Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TSA's VIPR Bites Rail, Bus, and Ferry Passengers

Posted by Soulskill on from the give-the-people-what-they-do-not-want dept.

OverTheGeicoE writes "TSA's VIPR program may be expanding. According to the Washington Times, 'TSA has always intended to expand beyond the confines of airport terminals. Its agents have been conducting more and more surprise groping sessions for women, children and the elderly in locations that have nothing to do with aviation.' In Tennessee earlier this month, bus passengers in Nashville and Knoxville were searched in addition to the truck searches discussed here previously. Earlier this year in Savannah, Georgia, TSA forced a group of train travelers, including young children, to be patted down. (They were getting off the train, not on.) Ferry passengers have also been targeted. According to TSA Administrator John Pistole's testimony before the Senate last June, 'TSA conducted more than 8,000 VIPR operations in the [previous] 12 months, including more than 3,700 operations in mass-transit and passenger-railroad venues.' He wants a 50% budget increase for VIPR for 2012. Imagine what TSA would do with the extra funding."

17 of 658 comments (clear)

  1. Well, so much for... by Rinikusu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Take the train you unpatriotic, small-dicked paranoid liberal!"

    Yeah, we all saw this coming. Papers, please.

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    1. Re:Well, so much for... by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hate to sound like I'm channeling Ronulus Prime, but I really think we'd all be better off if congress just defunded the TSA and closed the agency. At least it would be cheaper.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Well, so much for... by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Leftists want to test the public's submissiveness to government intrusion

      ROFL! Which leftist was that who first proposed TSA? It was that famous lefty George Bush.

      Using terms like that make you sound like some mid-60's Fox News watcher who tunes into Glenn Beck's radio show on the way to Branson, MO.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    3. Re:Well, so much for... by interval1066 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The reaction of every government throughout history to radical or violent external threats, real or perceved, has been to prey upon its own people. Always."
      -Me

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    4. Re:Well, so much for... by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Bush was unpopular with a lot of conservatives" does not mean "conservatives would rather stay home and have President Kerry than turn out for Bush".

      I'm sure you did get a lot of crap for opposing the TSA, much of it from conservatives, but there were some conservatives who were very opposed to it. They just weren't the talking heads of the movement.

    5. Re:Well, so much for... by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who said anything about privatizing? Just terminate TSA and any program it currently supports.

    6. Re:Well, so much for... by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There standards might be higher but the real issue is we object to the activity, not to its poor implementation. I don't want to have to get a pat down before I board a plane, if its done professionally or poorly is not really the issue.

      The level of safety screening baggage affords is enough for me. I don't want someone to be able to take down a plane by throwing a box onto a conveyor; I'll pay for baggage screening in my ticket price. I am willing to accept, rather than try and control the risk someone is willing to commit suicide to take down a plan by boarding with their bomb, at least if the only available controls are as invasive as pat downs and naked pictures.

      Federal baggage screens might be better than private, I doubt it but do some trials or cite some existing evidence and if solid I'll accept it. I don't need my right to be secure in my person completely trampled in the name of safety; no matter if its effective of not; thanks.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    7. Re:Well, so much for... by Shihar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have a better idea. Let's segregate security. Split it up so that there are two types of airplanes and terminals you can enter. You can enter the terminal where you get a government sponsored freedom fondle and/or pr0n scan, or you can go into the one that has whatever security the airport feels is actually needed (probably a basic bag x-ray and metal scan). The only stipulation is that you must pay, out of pocket, at the security, the cost of the security. So, if you are getting a pr0n scan in the TSA run line, you see the price, swipe your credit card, and than get molested for freedom. No tax subsidies, you must collect the fee in a clear and unambiguous way, and only collect it from people who are actually using the security.

      Let market competition sort it out.

      Are people fucking cowards who piss themselves over a one in a few million chance of a terrorist blowing up their airplane and so are happy to pay for security theater? Or, once people see the price, can they control their coward's bladder and save a few bucks for the privilege of not being molested.

      I think what pisses me off about this entire thing is the cowardly way that Americans have responded to the "threat" of airline terrorism. Here is a threat of death that ranks well below slipping and dying by falling in the shower, and several orders of magnitude below eating yourself to death. Apparently, Americans being complete fucking cowards, decided to throw a few hundred billion dollars at this absurdly small threat, burned the fourth and fifth amendments, and voted in politicians who sooth their cowards fears with empty security theater.

      It pisses me off that I have to watch my tax money burned so that I can be molested to sooth fears of mewling un-American cowards. If you are a coward, do rest of the country a favor and stop voting, stop traveling, and be a coward quietly and privately. Far braver people than you have gotten their faces smashed in during civil rights protests by cops or gunned down for storming beachheads defending your liberty. The least you can do for these brave people that were not total fucking cowards is to either fuck off and stop traveling, or get a handle on your cowards bladder long enough accept the paltry and trivial risk that a terrorist might blow up the airplane instead of blowing their own dick off like the last one did.

    8. Re:Well, so much for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Umm...the other option is that the TSA is defunded and *not* replaced with private services.

      The US functioned for a long time without the TSA. I was around and remember what it was like.

      9/11 was a horrible tragedy but the whole concept of the TSA as a response was grossly fucking inappropriate. Remember when it was assumed this was the role of the FBI and CIA? Why do we need another agency?

      As far as I'm concerned, the premise of the TSA's operations is fundamentally unconstitutional. E.g., if you are searched there has to be a specific reason why you in particular are being searched. Not "we're groping around because someone somewhere might be doing something illegal."

      This is getting way, way, way out of hand. I don't *want* things to get worse, but between this, Oakland, all of the ridiculous IP crap going on (oh yeah--I forgot about how DHS is involved in felonizing what should be civil legal issues), I don't see how this could get better before it gets way worse.

  2. And? by revscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, honestly, what are you going to do about it? Complaining doesn't matter. The TSA will be here forever, and, as much as we hate to admit it, there is nothing that can be done about it. There is too much money involved, and contractors have vast amounts of power, much more so than any collection of outraged stories and messages on the internet does.

    Seriously, I hope the TSA is abolished tomorrow, or hell even five years from now. But honestly without fundamental, almost revolutionary changes to the way the US government works this simply will not happen. Money talks, national security lobbyists have TONS of money, and that's pretty much the end of it.

    1. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      easy answer: refuse the search. need as many people as possible bringing this to court as possible.

    2. Re:And? by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that Americans are taught from day 1 to fear collective action. "The individual is everything, all-powerful. You are the captain of your destiny. The collective is for pinko subversive socialist countries like Britain, who we pretend to be allies with but secretly regard as no better than Stalinist Russia."

      The IT industry is a classic example. Know of any major IT unions? No? Why? Because "collective rights" are somehow mysteriously "bad". Individual rights are ok, but the notion that two individuals might have the same rights and therefore speak collectively isn't exactly kosher. (That individuals can't protect said rights against corporations, patent trolls, government departments or anything much more substantial than a hamster, well, that's apparently immaterial.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:And? by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are the problem. Last time it came up for a vote, the Democrats were split roughly 50-50 on keeping the Patriot Act. The Republicans were in favor of it by an 80-20 margin. You have been tricked into supporting the very people who are hurting you.

      How can you ever expect politicians' behavior to change when you reward them for harming you?

    4. Re:And? by interval1066 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I, in spirit, agree with this. If enough people stand up to this kind of bullying, congress will have no choice but to deal with it. As a practicality however the people who will have the greatest effect, the VOTING public, will need to see abuses repeatedly, for quite a while, before they react. And this has nothing to do with people being asleep; this is beucase people are busy. Its kind of hard to stand up to an illegal, immoral, act by your government when you have a meeting to get to. But I beileve enough of this nonsense and it will happen.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    5. Re:And? by gizmo2199 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...the federal government is touted as the answer to all our other problems. Bad economy? Spend a shitload of tax money to 'stimulate' the economy (ignore the shell game aspect of taxing the same economy you're trying to stimulate). Problems with health care? Why, the government can fix this (ignore the death panels / health care rationing please)! Drugs a problem? No problem, the 'war on drugs' is surely going to fix everything! Some people are making more money than you? Why, that's not fair! We'll tax the rich buggers and spread the wealth around."

      I'm not sure if you're serious, or just trolling on a high-level. But, given the liquidity trap the economy is in, where no matter how low the Fed sets interest rates, banks still won't lend, the only feasible way out of the economic slump is government spending. After all, GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports).

      As you may or may not know, the first and second parts of GDP are way down. People are not spending money, and businesses are not investing. Moreover, businesses are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash. In such an instance more tax cuts or deregulation (which, incidentally, is what put us in this mess) will not spur the economy. So that, yes, let's tax the rich buggers and spread the wealth around.

      Furthermore, we already have government run healthcare: the VA and Medicare--for vets and old people. Not only are these services popular, their more efficiently run than private insurance companies, with less administrative costs. Which lead to the absurd statement: "get your government hands off my medicare."

      Excuse me when I say that I think you've been brain-washed by Fox News.

      --
      This Sig does not Exist.
  3. Re:Godwin time! by gewalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's see, the TSA authorization bill was sponsored by an R in the house a D in the senate signed into law by an R, became Federal employees due to a D advanced to choice of digital strip search or being felt-up session under a D administration.

    The pattern is clear, both major parties care little about personal liberty. Like you, I am surprised to see anyone thinks that either major party cares about the constitution anymore. The R's give more lip service to some parts of the constitution, may actually care about other parts of the constitution. The D's, not so much those parts, but they have other parts they like more than the R's.

    If I want to repeal the 16th amendment (the income tax), that does not mean I don't respect the constitution, I just means I want to alter it as provided by the constitution. If I decide that a don't like the 16th and refuse to pay income taxes, then it is truth that I don't really care about the constitution either, just the parts I like. It would be nice if people understand the difference.

  4. CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Nazi's didn't go this far.

    The threat to buses and trains can be effected from miles/hours away. Case? Stick a large, crooked wedge of metal on a train track to derail the engine. Cost? Almost zero. Effectiveness of the TSA wiping their asses on the Bill of Rights? Less than zero.

    Someday, they will tar and feather those who preferred a job with TSA, over panhandling.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."