear nothing weather I am doing wrong or not.
     

    Think of the children.

    Bugger the children!
     

    Vote Palin 2012.

    It makes no difference who you vote for. The United Corporation of America is what really runs the country.

    --
    Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
  55. not just diy devices by belmolis · · Score: 1

    It isn't just do-it-yourself gear that can arouse suspicion. My Zoom H4N digital recorder has elicited attention from the TSA. The two built-in mikes at the front apparently make it look a lot like a Taser on the scanner.

    1. Re:not just diy devices by Bassman59 · · Score: 1

      It isn't just do-it-yourself gear that can arouse suspicion. My Zoom H4N digital recorder has elicited attention from the TSA. The two built-in mikes at the front apparently make it look a lot like a Taser on the scanner.

      I routinely fly with a Pelican case full of microphones. Of course the case is decorated with the usual backstage-pass stickers and whatnot, and there's alway a roll or two of gaffer tape and printouts of stage plots and input lists in there.

      The TSA people at PHX are always baffled. "What are these?" "They're microphones." "They don't look like any microphone I've ever seen!" Duh, you're not a professional sound engineer, so that's why you've never seen a Shure SM91 or Beta98 or a CAD E-100 or an EV 408. Sorry to burst your bubble, but not all microphones look like the shit you see on "Glee."

      So they have to search the whole fucking case every time, open up every pouch, and swab each one, trying to prove that everything is safe. Then I have to re-pack it all, because I don't want anything to get wrecked.

      What's funny is that the Boys from the 'Hood who man the stations at EWR see the case come up on the xray, and they always say, "ah, microphones! What band do you work for?" And I'm pretty sure that those guys would have no problem taking down any real terrorist who came through their security line.

    2. Re:not just diy devices by belmolis · · Score: 1

      The summer after 9/11 I traveled with a professional digital video recorder in an aluminum case that looked almost exactly like the atomic bomb in "Goldfinger". It just screamed "I am a tactical nuke". The screeners were pretty good about it, considering

    3. Re:not just diy devices by bytesex · · Score: 1

      Ah swabbing. I remember swabbing. I have a case full of home-grown mini-PC's, wires, a hub and two VOIP phones that I have to carry around a lot. Tons of fun can be had at airports.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  56. Re:Separate the components of your electronic devi by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Try not to travel to Phoenix

    That's good advice whether you're flying or not, unless it's January.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  57. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    That have already won. America is bankrupt and scared into luidicrous security theatre.

    FTFY
       

  58. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that Biden introduced a Patriot Act back before OK City, right? And Clinton was in charge, and did little to respond, to the Cole, original WTC and the Kenya bombings. Most egregious of all, Slick Willy signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act and sold us further down the river than Little G could have ever done with it in place.

    Want some citations? Piss off, do your own homework and get your head out of your ass. Just because everyone is picking sides doesn't mean you're part of 'the team', it means you are easily misled.

    VOTE OUT THE INCUMBENTS!!! Those who value greed over station deserve neither.

  59. Re:Separate the components of your electronic devi by dbc · · Score: 1

    Yup. I recently learned that ordinary 9V batteries are an issue. Normally I will leave consumer electronics assembled. But recently we were pulled aside because the 9V battery in the metronome in my 12yo daughter's violin case looked suspicious. The violin, on the X-Ray machine, looks unmistakeably like a violin. We've never had an issue with it. But somehow the 9 volt battery looks opaque and chunky enough that they dug things apart until they found it. So... I've added 9V batteries to the list of things to remove and expose. The mesh water-bottle pockets in the sides of backpacks are a good place to put things like that -- nothing needs to be unpacked to identify the opaque mystery-block.

  60. Re:The unabomber used wooden boxes If was a scanne by jd2112 · · Score: 1

    The unabomber used wooden boxes If was a scanner after seeing some like that would tell some one that I have some thing that looks like a bomb.

    TSA Training Lession 1: If it's not a flag, it's a bomb.

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  61. Pedos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can't expect good service from pedophiles.

    Legal disclaimer: I'm not referring to TSA agents in the above sentence. I would never insult these good people who defend us from rapists.

  62. Stupid Stupid Stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All I heard from this nonsense was:

    So, if you are traveling with a homemade charger, amp, desulfator or anything with batteries, screws and wires sticking out of it that could be deemed out of the ordinary, please tell us. It will probably allow us and the local bomb squad to help keep your items in one piece, not a zillion. Probably

    --

    In other words, minty terrorists, home vacuum mold your enclosures.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jOxhQ1lhV8

  63. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  64. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by spinkham · · Score: 1

    I miss candidate Obama. He was so much closer to my views on this than the guy in the White House now seems to be.

    --
    Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
  65. Context by pavon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, the real problem here is that the governmet has decided to take reasoning that makes perfect sense in a war zone and apply it to our communities.

    At places where IEDs are a common and real threat to soldiers, it makes sense to treat any jury-rigged wiring as a potential IED. In a country that has millions of people flying every year without a single actual incident of a bomb, it doesn't.

    Same with all the no-knock raids that end up killing innocent people. It is perfectly reasonable for the resident to have a gun in hand when responding to someone busting into his house at night. It is also perfectly reasonable for a cop to defend himself. The problem is the idiots in the police department that think it is a good idea have our cops act like soldiers in a war-zone, just to enforce laws which aren't a life-and-death matter.

    1. Re:Context by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Same with all the no-knock raids that end up killing innocent people. It is perfectly reasonable for the resident to have a gun in hand when responding to someone busting into his house at night. It is also perfectly reasonable for a cop to defend himself. The problem is the idiots in the police department that think it is a good idea have our cops act like soldiers in a war-zone, just to enforce laws which aren't a life-and-death matter.

      I can get behind this. Police should only perform no-knock raids when the people are suspected of being an illegal paramilitary group... namely, unless you expect to barge in there and shoot everyone on sight, don't barge in there without notice.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    2. Re:Context by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'm against them in all cases. If they think they need one, they should have somone in heavy armor knock. If somone shoots at them, then blow the house up (having a warrant to do so issued by the no-knock judge that goes along on all raids to ensure rights are protected). First contact should be without force, and escallate after that, never have the first contact be excessive force.

    3. Re:Context by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I can think of one good case for a no-knock raid...where there is good reason to believe there are potential hostages (who are not also likely accomplices). Other than that, I completely agree about no-knock raids.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's scary. I understand why they do it... usually because they don't want people destroying evidence.

      But let's just say they stormed my house without identifying themselves... by accident (wrong house, bogus tip, whatever). I don't know a raid from junkies kicking my door in, so I'm going to shoot, and I'm probably going to die when they shoot back. Equally tragic, is if I manage to hurt someone.

      They're a bad idea unless they REALLY need to.

    5. Re:Context by herojig · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, the real problem here is that the governmet has decided to take reasoning that makes perfect sense in a war zone and apply it to our communities." Good point, and this has been the case long before 9/11. Back in the '80s, during the war on drugs, my 6th grader wired playdough to a watch and 9volt battery and left it prominently in his locker, telling no one. During one of the ongoing locker searches, the "device" was found, the school evacuated + bomb squad called, and my son was taken to the police station where I had to collect him and his artwork. Land of the free my ass.

      --
      I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
    6. Re:Context by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      I can think of one good case for a no-knock raid...where there is good reason to believe there are potential hostages (who are not also likely accomplices). Other than that, I completely agree about no-knock raids.

      This. There are some cases where a no-knock policy is a good idea, but it should be expected that if you're asking for a no-knock search warrant, then you're basically asking for permission to go in there and potentially kill everyone inside that poses a threat, even if they were innocent.

      Doing it to avoid destruction of evidence should not be a sufficient reason, it should be that lives hang in the balance, and giving warning to the criminals will result in people's deaths. THAT is the only bar I'm willing to acknowledge for a no-knock raid.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    7. Re:Context by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      It's scary. I understand why they do it... usually because they don't want people destroying evidence.

      But let's just say they stormed my house without identifying themselves... by accident (wrong house, bogus tip, whatever). I don't know a raid from junkies kicking my door in, so I'm going to shoot, and I'm probably going to die when they shoot back. Equally tragic, is if I manage to hurt someone.

      They're a bad idea unless they REALLY need to.

      As I mentioned above, "could destroy evidence" isn't a good enough reason for me. There is a severe chance that potentially innocent people could die as a result of a no-knock raid, so "could destroy evidence" is not good enough. There have to be LIVES on the line. "If we give warning they could KILL people." Anything less is insufficient for the risk that the cops are assuming. Forget even guns, the residents could come at them with baseball bats, and tap-tap, innocent person down, and they didn't even pose a lethal threat to the officers.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    8. Re:Context by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I agree, the only valid reason for a no-knock raid is that lives hang in the balance.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy. I agree. I'm just saying I understand why they do it.

  66. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by cynyr · · Score: 1

    you mean Goofy would have done all of this too???!!?!! you forget we do have a write in space.

    --
    All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  67. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by djh2400 · · Score: 1

    this and this I see what you did there...getting "+5 Funny" multiple times for exactly the same comment, with one phrase switched around in the order, eh?

  68. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's things like this that make me wonder what we will ever do... Not profiling travellers is stupid. Of course we should, just like the cops profile, and lacking a profile, suspect blacks and Hispanics because, well, they cause a majority of the crime in some areas. If Muslims don't like to be profiled, I'd tell them the same thing I'd tell a black man: don't tolerate the bad among you and you won't be looked at badly as a race or religion.

    That being said, we're doing all we can to piss them off by messing with the middle east. The Right-wingers want to be reasonable here, but idiots with foreign policy and war. (and forget equal rights and freedom of choice)

      And what happens when the next dude to (hopefully only attempt to) blow up a plane is a white, Christian, Unabomber-type wacko?*

      (*that's a trick question: those kind of terrorists target govt. buildings, not planes full of innocent people.)

  69. This is one of those cases. by khasim · · Score: 1

    From that Twitter post:

    Law enforcemnt profiles individuals/suspects when seeking info 2 prevent or deal w/other crimes;Why can't this be done @ airports 2 prevent?

    No. Profiling is done AFTER a crime has been committed. And it is based upon the evidence found at the crime scene.

    And it gives you a location and a time to match the people matching the profile against.

    She is wrong because you would end up with far more false positives when you try to profile BEFORE a crime is committed.

    Not to mention that the real terrorists would be able to guess what the profile was and recruit people who did not match it.

    The problem is that the LEFT WING handcuffs how we do things because it might "offend" the terrorists ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Muslims and incite them to commit acts of terrorism.

    And your phrasing of that is the problem. You're conflating "terrorists" and "Muslims". Nice. So all that a terrorist would have to do to get through your profile would be to claim to be Christian.

    1. Re:This is one of those cases. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police profiling is done after the crime: intelligence profiling is best done during or before. It's the difference between the police and intelligence. Intelligence tries to find out what's going to happen before it happens.

      Posting anon because, well...

    2. Re:This is one of those cases. by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      You're conflating "terrorists" and "Muslims". Nice. So all that a terrorist would have to do to get through your profile would be to claim to be Christian.

      It's not to say that all Muslims are terrorists, but haven't all of the terrorists we've caught or looked into after committing acts of terrorism turned out to be following some form of the Muslim religion? It was my understanding that they only commit terrorist acts because they're being offered 72 virgins in heaven in exchange for their committment to the jihad. I should think that any group willing to commit acts of terrorism in the name of their god probably doesn't look too lightly upon claiming to follow another religion even if it is only a means to an end. Claiming to follow Christianity for any reason would be sacrilege and likely qualify for forfeiture of said 72 virgins.

      That's not to say that they couldn't change the rules to make it permissible; they wouldn't be the first religion to change the rules in the middle of the game. But with a group like this, with their heads this stuck in the sand with regard to the modern world and they way it's changing, do you honestly think they'd do that?

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
  70. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by AlgUSF · · Score: 1

    Palin sucks. Obama sucks. Bush sucks. McCain (while honorable in his military service) currently sucks. Boehner sucks. Reid sucks. We are in a country of >300M people and these are the best we can come up with.

    --


    I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
  71. Re: "without consequence" by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the real world, in the absence of government, I could walk up to you and smash you in the head with a rock killing you and then take everything you have without consequence. There's your "inherent" rights.

    That is only true in isolation; that is, only if you and your victim are the only people to witness. Otherwise, there will probably be consequences. Do that to someone in your same hypothetical absence of government in front of the victim's friends or family or other such group that we humans have evolved to form so readily, and I highly doubt that you would be walking away "without consequence".

    So called "inherent rights" and "natural rights" are not necessarily, clear, discrete properties of an organism or a person or however you are defining us. Rather, they are more like emergent properties that will emerge naturally from being the gregarious social organism we have evolved to be. Rights appear because of the "social contract" of being such an organism.

    And if you still think those rights are "inherent" then I suggest you take a trip to Somalia or Afghanistan or Syria or Bahrain.

    And if you think in such a place a person can do anything like you suggested in your hypothetical example, you are also much mistaken. There will be consequences. Take away someone's "right to life" and unjustly kill them in front of anyone, friend or family or other, who thinks fondly of them for feels you are being unjust, and you may just find there are consequences to infringing on someone's so-called rights.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
  72. What do you expect by Jeff1946 · · Score: 1

    If you were a TSA agent and overlooking something like this could cost you your job, what would you do? When my daughter flew to Costa Rica she had two Jaguar radio tracking collars in her luggage. We put a note by each one explaining what they were and a picture of a Jaguar wearing one the note had my phone number asking to please call me to get them if they wouldn't be allowed. As it turned out the xray machine was at the baggage check and I told the agent if there was a problem to let me know. Result no problem. If I were taking something for work I would probably Fedex it to bypass the issue.

    1. Re:What do you expect by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      You track Jaguars? Lame. I track Ferraris.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  73. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Don't even joke around like that. You're just encouraging the poop-eaters who actually believe things like you're saying.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  74. X-ray monitor false positives on IED devices by microphage · · Score: 1

    I didn't know terrorists used veroboard and what exactly was his science project meant to do.

  75. more please! by sixsixtysix · · Score: 2

    get more and more people to slow down airports with legal homemade electronics. it'd make me smile at the wholly retarded nature of the entire situation.

    --
    ...
  76. Re: "without consequence" by Fjandr · · Score: 1

    Yup. Doing what S.O.B. described is likely to get you forfeiture of your own "right to life" as the response to murder in absence of government is usually a swift death of the murderer if they're caught.

    Inherent rights are mostly just those things that are the result of reaction to unwarranted force being used against a given person. I work a plot of land and you try to take it, I'm going to do whatever is in my power to prevent that. You attempt to take my life, ditto. That's pretty much the beginning and end of the fundamental basis of inherent rights. Nobody who has a functional sense of morality is going to fault me for defending myself. That's what makes it inherent.

  77. Re: "without consequence" by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

    That is only true in isolation; that is, only if you and your victim are the only people to witness. Otherwise, there will probably be consequences. Do that to someone in your same hypothetical absence of government in front of the victim's friends or family or other such group that we humans have evolved to form so readily, and I highly doubt that you would be walking away "without consequence".

    So called "inherent rights" and "natural rights" are not necessarily, clear, discrete properties of an organism or a person or however you are defining us. Rather, they are more like emergent properties that will emerge naturally from being the gregarious social organism we have evolved to be. Rights appear because of the "social contract" of being such an organism.

    My hypothetical example was a simple one to illustrate that there are no inherent rights. You complicated the example to include society/government protection to illustrate that the inherent rights are not truly inherent but are a result of societal convention and the governments that, well, govern us.

    And if you think in such a place a person can do anything like you suggested in your hypothetical example, you are also much mistaken. There will be consequences. Take away someone's "right to life" and unjustly kill them in front of anyone, friend or family or other, who thinks fondly of them for feels you are being unjust, and you may just find there are consequences to infringing on someone's so-called rights.

    Since my hypothetical example was, uhhhhhm hypothetical, that is clearly not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that the "inherent" rights in The Constitution are not very inherent in those countries.

    --
    Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
  78. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by treeves · · Score: 1

    The best don't want anything to do with the political system.

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  79. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    I thought that was supposed to be Ron Paul, which worked until he spoke, then he was the Republican only Idiotarians should vote for.

  80. Don't Be An Idiot by vajrabum · · Score: 1

    The last time somebody seriously tried this (1861) about 500K Americans were dead back when the population was around 31M total. Most of them in the area that was in favor of the idea. Today the result would much likely be worse. Don't be a dead idiot. Even if you did win, you'll lose so much financially and otherwise you'll likely wish you'd died instead *and* the likely result in terms of rights will be you will have less.

    1. Re:Don't Be An Idiot by smelch · · Score: 1

      Dont' be an idiot, we don't have the backbone to fight a real war against people half the globe over anymore. We have reached a point where we can peacefully dissolve.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    2. Re:Don't Be An Idiot by operagost · · Score: 1

      It might help to have a righteous basis for the secession, instead of being able to keep human beings as property and oh, just for the heck of it, let's say we're asserting state's rights.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  81. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    The Left Wing wants to make sure we follow the Constitution, which isn't a concern for the Right Wing unless they are talking about one of the few clauses they like (the Second Amendment seemingly being the only one most of the time). Equal Rights and Due Process are hated by the Right Wing, especially when that means the Muslims get the same rights as white Christians.

  82. tsa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a free man in a free country. I will live my life and never read a blog to go where I like. And dont really have a problem killing those who get in my way.

  83. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    -Benjamin Franklin

    Palin is in idiot.

  84. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by wwbbs · · Score: 1

    Bush dug a giant hole. Not surprised Obama is still digging out of it. Too bad McCain didn't win so at least the responsibly would have landed on the right political party.

  85. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Fjandr · · Score: 1

    It's because the majority of people will not accept someone who is pragmatic and responsible. The majority (read: idiots) hate people who talk about hard truths and propose pragmatic solutions; they'd rather listen to someone spew bile and vitriol while hopping around like a chimpanzee on crack (read: Glenn Beck). The slightly-less-than-majority hate anyone who can spend the time to balance a checkbook and limit their spending to be something within their means.

    People in large numbers do not value truth or pragmatism. They value appearance and theater.

    Maybe after the next revolution we'll limit payment for elected office to be room and board at the rate of the national average, a limit of one term in elected office at a given level (elected to a national office? you can never be elected to any national office ever again...), dissolution of any corporation giving funds to any candidate, and no benefits continuing past the term of election.

    TL;DR: You have to be a piece of shit to win an election that means anything in almost every case.

  86. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by antdude · · Score: 1

    This is why we need other parties, who are against these things. It's pointless to vote. :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  87. Common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't expect experts but have some common sense. Reality is that something the size of an altoids tin won't take down a plane. They should know better. It seems everything is dangerous and have at least been trained on actual dangers. I'm not aware of any use of high explosives like c4 on a passenger plane and it takes a more gunpowder to do the same.

    The level of presumed dangerous is so low it's stupid. Scissors, tweezers, lighter, etc that could not kill a single person let alone a plane full. Should these all be fed-ex too 'cause it's less hassle? How about a pen? Next it will be my laptop and then we'll have nothing but mittens on.

    1. Re:Common sense by hey! · · Score: 2

      I don't expect experts but have some common sense. Reality is that something the size of an altoids tin won't take down a plane.

      Really? That's common sense? How could it be common sense unless the minimum size device needed to take down a plane was something everyone would know from day to day experience?

      Do you know what that minimum size is? Is it even possible to set a minimum boundary? As a data point, consider that Pan Am 103 was brought down by a mere 250 g of plastic explosive -- a small enough amount that it was disguised in the chassis of a portable tape player and stowed in a checked bag. There may possibly be more powerful explosives, and it is certainly possible to place an explosive more favorably than in a randomly oriented bag stored in an aluminum box in the cargo hold. That was a common explosive; it's believed there are explosives that are half again as powerful, although they aren't readily synthesized.

      As somebody who's messed with electronics I'd recognize an Altoid tin project for what it is. In fact I'd be *less* suspicious of an Altoid tin project than something like a laptop. Even so it's ridiculous to talk about "common sense" when it comes to bombs. Most people have never seen a homemade bomb in their life, and even those who mess around with them recreationally have no idea what somebody with relevant engineering expertise could manage.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  88. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by lgw · · Score: 1

    And of course Kerry wrote significant portions of the Patriot act itself. They all suck.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  89. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by captjc · · Score: 1

    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

    --
    Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
  90. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by mjwx · · Score: 1

    We live in a post-9/11 world. We have to forfeit some of our rights in order to fight the terrorists. If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear. Think of the children.

    Vote Palin 2012.

    We live in a post Genghis Khan world, we have to forfeit the rights to ride a horse in order to prevent another Genghis Khan from ever happening again. Slaughter every horsie you see, even if you think it's just a pony.

    Not American so I dont need to make some thinly veiled political statement.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  91. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    You do realize that the TSA was not Bush's idea, right? The TSA was tacked on to one of the bills by the Democrats and Bush was afraid that opposing it would hurt his re-election chances? Of course, Bush should have held out against it and he can rightly be blamed for not doing so.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  92. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    Please name one Left Wing politician who wants us to follow the Constitution?

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  93. Re:Looks like a bomb and you don't joke around at by __aajfby9338 · · Score: 1

    It doesn't look like a bomb to me; it looks like a mundane pile of sloppy hobby electronics. I recall other bomb scares caused by mundane and innocuous devices, such as an LED display in Boston a number of years ago. Such things are just ordinary everyday items to me, and to a lot of other people. How are we supposed to be able to predict which mundane, everyday objects might look like a bomb to some low-grade idiot who clearly couldn't tell an actual bomb from their own ass?

  94. The best way to protect the country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is obviously to hire Neanderthals to arrest 6-year-olds and beat shiny objects to a pulp.

  95. The players appearance wasn't the issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The kid was listening to Future Sound of London song titled 'We have explosive.' They read the title, and heard the lyrics, and knew they had their man. Oh and by the way, that is a kick ass song and all of its remixes. And I love FSOL.

  96. Does Anyone Know? by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if TSA has a prescreening or pre-clearing process, in which you can take an unusual device to them for inspection prior to baggage inspections so that they can inspect an unusual electronic device prior to the normal baggage screening process?

    I am in the process of building a single plane structured range sensing device, meant to be portable so that I can take it to various museums world wide to measure biological materials. Because it will be relatively expensive to build and may confuse some TSA personnel, who might mistakenly think it is in someway harmful to anyone, it would be desirable to pre-clear it with TSA so that I don't wind up either without my device at my destination or my device rendered damaged or destroyed.

    Any suggestions as to how to label it, document it, etc by anyone with a similar potential problem would be appreciated, especially those who may fly with medical or electronic devices of an unusual nature would be appreciated.

    1. Re:Does Anyone Know? by mhotchin · · Score: 1

      Yes - pack a gun. Really. Declare it, they will inspect it in front of you, make you lock it with a *real* lock, and nobody else in the airport is allowed to screw around with it. Put all the other stuff you want them to not screw around with in the same case.

      Doesn't even have to be a 'real' gun - get a starter's pistol.

  97. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I refute that. There is no Democrat in the White House. Name one liberal thing he's done.

  98. grad student, science fair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhh.. science fairs, in general, are for high school and middle school students. the big kahuna, ISEF, is for 7th through 12th.

  99. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by wonkavader · · Score: 1

    He's a Republican Manchurian Candidate. He would have said anything to get in. Now he's only got to say enough to keep a serious contender out of the primary. He's a Republican, and a highly calculating one at that.

    Either that or he's just about the most incompetent president in history. Much worse than GW, who wrecked the country but got his way in doing so.

    I'm really not sure which.

  100. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    Toy ... you missed the point of that whole sentence if you think I was talking about his MP3 player.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  101. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, first time I've seen racism go to +5.

  102. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The bottom line is that the political fallout of a spectacular terrorist attack is much greater than the dissatisfaction over TSA privacy annoyances. I'm not condoning TSA's actions, only assessing the political climate.

    Terrorist hijackings & explosions make memorable news and headlines. TSA's antics mostly makes for grumbles and funny jokes.

    Thus, the American people are largely "at fault". If we react to the shiny red ball, then the shiny red ball gets the political attention. Democracy in action. If a political party ignores human nature, then human nature will ignore them.

  103. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

    "Can't blame Bush anymore.'

    Why not? The Republicans just recently stopped blaming Clinton for everything.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  104. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by mr100percent · · Score: 2

    That's baloney. The American Muslim community supplies tips to the FBI leading to terrorism arrests, up to half of the recent US cases. Secondly, the latest cases of airline terrorism weren't done by Muslims; remember Andrew Joseph Stack? Thirdly, Israeli security knows how futile it is to profile only Muslims, when a pregnant Irish woman named Ann Murphy was caught trying to smuggle a bomb into Israel (her Jordanian boyfriend put her up to it). You HAVE to search everyone or else terrorists will know precisely who to have carry their bag in for them.

  105. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by mr100percent · · Score: 1

    Dennis Kuchinich? He carries a pocket-sized constitution in his pocket at all times (which he pulled out at the debate to show everyone). 2007 video

  106. Land of the FREE.... by Builder · · Score: 1

    And the land of the FREE^ and the home of the BRAVE*.

    ^Some terms and conditions may apply. Offer not valid in all areas. Tyrants excepted.

    *Brave - noun - North American Warrior.

    Time for a new anthem methinks.

  107. Clever move by Anon8---) · · Score: 1

    To trash something that looks like an explosive

  108. Re: "without consequence" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the hypothetical counterexample was one to illustrate where such "inherent rights" originate from. If you think you were misunderstood, think again. But now with more effort. "Inherent rights" originate from mob rule, because mob rule is the basis for our social constructs. Man is NOT a solitary animal. The fact that you think you are, because society enables you to live with very minimal social interaction, does not make you solitary.

  109. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Kidbro · · Score: 1

      And what happens when the next dude to (hopefully only attempt to) blow up a plane is a white, Christian, Unabomber-type wacko?*

      (*that's a trick question: those kind of terrorists target govt. buildings, not planes full of innocent people.)

    Heh. Heard of Anders Behring Breivik? (and no, his bombing of govt. buildings do not count - they were a diversion).

  110. Re: "without consequence" by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    My hypothetical example was a simple one to illustrate that there are no inherent rights. You complicated the example to include society/government protection to illustrate that the inherent rights are not truly inherent but are a result of societal convention and the governments that, well, govern us.

    Some people tend to think that the constitution is a statement of fact, in a similar way to a physical law. Others seem to think you have those rights in some kind of theoretical way, which is all fine and dandy, but if you can't exercise them then it's effectively the same as not having them. I can't work out which camp the person your responding to falls into.

    I was told at school not to use phrases (especially at the start of an essay) like "It is widely accepted..." "All reasonable people agree..." or "As any fule kno".

    But that's exactly what the writers of the constitution did - they even added in that God says so too. Brilliant marketing. It certainly has a lot more impact than "We think it would be nice if...", "Listen up. We think this is how things should be run" or "Look, we haven't done this before. Cut us some slack, d00d, it's still in beta..."

    However if you look at history, the majority of people have not enjoyed anything close to a modern conception of human rights. There is no agreement on what should be included and what shouldn't. Different societies, at different times, have applied different ones and/or only granted them to certain parts of the population.

    Seems they aren't as fundamental, intrinsic or universal as the constitutional literalists would have us believe.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  111. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    Dennis Kucinich voted for the individual mandate in Obamacare, try again.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  112. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other words, instead of blowing up home-made MP3 players, Palin thinks the TSA should strip-search all brown-skinned passengers. That's great.

  113. Re: "without consequence" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    And if you think in such a place a person can do anything like you suggested in your hypothetical example, you are also much mistaken. There will be consequences. Take away someone's "right to life" and unjustly kill them in front of anyone, friend or family or other, who thinks fondly of them for feels you are being unjust, and you may just find there are consequences to infringing on someone's so-called rights.

    You could say the same thig about a bunch of animals. If I went and killed a lion cub, no doubt it's mother would quickly reduce me to cat food if she caught me.

    I don't think that means the lion cub had any mystical "right to life".

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  114. Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you serve us. not the other way around.

    If that's true, then why does government need guns? They must be the first servants in history to point a gun at their masters' heads before serving them.

    Logic tells me that the master holds the gun (and the special "right" to use it not merely in self-defense but in offense), and the servant is the one who is disarmed (i.e. denied by law the right to defend himself against government).

    In conclusion, you had it exactly backwards.

  115. What does a bomb look like? by mangu · · Score: 1

    If you have something that someone thinks looks like a bomb, how is that unreasonable?

    I guess the TSA people should get better training than Hollywood movies to know what a bomb "looks like".

    If I were a terrorist intent on bombing something the last thing I would do would be to make my bomb look like a bunch of cardboard tubes with wires connected to a black box with a countdown LED display. I would make my bomb look like a pair of sneakers bundled in a jacket or something like that.

    Anyone who has the ability to make a bomb could make it look harmless, look how the Unabomber did it for instance.

  116. they arent doing only flights by decora · · Score: 1

    they are doing train stations, truck stops, highways, sporting events, etc.

    look up VIPR team

  117. Giving up on Slashdot, until... by justsayin · · Score: 1

    You know I was just about to give up on my normal daily check of SlashDot when I ran across this post by Soulskill. You sir have made my morning. I laughed my ass off and sent this to a bunch of people. Thank You!

  118. Re: "without consequence" by geekmux · · Score: 1

    Yup. Doing what S.O.B. described is likely to get you forfeiture of your own "right to life" as the response to murder in absence of government is usually a swift death of the murderer if they're caught.

    Inherent rights are mostly just those things that are the result of reaction to unwarranted force being used against a given person. I work a plot of land and you try to take it, I'm going to do whatever is in my power to prevent that. You attempt to take my life, ditto. That's pretty much the beginning and end of the fundamental basis of inherent rights. Nobody who has a functional sense of morality is going to fault me for defending myself. That's what makes it inherent.

    And what happens when that "nobody" no longer has regard for morality or common sense? I believe that is what has truly happened to not only our legal system, but our country in general. We no longer have a justice system. We have a legal system, written, approved, and ran by lawyers, for lawyers. This country responds to only those who have the power to manipulate it, which unfortunately, usually means greed rises above both morality and common sense.

    I guess what I'm saying is even your inherent rights are questionable these days, no matter how fundamental and basic they may be. We no longer live in a world that can dismiss ones actions, no matter what side of right or wrong those actions may sit. No one will fault you for defending yourself you say? No criminal charges were filed? Think you're free to go? Think again, here comes the civil suit...for nothing more than pure greed.

  119. win/win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, geeks should all *always* carry some Altoid project with them. Scarier looking the better. Two possibilities: it gets common enough that the screeners start to be able to tell home electronic projects from IEDs (WIN) or TSA keeps shutting down entire airport terminals and generally pissing everybody off until they're told to stop it or better yet get disbanded. (WIN).

  120. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope Palin gets violated by a rabid moose!

  121. Re: "without consequence" by smelch · · Score: 1

    That doesn't mean you didn't have the right, that just means people are violating them. Why is that so hard to understand? We have rights and nothing anybody does can mean it isn't a right (inviolable). By virtue of being men, we are entitled to a few things, such as life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. That, of course, does not mean nobody can enslave me without government, or government can not enslave me. It just means that I have a right not to be. The constitution says that the rights enumerated therein will be recognized by the government, and it will not make laws that are contrary to those rights. All of this other shit about what happens to rights iwthout govenrment are philosophical bullshit that are of no consequence to the question of "What are men entitled to?"

    --
    If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
  122. Re: "without consequence" by smelch · · Score: 1

    Seems you are of the opinion that rights have to be recognized, which isn't the case. I don't understand your viewpoint at all. The whole point of being intrinsic is that they just are that way, whether people recognize it or not. Are you of the opinion that somebody who is bound and gaggled their whole life has no right to be able to walk and talk, since they can't exercise the right? That's insane, shallow thinking. That person had those rights by virtue of being a person. The constitution makes no claim that it lists all the rights of a person, just the ones the government will not prevent a person from exercising. That nobody can agree on what the rights are does not mean the rights that do exist are not intrinsic, it just means we didn't see them for what they were. The constitution is our attempt to protect the rights of people. The more important part of the debate isn't whether or not the right to not be searched before travelling exists, the important part is that the government said it was one of the things it would not violate, and it did. It broke its own law, and at that point, what good is law?

    --
    If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
  123. Re: "without consequence" by operagost · · Score: 1

    It seems pretty obvious that the big three-- life, liberty, and property-- work for the unselfish. You can have all three without, as Jefferson said, picking my pocket or breaking my leg. Any "right" that requires taking someone else's life, liberty, or property is not a natural right.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  124. Did a 3rd-grader build that? by Smerta · · Score: 1

    The workmanship of that project was so poor, it deserved to be blown up (although it wasn't).

    My 9th-grade electronics shop projects looked better than that.

  125. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kucinich is one of the most left-Wing members of Congress. He despised Obama's compromise measure and wanted single-payer governmet healthcare, and voted for this as better than nothing. Maybe Bernie Saunders, Socialist party member from Vermont?

  126. Re: "without consequence" by Fjandr · · Score: 1

    Enforcement is questionable. Keeping your rights is ultimately up to you. That's not always possible, but you're never wromg to make the attempt.

  127. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both parties are incompetent or we wouldn't be in this mess... Perhaps it's time to abolish both parties, fire all the congress-critters, president, vice-president, and start fresh.

  128. Re: "without consequence" by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Inherent rights are mostly just those things that are the result of reaction to unwarranted force being used against a given person. I work a plot of land and you try to take it, I'm going to do whatever is in my power to prevent that.

    I'm a king/bishop, and you're just a peasant. I'll decide what's warranted, you scum.

    Nobody who has a functional sense of morality is going to fault me for defending myself.

    Unless they believe in monarchy/ theocracy, and that people should know their place.

    You're talking about absolutes, and yet what you say is only even theoretically true in a small part of the world, and has only been so for a tiny part of history.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  129. They shutdown the wrong agency by kehren77 · · Score: 1

    They should have shutdown the TSA not the FAA.

  130. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by geekoid · · Score: 1

    HAve you paid attention to the level, the effort of recourse? no. of course you haven't.

    And why do you thing the Dems have control of the house?

    also:
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20023476-281.html

    the issue is, we are in a no win situation. If the TSA'a responsibility is rolled back to pre-9/11 and something happens, even of the TSA wouldn't have caught it, it's political suicide.
    That is why removing the threat levels was such a political risky move.

    How many republicans have come out and wanted the TSA to stop.. oh wait, none.

    You are correct, it's not the simple; but don't let that make you think it's equal.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  131. Re:The unabomber used wooden boxes If was a scanne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, now the terr'ists are going to wrap an American flag around their bombs!

  132. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by geekoid · · Score: 1

    What right do you think you don't have anymore?
    Do you think that there has been anytime in the last 30 years that you have gone through airport screening carry a box with wires sticking out?

    Economically, the people for austerity suck; because history shows that they are wrong.
    What really sucks is you; because you go off oh knee jerk opinion and 'common sense' and never bother to read up on history, or facts about whatever situation you are currently complaining about.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  133. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by geekoid · · Score: 1

    The US isn't bankrupt, for craps sake.
    Again, something who has no clue about economics listens to the media and goes by that, fucking twit. The Pubs have been spouting that lie, and ignoring the experts. Funny how only shows that the puns attack with the ad hom 'liberal' are the only media outlets interview actual economic experts.

    We will be bankrupt if we don't increase revenue, but we aren't now.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  134. Re: "without consequence" by Fjandr · · Score: 1

    Many things have only been part of the world for a tiny part of history, and yet many of those are indisputably true when looked at neutrally. Just because an outlook is developed from societal norms does not make it valid. Many societies were/are indisputably corrupt and unjust. Those who support them and believe wholeheartedly in the application of their norms are still just as wrong when evaluated neutrally.

    Just because others believe the king can arbitrarily initiate violence, I am still perfectly justified in defending myself. Anyone who believes I am wrong to do so does not have a rational perspective. Perhaps I was stupid to defend myself, but certainly was not inherently wrong to do so.

    Overwhelming force does not make right, but pragmatism is not the point.

    In the end, it's a philosophical argument, not a practical one.

  135. This happened to me as well by Trixter · · Score: 1

    And the lesson I learned is never to bring your USB microphone with you in your carry-on. It turns out that TSA employees get a little nervous when the x-ray machine picks up what looks like a metal cylinder with lots of electronics stuffed inside.

    The microphone in question was a Blue Yeti, and the only reason I still have it in working condition is because I had it packed in its original box+styrofoam (they googled it and saw it was a legit microphone).

  136. Re: "without consequence" by scot4875 · · Score: 1

    life, liberty, and property

    I seem to remember that 3rd of the big 3 being "and the pursuit of happiness."

    The fact that you equate that with "property" really explains a lot about your political opinions.

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal
  137. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Yamioni · · Score: 1

    Makes me wonder if we could convince enough people to write in "No-one" if they would allow us to refuse to elect a president one of these times...

    --
    Cool post bro, highfive \o
  138. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by antdude · · Score: 1

    What would happen if that actually happened? Would there be no U.S. President?

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  139. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Yamioni · · Score: 1

    It would set a precedent for sure if it happened, and if they "allowed" it to happen they would most likely just follow assassination protocol. With no Pres or VP we'd end up with the speaker of the house in office as the president. Probably wouldn't make much of a difference, but it would make for one HELL of a political statement.

    --
    Cool post bro, highfive \o
  140. Re:In this post-9/11 world, we can't be too carefu by Cosgrach · · Score: 1

    Hmmm.. If I had as much debit as the Government, I'd be fucking bankrupt.

    Call me a fucking twit to my face, coward.

    I go to the Pubs several nights a week, and such matters I never heard over the pint. Not sure what 'Pubs' you visit. You must go to fucking wine bars.

    It's not that we need to increase revenue, but rather cut spending.

    --
    Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?