Slashdot Mirror


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

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."

455 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 ichthus · · Score: 1

      Who you calling paranoid?

      --
      sig: sauer
    3. Re:Well, so much for... by lm2s · · Score: 1

      Leftists? Seriously?!

    4. Re:Well, so much for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The objectives of government are to perpetuate itself and to enforce the will of the elite. Defunding government is equivalent to denying a cancer tumor's blood supply.

    5. Re:Well, so much for... by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

      The TSA was an invention of the Right. Not to say the Left isn't perfectly thrilled with it. This isn't a Left vs Right issue, it's a bipartisan clusterfuck.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    6. Re:Well, so much for... by ichthus · · Score: 1

      Leftists. Seriously.

      --
      sig: sauer
    7. Re:Well, so much for... by roc97007 · · Score: 2

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

      Opposition to TSA isn't just a liberal thing.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    8. Re:Well, so much for... by ichthus · · Score: 1

      And the naked body scanners and gropings were an implementation of the Left. Not to say the Left isn't perfectly thrilled with it. This isn't a Left vs Right issue, it's a bipartisan clusterfuck.

      --
      sig: sauer
    9. Re:Well, so much for... by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 2

      "No animal shall kill any other animal without cause."

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    10. 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
    11. Re:Well, so much for... by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not by a long shot. In fact, I don't know a single person who doesn't despise them, and I am a conservative. Come to think of it, I don't remember ever seeing anyone on the Internet saying anything but negatives about the TSA.

      Why the hell it still exists is a mystery to me.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    12. Re:Well, so much for... by imric · · Score: 1

      It was in the beginning.

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    13. Re:Well, so much for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think he meant me. He's been following me around, I'm sure of it. Every time I look over my shoulder, I just about catch him, but he ducks behind something. Maybe if I get the TSA to enforce mandatory pat-downs on pedestrians using city sidewalks, he'll stop following me.

    14. Re:Well, so much for... by KhazadDum · · Score: 1

      I'm a pragmatist with a distaste for the mindless platitudes offered by many conservative talking heads, but for once, this is a solution that is better than fire! Defund the damn TSA!

    15. 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".'
    16. Re:Well, so much for... by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      Well if congress can't agree on budget cuts this will probably happen by itself.

    17. Re:Well, so much for... by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 1

      I have met (and actually dated one...god I have horrible taste in women) people that actually think the TSA is doing a good thing. They just don't think it's a big deal (the "nothing to hide" argument), and feel safer because of all of it...Trying to reason with them wasn't an option. These people traveled often, too. I never made an attempt to understand them, because they'd just get angry at me.

      But you're right, they are a minority.

    18. Re:Well, so much for... by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      I disagree. There were reasons why Bush's approval rating was low even amongst conservatives in his second term. That was a big one.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    19. Re:Well, so much for... by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1, Troll

      see? you racist, small-dicked paranoid conservatives think alike! imagine that!

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/17015914326/what-4th-amendment-indiana-sheriff-says-random-warrantless-house-to-house-searches-are-okay.shtml

      btw, i'm totally buying your purchase history from visa so i can anticipate where to find you in public again. p.s. a car almost hit you last time you looked over your shoulder, be careful there, bud! look both ways first, and then behind you! geez, you're no use to me dead...

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    20. Re:Well, so much for... by kd5zex · · Score: 1

      Why the hell it still exists is a mystery to me.

      For our safety, of course.

      But seriously, you would be amazed by how many TSA stripe-lickers there actually are. I estimate their numbers have decreased over time, but they are still are a compliant majority.

    21. Re:Well, so much for... by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      So.... she was ok with getting groped by strangers? That must have made for a fun relationship.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    22. Re:Well, so much for... by jandrese · · Score: 5, Funny

      You won't be laughing when a terrorist hijacks a train and crashes it into the White House.

      Or smashes a Ferry into Mt. Rushmore.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    23. Re:Well, so much for... by Gilmoure · · Score: 2

      If you can have them touch people as they go through every door way, starting with people's front doors...

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    24. Re:Well, so much for... by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      I'm suddenly envisioning a terrorist spending millions of dollars and enduring decades of political hearings to get permission to lay a rail line leading up to the White House, and the government being dumb enough to let them.

      It would be funny if it weren't so damn plausible.

      --

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

    25. Re:Well, so much for... by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      He probably wasn't strange enough for her.

    26. Re:Well, so much for... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Most people are programed to think the government cares for and looks out for them.

    27. Re:Well, so much for... by imric · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I call BS. If you said ANYTHING against the administration you got shouted at for being a traitor, for opposing the government in wartime. NOW, 'everyone' was against everything that happened in the Bush years (except nobody is supposed to remember the past unless its to complain about Clinton or Carter, of course).

      I'm old, but my memory isn't that bad.

      "There were reasons why Bush's approval rating was low even amongst conservatives in his second term. That was a big one."

      Yup that's why he got 51% of the vote in 2004.

      TSA was established after 9/11 and transferred to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003.

      So yeah. BS.

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    28. Re:Well, so much for... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Hell, Glenn Beck despised him. When Beck was giving Bush hell the liberals tolerated him. When Obama got elected they didn't care for him anymore. I always thought he was preachy and full of himself too much for me. Regardless though I agree with him, they both pretty much stink. It looks like Obama may get reelected though. The Republicans are trying to find the worst candidate possible to run against him. My theory is, the country is so fucked they don't really want the Executive office. It's better for them if Obama catches all the hell for it.

    29. Re:Well, so much for... by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Obama is leftist? Only in the USA.

    30. Re:Well, so much for... by onyxruby · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It only sounds appealing on the sound bite. It's like people who think that if we just got rid of the IRS that we wouldn't have to pay taxes. I contracted for the TSA when they were just being formed and got my share of experience with the screeners that came before the TSA. Let's just say the TSA's standards were /much/ higher than private industries standards.

      Private industry just might be cheaper, but this is one area where cheaper is not necessarily better. As a point of reference you can google places that outsource their police force to private industry and see how that worked out for the populace. Some things naturally lend themselves to be government work instead of private industry work and this is one of them. All that being said, if you don't like how they are doing things, than get the people in charge to make the changes.

      Personally I'm of the opinion we put Bruce Schneier in charge of the TSA and let him have his way with it. Get rid of the security theater and implement some real security in it's place.

    31. Re:Well, so much for... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      The Senate sponsor of the bill that created the TSA was Enerst Hollings, Democrat. And please note that when Democrats controlled the executive and legislative branches in during the 111th Congress, they still rubber-stamped the PATRIOT Act and only made TSA more heinous.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    32. Re:Well, so much for... by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      I was thinking more like, how does that work when they're out together, in a crowd?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    33. Re:Well, so much for... by HangingChad · · Score: 1

      they still rubber-stamped the PATRIOT Act and only made TSA more heinous.

      And if they hadn't the Republicans would have been running wall-to-wall commercials about how they were leaving the US vulnerable to attack. Fox News would have made it headline for weeks.

      You cause the problems and then blame the other side for the results. That's quite a racket you got there.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    34. Re:Well, so much for... by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      WWHHHOOOOSSSHH!

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    35. Re:Well, so much for... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting theory. If the Republicans are trying to lose, they're doing all the right things. The Republicans went in with several advantages, but it looking more and more like they're going to mismanage it into a second Obama term.

      I think the Republicans really do want the office but are so dysfunctional that they end up maneuvering the limpest, most wishy-washy candidate into position thinking that someone who stands for nothing will somehow appeal to all. And it only worked for them two terms in recent decades, and that was because against all reason, the Democrats had fielded candidates who were even limper.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    36. Re:Well, so much for... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I blame public education.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    37. 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.

    38. Re:Well, so much for... by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ok, first of all, I'm registered Democrat and voted for Hillary in the last primary. I then voted third party in the General as a protest vote because I couldn't in good conscience vote for either of the big party clowns. Ok?

      It's true that in the wake of the 9/11 hysteria the TSA had an entirely unearned amount of support, but it didn't take more than a couple years for that to dissipate. Towards the end of Bush's second term the TSA had grown to be generally despised by people of all political stripes. What's even more concerning is that with a liberal administration in charge, the TSA continues to grow in power and intrusiveness. This is not a conservative/liberal issue. This is an issue about government overstepping their boundaries. I have an idea -- let's stop yelling at each other and work together to fix this. If you could just get over your party polarity for a minute, you'd see that you had allies in what might be unexpected places. Or we could keep on blaming each other, but that's just what they want us to do.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    39. Re:Well, so much for... by eepok · · Score: 1

      The TSA still exists because while most people hate dealing with their security check points and infringing on liberties, most people have grown to be afraid without them. Assuredly, if they were removed from the airports, people would feel "less secure".

      Yes, FEEL.

    40. Re:Well, so much for... by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      the government cares for and looks out for them.

      Yep. Like cattle.

      And suddenly everything made sense.

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    41. Re:Well, so much for... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Mod him up.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    42. Re:Well, so much for... by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      No, he brings up a good point and it was worth discussing. If there's a perception that you have to be Liberal to oppose the TSA, then people need to start talking to each other more.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    43. Re:Well, so much for... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Wow, I hadn't thought of that. It *does* make sense.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    44. Re:Well, so much for... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the terrorist plots they stop no one really hears about because... well.. they got stopped. (I dislike the TSA as much as anyone, but I'm sure they've caught SOME terrorists, despite being terrible at their jobs).

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    45. Re:Well, so much for... by izomiac · · Score: 1

      And which leftist decided the TSA was not only something that should be preserved, but needed to be expanded? As I recall, they were much more liberal on 11/19/2001 than they are today.

      OTOH, erosion of civil liberties is not really a left-right issue at this point. Politicians tend to expand their own power, and government expands at the cost of liberty. Right now, right-vs-left is more of a choice of which civil liberties we'll lose first: Personal and some economic, or Economic and some personal. Or at least that's what I though, it seems like we're losing a lot of both lately.

    46. Re:Well, so much for... by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Conservatives apparently blame everything they don't like on the left.

      I, on the other hand, think that this security nonsense is just a BAD idea. However, you will find more conservatives that support it than progressives.

    47. Re:Well, so much for... by ryanov · · Score: 2

      I'm sure L3 gives a lot of money to both parties.

    48. Re:Well, so much for... by ryanov · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. It is about businesses that sell things buying their way into the government. You folks that think that the government merely wants to exert power are high.

    49. Re:Well, so much for... by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

    50. Re:Well, so much for... by Samalie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there was ONE thwarted terrorist attack by the TSA, you can be sure it would be ALL the fuck over the airwaves on how the wonderful beacon of security saved all our lives.

      The simple fact that there have been no such announcements in the wake of such intense public hatred of the TSA only solidifies that they've done fuck and all.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    51. Re:Well, so much for... by imric · · Score: 1

      So you only talk when Dems are in office. It all makes sense now.

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    52. Re:Well, so much for... by AaronLS · · Score: 1

      I just always wonder about the chunk of people who are initially zealously for something and then zealously against it later. They seem unaware of their stupidity and never learn from it. We expect ourselves to learn from the mistakes of others long past, but we don't even learn from our own personal mistakes that happened in our own lifetime.

      For example, I see people posting things on Facebook about "Support our troops, bring them home". Yet a few years if you spoke out against sending troops overseas, those same people would have labelled you unpatriotic and that you didn't support our troops. You couldn't have any rational discussion with these people about war because they were so zealous that being rational wasn't something they were concerned with.

      They basically regurgitate whatever talking points they hear on their news network of choice. The sheer stupidity of this astounds me. That they can arrive at completely opposite conclusions and not learn from their own stupidity or even be aware of how horrible it was for them to mistakenly attack their fellow Americans.

      It reminds me of Captain Hindsight from South Park. As soon as the ill effects of something they supported becomes apparent, they switch side and join the bandwagon of "should have"'s.

    53. Re:Well, so much for... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Ok. How does that change anything?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    54. Re:Well, so much for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      "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

      "Arrogant douchebags who quote themselves are destined never to be quoted by others."
      -Anonymous

      You just quoted him.

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

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

    56. Re:Well, so much for... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Me? I'm registered Democrat. I want Hillary to have the balls to run against Obama in the primary. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. What I'm saying is that conservatives and liberals have common ground against the TSA. Let's do something with it. Or is whether there's a "D" or an "R" after someone's name more important to you than getting felt up at a train station? You know, it's going to be bus stations next. And then automobile checkpoints.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    57. 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
    58. Re:Well, so much for... by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      You mean like everyone jumping from asset bubble to asset bubble thinking they're going to get rich this time, but never remembering all the losses from the last dumb idea?

    59. Re:Well, so much for... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      That's a good point.... I stand corrected.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    60. Re:Well, so much for... by Roberticus · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting point. I loathe the TSA, and their increasingly offensive gropings (now that I always decline their x-ray machines). But I'm trying to picture what I'd feel comfortable with as an airline traveler, on the spectrum from the current totalitarian overkill to no screening at all. Maybe bomb-residue sniffers and a check of luggage for guns?

    61. 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.

    62. Re:Well, so much for... by SethJohnson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem with getting rid of the security theater is that true security will be impractical for air travel to continue. What has been implemented now is an expensive, ineffective compromise between 'protection' and enabling air travel. The main result is the inconvenience of millions of people and the wasting of billions of dollars.

      Example: According to the TSA site, rules prohibit a passenger from carrying more than 100ml of liquid through a security checkpoint. I have no idea how much explosive liquid it would take to cause a serious problem aboard a plane, but I would assume a liter of something would achieve a terrorist's goal. This could easily be accomplished under current rules by having ten terrorists each bring a 100ml bottle of explosive fluid through the security checkpoint, then combining the volume once inside the plane. Even easier would be for one terrorist to simply make ten trips through security, each time bringing in another 100ml bottle of explosive fluid and stashing them somewhere within the gates area to then be combined into a 1-liter explosive bomb.

    63. Re:Well, so much for... by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the sequel for "Atlas Shrugged".

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    64. Re:Well, so much for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hell, Glenn Beck despised him. When Beck was giving Bush hell the liberals tolerated him.

      I listened to Glenn Beck during George W Bush's presidency and I never heard anything but praise and apologies. Liberals were pissed and marching on the streets. Beck was sponsoring pro-war rallies. I did some searches and the only thing bad I could find Beck saying about Bush was calling him a progressive. Which doesn't say much, he calls everyone he doesn't agree 100% a progressive. I'm not saying you're wrong or demanding links. I'm just confused how two people could see something so differently. Maybe he's different on TV? I only listened on the way to work.

    65. Re:Well, so much for... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I cause problems? I have voted for representatives from every party, because I vote for people and issues, not parties. I hate both major parties, in fact.

      Whoever shoots down the PATRIOT Act I would probably vote for. The fact is that the Democrats wishy-washed their brief majority and that directly led to their failure in the next election. They completely pissed away their momentum, and the disillusioned base didn't turn out for them as a consequence.

      And you still try to paint this as one-sided. Did you miss the part about how Democrats played an active role in the establishment of the agency in question? Democrats were pretty willing partners in just about everything for the first few years after 9/11. And let me tell you, fear of Fox News backlash is a bullshit excuse. If you have principles, you should stand for them. It's better to be a martyr than to collude with authoritarian douchebags just to keep your job. That's how every government crime against humanity has ever been achieved.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    66. Re:Well, so much for... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, exactly like that. :-)

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    67. Re:Well, so much for... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

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

      Is this what they meant by, "A long train of abuses and usurpations"?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    68. Re:Well, so much for... by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      I agree. Every single thing we have done in response to 9/11 has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are cowards.

    69. Re:Well, so much for... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

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

      Yeah, so what was the point of your post?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    70. Re:Well, so much for... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      You should have seen how poor the standards were for rounding up and killing Jews prior to the Nazis taking over. It's much better to have the government stomping you into the ground than some private industry.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    71. Re:Well, so much for... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      However, you will find more conservatives that support it than progressives.
      Okay, but I'd like to see a poll or something. Zero of the conservatives that I know, and in fact zero of the people that I have ever questioned about it are in support of the TSAs actions.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    72. Re:Well, so much for... by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but support for the TSA itself is broad based across party lines, albeit centered in the authoritarian wings of both parties.

    73. 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.

    74. Re:Well, so much for... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Congress had nothing to do with this. The TSA is acting all on their own now.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    75. Re:Well, so much for... by Cwix · · Score: 3

      Fuck the entire security thing, I shouldn't need to submit to papers and a patdown for traveling inside the country.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    76. Re:Well, so much for... by Cwix · · Score: 2

      Obama is about as left wing as Regan.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    77. Re:Well, so much for... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      VIPR already has a presence at bus stations. They aren't yet stopping private passenger vehicles, but in TN TSA is randomly stopping trucks. We already have the state police and CBP thugs enforcing checkpoints on the roads officially to discourage drunk driving and illegal immigration respectively, but unofficially they are dragnets for illegal searches and interrogations in the hopes of scoring drug busts or whatever.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    78. Re:Well, so much for... by Cwix · · Score: 1

      No, but I think the government is supposed to care about its constituents.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    79. Re:Well, so much for... by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      I used to enjoy visiting the US (from England), but I feel I am treated with contempt at the borders.

      For example, a few weeks ago I flew in via Washington Dulles. Out of the 20+ passport contro booths, 14 were open, 12 for US citizens and those with residency, but 2, yes just 2 for the rest of us (who outnumbered the Americans). It wasn't until every single US resident, including those from a later flight, was processed that the rest of us were allowed to use the now idle passport offices.

      Late last year I had something confiscated which I should have packed (my fault, entirely). I decided to surrender it rather than find the post office, re-queue and risk missing my flight. What sucked was the way that the TSA staffer was very happy to pocket the tiny swiss army multitool. I wish I'd broken off the blade so as to keep the item.


      What I can say is that at least the TSA are becoming faster/more efficient at their games. Flying back from Phoenix recently the staff were actually fairly reasonable, especially when testing my son's medicine.

    80. Re:Well, so much for... by ATMAvatar · · Score: 3

      I don't ever recall a public outcry for the new security scanners or pat-downs. As far as I can tell, this has merely been a long, downhill slope of politician after politician throwing money and rationality out the window to look like they are doing something in the face of 9/11. Now, you have security personnel in the top brass at the DHS and TSA clamoring for more power and money by concocting a constant stream of new and more invasive security procedures to justify and solidify their positions.

      I don't fault the American public for starting it all. I fault them for not doing anything to stop it.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    81. Re:Well, so much for... by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      to be fair, the real terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq think nothing of using women and children as mules to carry explosives and drugs, or use as suicide bombers.

      I'm not excusing or condoning the TSA's practices, but given their modus operandi is to screen random people, they cannot be seen to profile by race or ethnicity, so they treat everyone like sh*t.

      Proper security costs proper money as it requires intelligent staff, high quality information gathering systems, a level of alertness that's hard to maintain, a willingness to actually fix aircraft to be more secure (separate doors for pilot etc) and so on. Cheaper, as Bruce S. has pointed out many times, to maintain the theatre, and hope that the theatricals make the terrorists nervous so they become more visible.

    82. Re:Well, so much for... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Geeze... and this is the same administration that's running guns to Mexico?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    83. Re:Well, so much for... by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      Don't give ideas to Michael Bay.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    84. Re:Well, so much for... by ichthus · · Score: 1

      Oh, really?

      --
      sig: sauer
    85. Re:Well, so much for... by ichthus · · Score: 1

      Oh, so it's just about money -- has nothing to do with submission. I see. So, who lobbied the gropings, Penthouse magazine?

      --
      sig: sauer
    86. Re:Well, so much for... by digsbo · · Score: 1

      There's an ongoing public outcry, probably by about 3% of the population. It just so happens that doing real journalism that involved people getting a chance to have a rational dialogue doesn't get good ratings, so it's ignored.

    87. Re:Well, so much for... by digsbo · · Score: 2

      It shouldn't be a mystery. The Chertoff Group and a few other private agencies make huge money off forcing this shit on us. Do you think national security is any different from monetary policy when it comes to control by connected industry?

    88. Re:Well, so much for... by rust627 · · Score: 1

      "Walk you unpatriotic, small-dicked paranoid liberal!"

      Fixed it for you

      America, Land of the free ......... for now

      --
      da da da dum indeed.
    89. Re:Well, so much for... by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Dogs for explosives, firearms with rubber bullets for pilots. Most of them have military training anyway, and they are already entrusted with the safety of thousands of people a year and millions worth of hardware so the "responsibility" part of determining use-of-force is probably a lot higher than most people in actual law enforcement.

      Aside from that, not much is necessary to actually prevent a hijacking or a plane from being downed from the inside.

    90. Re:Well, so much for... by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, they're incompetent enough that they may have accidentally thwarted a terrorist threat but had absolutely no idea they had done so. I mean, it could have happened...

    91. Re:Well, so much for... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      You won't be laughing when a terrorist hijacks a train and crashes it into the White House.

      "FBI Agents found a copy of Rollercoaster Tycoon on a laptop, which was described as a 'terrorist train crashing simulator'."

    92. Re:Well, so much for... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I'm a Republican, and I'd vote for Hillary over any of the jackanapes the Republican party is putting up. They have a great farm team and they keep ditching it for weak candidates. I'd feel bad about it, except that the D pick of Obama over Hillary in '08 was so mind-bogglingly stupid that your side must be just as bad as mine ;)

    93. Re:Well, so much for... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      because every politician is afraid that once they close it, there will be an attack and they'll get ALL the blame.

    94. Re:Well, so much for... by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

      I saw that movie! And it's almost the Fifth of November!

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
    95. Re:Well, so much for... by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      they still rubber-stamped the PATRIOT Act and only made TSA more heinous.

      And if they hadn't the Republicans would have been running wall-to-wall commercials about how they were leaving the US vulnerable to attack. Fox News would have made it headline for weeks.

      Yup, I can picture the scene in Democrat party headquarters: "Thank god, at last we can repeal the notoriously tyrannical PATRIOT Act. But wait - oh noez! Our political opponents are going to say bad things about us! We can't let that happen - it seems we have no choice but to vote for tyranny."

    96. Re:Well, so much for... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re: If you don't like the "patdown for traveling inside the country"
      First you will be taken aside so other people can keep moving.
      They might take you to a small room for a very long talk about your papers and any cash/tech you have on you.
      Then you go to a very small room for an internal exam and get to learn about dna.
      "i.e. Big Bob's coming in to give you .... pain compliance - joint pain, electroshock, pepper spray ect.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    97. Re:Well, so much for... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Most of what I saw was when Bush started bailing out banks saying they were too big to fail. It set him off just like it would pretty much any libertarian. Of course that was a BiPartisan thing too. Money talks.

    98. Re:Well, so much for... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      ah yes... and Obama has had plenty of time by now to have disbanded them... sadly, it seems both sides want more of this shit...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    99. Re:Well, so much for... by f16c · · Score: 1

      "You won't be laughing when a terrorist hijacks a train and crashes it into the White House.

      Or smashes a Ferry into Mt. Rushmore."

      How do you smash a boat into Mount Rushmore?
      As to the first point: I would not be surprised since the agency seems reactive in the extreme. They have become very good at reacting to the last attack rather than working on ways to protect us from the next wave of reasonably creative terrorists.

      --
      bob@Osprey:~>
    100. Re:Well, so much for... by f16c · · Score: 1

      "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

      This, Citizen, is how World Federal Government is Protecting You!
      Would you like to know More?

      --
      bob@Osprey:~>
    101. Re:Well, so much for... by Shihar · · Score: 1

      One reinforced cockpit door and one group of pissed passengers has proven to be 100% effective. As a bonus, because the cowards will be getting their TSA mandate freedom fondle, the non-cowards planes will be filled with, well, non-cowards. A couple hundred non-cowards are by far the best weapon against anyone dumb enough to try and hijack a plan post 9/11. Personally, I would feel vastly safer on a plan where I know everyone around me is not coward enough to go pay extra for a government designed freedom fondle.

      The idea of being on an airplane filled with mewling cowards when 5 terrorist pull sheathed ceramic blades literally out of their ass is by far the scarier situation, because I know all of the people around me are chicken shit wastes of humans, and if they can't feel safe enter an airplane with a good solid molesting from a government bureaucrat, they sure as shit are not going to join a charge to kick the shit out of some hijackers.

    102. Re:Well, so much for... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      None of this shit would be occurring if the best male genetic meterial hadn't been thrown away in two world wars

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    103. Re:Well, so much for... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      So long as the majority of Americans blames the other half of the political spectrum for their ills it will just get worse. i don't think you guys have seen anything yet and i am from Souh Australia where they can tell you which friends you are allowed to have.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    104. Re:Well, so much for... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      I blame public education.

      Because, of course, private education in schools usually based around religious dogma, military-style discipline, or the glorification of socioeconomic class hierarchies, produce such better results.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    105. Re:Well, so much for... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      You're barking up the wrong tree. My daughter was homeschooled. Her tutor was as militantly atheist a person as you're likely to meet.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    106. Re:Well, so much for... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Heck, even without the reinforced door, the "take over the airplane" tactic stopped working during 9/11. It didn't even work for one full day. I like the reinfoced doors, but the evidence shows not even that was necessary to avoid a repeat.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    107. Re:Well, so much for... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      So you have been sucessfully terrorised. Well done letting the terrorists win.

    108. Re:Well, so much for... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      From South Australia myself, what the hell are you talking about? If it is the bikie laws then you should give the whole picture rather than defining the whole state by laws designed to effect only a few. Do try to spell and capitalise properly, we don't want the seppos thinking our english is as bad as theirs!

    109. Re:Well, so much for... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Jeez mate. The call on my spelling/capitalisation is a bit pedantic isn't it? You need to actually read the legislation and then you will see that it can be used against anyone so long as they can frame them as unrepentant criminals. Serial 'trespassers' like the members of an occupyAdelaide movement could even be hit with this legislation. It's a very slippery slope. I apologise in advance for any dumbiness in my previous sentences. BTW where in SA are you?

      Seppo should be capitalised

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    110. Re:Well, so much for... by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Probably the reason is to have an equally unpleasant alternative to the machines, which comes out of the same question. Maybe some individual line employees or lower level supervisors get off on ordering people around, but you're honestly telling me you think there are people in government who get a kick out of making people bend to their will? This isn't a comic book -- follow the money.

    111. Re:Well, so much for... by ryanov · · Score: 1

      It's accurate? I think accuracy is important. And it more correctly identifies the problem so that one would know what to do about it. Now HOW to get that fixed is a question. If business is buying off your politicians, how do you get them to pass laws against that... other than an educated public. And, well, our public is filled with people who think that the very idea of government is evil and we should all hide in our basements or buy guns because Obama is trying to destroy the country.

    112. Re:Well, so much for... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      I see you lack self introspection, bend over and let my boot fix that for you...

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  2. Godwin time! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    Still think either of the two main parties in this nation are different from the Nazi's in way other than the groups they target?

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Godwin time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes I do. Their suits aren't as snazzy.

    2. Re:Godwin time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      If we have to submit to random patdowns and searches everytime we leave our house, why can't we at least have mass rallies with impressive synchronized gymnastics and military parades with bad-ass goosestepping soldiers too?

      If we have to have a totalitarian state, why don't we at least get the cool parts too?

    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. Re:Godwin time! by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      both major parties care little about personal liberty

      I'd say that are very concerned about it. Just not in a good way.

      If I want to repeal the 16th amendment (the income tax)

      The income tax was legal before the 16th amendment. But the 16th amendment removes considerations related to direct taxes, which had stymied the federal government when it came to collecting taxes on income derived from rent.

    5. Re:Godwin time! by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      The pattern is clear, both major parties care little about personal liberty.

      No, it's simpler than that. Most people, of either party, are concerned about looking like they don't care about the safety of the public so they "do something", even if it is a bad something. The "experts" say "do this, it will keep people safe", so they do.

      The desire not to be viewed as the cause or reason for another aircraft full of people rammed into a major office building, or another Lockerbie, is a strong motive, and it really has nothing to do with caring about personal liberty. It has a lot to do with the adversarial nature of partisan politics and the fodder that voting against a "keep people safe" measure would give to the opponent if anything happened.

      And you know what? The fact that the vast majority of people still fly is a sign to them that they did something and it wasn't that bad. Actions speak louder than words, and a few screaming activitists complaining about "personal liberty" are a lot fewer "actions" than the lines of people who still fly.

    6. Re:Godwin time! by Adriax · · Score: 1

      Plus the nazis valued science much more than we do currently.
      Research today with the same backing and intensity as they had back in WWII would give us rainguns and man portable laser rifles in a year.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    7. Re:Godwin time! by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Their in my back pocket.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    8. Re:Godwin time! by mholda · · Score: 1

      Plus the nazis valued science much more than we do currently. Research today with the same backing and intensity as they had back in WWII would give us rainguns and man portable laser rifles in a year.

      Rainguns? Aren't Super Soakers good enough?

    9. Re:Godwin time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's just it, you don't have to submit. I'm convinced that they will IMMEDIATELY be smacked down by a court challenge, but in order to have standing in court you have to have been damaged by the actions of the TSA. So if they want to pat you down, you simply refuse and walk the hell away. If they tackle you and arrest you beat you up, whatever, ALL of it is unjustified if they had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause in the first place. Can you say 7 figure settlement?

    10. Re:Godwin time! by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 2

      Alot of people still fly today because that mode of transportation is almost essential to the way business is done globally and even nationally now. Business and even vacations have changed and evolved to welcome being able to travel vast distances at great speeds. I don't think it is possible for a great number of people to stop flying. Though I will often choose not to fly if I can. Like when I traveled to Boston I took the train instead of flying, but I am under no impression that a boycott of air travel is even possible in modern society.

      I think that the activists and boycotting with our votes is the best way to achieve the change we need.

    11. Re:Godwin time! by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Maybe its time for a new version...

      As the number of years that a government continues to wield power increases, the odds of them beginning to act like the Nazi's approaches 1.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    12. Re:Godwin time! by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      We have railguns. The Navy is developing them. Some time in the next decade, decade and a half, or thereabouts, they intend to have railguns for a (likely new, possibly retrofitted) class of ships. 64 GW railguns. GIGAWATTS! that's enough to send 35 delorians back in time, with every shot!

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    13. Re:Godwin time! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Still think either of the two main parties in this nation are different from the Nazi's in way other than the groups they target?

      Quite so - Nazis had, at least, built a decent social welfare net for those citizens who matched their racial criteria.

  3. This is out of control by fredrated · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We have become consumed by the fear of a mosquito bite, are we going to continue to give up our freedom for what amounts to a non-issue?

    1. Re:This is out of control by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. Those otherwise-unemployable troops overseas have to do something for a living when they come home, right? You don't want angry goons with PTSD, who had to watch their buddies be turned into hamburger for oil and big business, having too much idle time on their hands being unable to care for their families. Better to continue to pay 'em to take their primitive aggression out on those pinko peaceniks and marijuana joints.

      The irony is that the DHS labelled that same demographic a potential terrorist threat, causing an uproar.

    2. Re:This is out of control by jd · · Score: 1

      Well, the alternative is to make them patent lawyers.

      --
      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:This is out of control by imric · · Score: 2

      Now THAT would be fun to watch.

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    4. Re:This is out of control by tiberus · · Score: 2

      I don't feel any safer, I just feel completely annoyed. Annoyed that just because the Blue Angels are in the air, I can't be processed through security; annoyed that the TSA agent telling me to take my ID out of my wallet ("I forgot, ever forget? Happened to me" ~Ron White) can't say please, or at least not have an attitude, not slouch etc.; annoyed that security gates are too often, although not always, understaffed for the amount of traffic passing through them. Honestly I think I felt safer when you could walk down to the terminal and sit with you family while you waited for the plane. Lastly, the TSA seems to have never realized, they are in a service industry are we are not an imposition to their day, we are the reason for their day.

    5. Re:This is out of control by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      "We shall defend our homeland, whatever the budget may be. We shall fight in the airport security lines, we shall fight in the bus terminals, we shall fight in the train stations and in the subway stations, we shall fight at the public sporting events."

    6. Re:This is out of control by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It should be noted that that part of thing isn't going to plan: A number of returning US Marines have volunteered to help protect Occupy protesters from the police.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:This is out of control by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm guessing you know very few former military personnel. Not a lot of cop types in the bunch.

      Personal theory follows, ignore, comment, whatever. This is just a musing on general trends.
      I've known a handful of cops. Their reasons for becoming one are varied, but the one constant is a rules-based view of the world. There are rules, and if you break the rules, you must be punished. The soldiers I've known tend to be more focused on harm: if you broke the rules, but nobody got hurt, then let it slide; conversely, if you followed the letter of the law but ended up fucking people over, they'd as soon kill you as look at you.

      Cops can't really be any other way, because we can't let law enforcement be completely whimsical and subjective. But I know which group of people I'd rather hang out with.

    8. Re:This is out of control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is it sad I trust a marine more than a cop?

      No.

      I'm an honorably discharged Marine, if there's ever a revolution in this country most of us would probably side with the people. I would take bullets for you and your family.

    9. Re:This is out of control by digitrev · · Score: 1

      Really? Honourable discharge means that he left in good standing with the Marines. He probably left when his service was done, and decided not to re-up.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    10. Re:This is out of control by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      The size of the TSA is less than 60,000 employees. Vets include less than a quarter of their frontline workforce, the people actually doing the screening, and I doubt that much of their management is composed of ex soldiers. The number of people that leave the US Army each year is 11,000. Figure at least double that for all branches of service, possibly as much as triple. So less than half of the number of people that leave the US military each year is the total number of vets employed by the TSA. Therefore your comment makes as much sense as Wookies on Endor.

    11. Re:This is out of control by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2

      We're not talking about just the TSA here - we're talking about the entire DHS which includes the TSA, Border Partol, and ICE and customs. The border patrol already have checkpoints up to 100 miles inland.

      Have you ever driven through them? I do on a regular basis. I get eyefucked, questioned up the wazoo, pulled to secondary, and sniffed up and down with dogs even though there is nothing suspicious about me or my vehicle(of which I am obviously the only occupant).

      Do you know that ICE/Customs is actively redirecting from websites and prosecuting music and other copyright piracy? Do you think that ICE, Immigration and Customs, was originally meant to troll P2P sites to prosecute child porn?

      How do you feel about Fusion Centers? And that's just the DHS. The law enforcement and private security corporations(and their crooked, paid snitches) are collecing intel on discontents like you and I, when before they'd just drive the beat and arrest anybody behaving blatantly stupid. The new threat is mission creep, plain and simple.

      Also, replying to dkleinsc above - There are a group of Marines who support the people. That's great. My heart goes out to them as well as the brave Marine who recently took that ruthless beating. But how many military or ex-military personnel(or just plain ultraconservative creeps) are still dismissing Americas discontents as a bunch of "rich liberal pot-smoking bongo-beating hippie faggots?" I live in San Diego, one of the largest military areas in the country. What I see from the military kind is not very reassuring at all.

    12. Re:This is out of control by alexo · · Score: 2

      I've known a handful of cops. Their reasons for becoming one are varied, but the one constant is a rules-based view of the world. There are rules, and if you break the rules, you must be punished.

      (emphasis mine).

      It's funny that cops don't have an problems breaking the rules themselves or letting their buddies do it.
      It's not about rules, it's about power.

    13. Re:This is out of control by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      There where two guys in my form(class) at high school that got picked on fairly regularly. Nothing violent just verbal snubs and the like. They were the only two members of the group that became cops and boy did they lord it over people who hadn't treated them right.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  4. our homes? by stanlyb · · Score: 1

    Maybe they will search us when we leave our home? Is there any option to refuse to be patted down? Or they will get in my home while we sleep and.....search us....

  5. This makes my skin crawl by 1_brown_mouse · · Score: 2

    This is contrary to everything I believe in.

    1. Re:This makes my skin crawl by liquidweaver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Me too. This is pretty far removed from the Land of the Brave I pledged allegiance to in gradeschool. I fear for my children and especially my grandkids. I am honestly worried.

      --
      mov ah, 4ch
      int 21h
    2. Re:This makes my skin crawl by toriver · · Score: 2

      Pledge change to "With freedom and pat-downs for all" in 3... 2... :)

    3. Re:This makes my skin crawl by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is pretty far removed from the Land of the Brave I pledged allegiance to in gradeschool

      You pledged allegiance to a flag, actually. What most people do not know is that the original solute during the pledge was to extend your right hand, like these children (note that this was taken in 1941):

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:This makes my skin crawl by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      I did not know that. That is hilarious :D

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    5. Re:This makes my skin crawl by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation...

      So yes he did pledge to the flag but also to the nation, if you are going to get technical on us do it correctly.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  6. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You (in the collective sense of "people who share your opinions") have tons of money as well. The difference is how you have chosen to use your money.

      The national security lobbyists have chosen to use their money, time, and influence to help establish their favorite system of government.

      On the other hand, you have chosen to spend your time and influence telling people on your side who ARE trying to fix the problem that they are wasting their efforts. God only knows what you're spending your money on, but I bet it isn't on fighting the national security lobbyists you claim to disagree with.

    3. Re:And? by ErikZ · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I joined the Tea Party.

      However, your plan of giving up might work.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    4. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, I agree complaining does nothing. Yet your defeatist attitude somehow manages to do even less.

    5. 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)
    6. 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?

    7. Re:And? by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean the republican party? Last I checked the tea party had been co opted by them.

    8. Re:And? by Starboyforever · · Score: 2

      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.

      I'm sorry, but I couldn't help reading this in Bill Pullman's voice from Aliens. Fact: Politicians want more than anything else to keep their jobs. If they honestly feel like they need to throw the TSA under a bus to do that they won't bat an eye. As long as their job comes down to voter approval, "we the people" still hold all the cards. It's just a matter of us getting our shit together and letting them know what they HAVE to do.

    9. Re:And? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Until the general population believes and understands that this doesn't do a damned thing, nothing will change. Wishing for some nonsensical and nonexistent "revolution" won't really help matters.

      However, I find it hard to blame people for this, when 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.

      Why do you expect people to think that the government shouldn't "fix" the problem of internal security just like it "fixes" every other problem?

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    10. 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".'
    11. Re:And? by Petron · · Score: 1

      The Democrats had a super-majority from 2008-2010, they could of removed it, and the Patriot Act is set up to auto-expire UNLESS Congress passes a bill to extend it. Even if the Legislative branch passed, it, Obama could of had it sit on his desk until it expired... but he made an emergency call (he was on vacation-surprise I know!) to have the bill auto-penned and passed.

      Didn't Obama pledge that he would end the Patriot Act?

      --
      if (it != oneThing) it = another;
    12. Re:And? by Darinbob · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't always agree with the Tea Party goals but I will give them a lot of credit for not being the sorts who just go along with whatever the Republican Party says. So if you want Republicans not stop being 80-20 in favor of intrusive security over fear of terrists, then the Tea Party would help with that goal. One trick to assist is to stop lumping them all together with the wingnuts.

    13. Re:And? by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a Democrat, who votes for Democrats, who also voted in the Patriot Act.

      Of course, the Republican administration using fear mongering of "we need this to fight the turrrists, or we'll have a new 9/11!" had absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats voting in favor of it, right?

      Shall we blame more victims of fraud for the wrongful acts of those who lied to them?

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    14. 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.
    15. Re:And? by interval1066 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, he means both sides of the isle, but the democrats by far held sway with the various bills that made up the patriot act and led to the creation of the TSA: "The first bill proposed was the Combating Terrorism Act of 2001, which was introduced by Republican Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) with Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on September 13..." and "The Intelligence to Prevent Terrorism Act was introduced to the Senate on September 28 by Senators Bob Graham (D-FL) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)." (wikipedia)

      Note that Fienstien and heckle, jeckle, and Chuck of New York figured prominantly in this legislation.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    16. Re:And? by PoopMonkey · · Score: 1

      I'm speaking for myself here, but I'd say there are no major IT unions because most people in IT just want to get their shit done without having to worry about if their action will stray from union regulations. It's bad enough dealing with the PHBs to replace a 10 year old server. Why would I want to add more red tape? Unions had their purpose, but many unions are now just PACs in disguise.

    17. Re:And? by spinkham · · Score: 1

      Luckily there are people who can do something who care.

      TSA operates with the blessing of local law enforcement and the property owner of where they are. They have no jurisdiction, nor law enforcement powers, and are totally dependent on these individuals.

      From wikipedia:

      Savannah incident - Amtrak temporarily bans VIPR teams, 2011
      In early 2011, a TSA VIPR detained and patted down people at an Amtrak station in Savannah, Georgia. The incident became rather controversial. According to Trains magazine, Amtrak Police Chief John O'Connor described the TSA behavior as illegal, and in violation of Amtrak policy. The incident led Amtrak to temporarily ban VIPR teams from Amtrak property.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    18. Re:And? by pluther · · Score: 1
      A lot of people were saying pretty much exactly this in 1850:

      Look, honestly, what are you going to do about it? Complaining doesn't matter. [Slavery] 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 [plantation owners] have vast amounts of power, much more so than any collection of outraged stories and messages [in Northern pamphlets] does.

      Seriously, I hope [slavery] 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, [Southern] lobbyists have TONS of money, and that's pretty much the end of it.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    19. Re:And? by pluther · · Score: 2

      "Death panels" + "health care rationing" = Shibboleth for "I watch way too much Fox News and actually take them seriously"

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    20. Re:And? by scot4875 · · Score: 2

      Unless those individuals incorporate; incorporation somehow isn't as evil as unionizing or any other form of 'collectivism'.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    21. Re:And? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

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

      Been done, ruled for the TSA. Your case would be thrown out so hard it'll bounce twice. You'll spend a couple of thousand dollars (at least) to make the TSA lawyer (who's on retainer) work for a half a day for a change.

    22. Re:And? by Tom · · Score: 1

      If you want things to change, the first thing you need to do is get your ass up and take some personal risks. And I'm not even talking "bullet in the head" risk like people in the near east did when they got rid of their dictators. I'm talking "being denied the flight" risk.

      But if enough people do it, things will change. That's what this Occupy movement is all about. You can agree or disagree with them as much as you like, but one thing is true about it: The people, united, have the power.

      In the end, lobbyism and everything rely on your dollars. Whether it's you as the customer giving them your money, you as the employee generating company value, or you as the taxpayer funding the government.

      Now in many places the system is intentionally set up so that you don't really have an alternative. That's not a conspiracy - it does make a lot of sense to have centralized security in airports instead of each airline running their own. However, if people take the train instead of flying where possible, and let the airline know that it was because of TSA, and enough people do that, then the airlines will do the math and bring their lobbyists into the game.

      And if they include the trains, too, use the car instead.

      Yes, it means accepting some inconvenience.

      Ask yourself if, when your kids or grandkids ask you why you did nothing when the police state was put into place, you want your answer to be "I was too lazy" or "it would've been inconvenient".

      You don't have to be a drop-out, radical or full-time protester to make some change happen. I personally think the Occupy movement is a good thing. I can't pitch my tent out there with them for many reasons and yes, for some convenience. But I was there at the protests and I've made it a point to swing by the camp and ask if they need anything whenever I'm nearby. It's not much. But it beats whining on the Internet how you can't do anything about it.
      (And before you ask why I don't do anything against TSA: I don't live in the US, so I don't have the TSA problem. If I had, I sure would.)

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    23. Re:And? by Solandri · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Congratulations. You've managed to come up with an argument where one party can control 99.8% of Congress, yet still be blameless for passing despised legislation. Party A has 434 votes, and splits 217/217 (50%-50%). Party B has 1 vote, and votes yes (100%-0%). Legislation passes 218/217, and by your reasoning is entirely the fault of party B.

      If you view votes only based on aggregate two-party breakdown, you can justify nearly any ridiculous argument. You have to look at individual votes to accurately see what's going on. Most of the Republicans who voted against the Patriot Act were Libertarian- and Tea Party-affiliated.

    24. Re:And? by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      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.

      Not quite. The asshats will never go away, but we need to give them other channels for their corruption. At least start up a 1/4 trillion dollar education program, or fund NASA up to a reasonable level. Give them a few years warning, and they will gladly move their efforts over to that program.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    25. Re:And? by jd · · Score: 1

      Unions evolved from intellectuals meeting at coffeehouses in Britain discussing why their places of employment didn't work. To me, that is what a union is - a place where sane, rational discussion takes place to get things sane and rational. If there are "regulations" and "red tape", it's not a union. Just because money pits like to call themselves that doesn't make them that, just as ITT calling itself a college doesn't mean you'd get an education there.

      (Tea is Britain's national drink because an anti-intellectual movement resulted in the banning of coffeehouses. So the intellectuals just changed what they drank.)

      --
      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)
    26. Re:And? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Now that it has extended beyond air travel and will actually effect your right to travel. The Supreme Court would have to back track on centuries of precedence to up hold this expansion of power.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    27. Re:And? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Supreme Court has no shame. Expect them to roll over on every significant expansion of government power, and to throw us a bone or two on a few insignificant onces so they don't get called on it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    28. Re:And? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      And some in the TEA Parties are asking Bachmann to throw in the towel.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    29. Re:And? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If unions have to choose between preserving their own welfare (as union organizations) or advancing the welfare of their members (let alone society at large), they will work as hard as they can to mislead and control their membership to preserve themselves and their organization. Further, since unions depend on membership, they use mafia tactics to make sure everybody joins, and fight to keep incompetents in jobs so long as those incompetents pay union dues. They are retrogressive obstacles both to businesses and their members, they just have to dupe the latter, primarily by demonizing the former as the "real enemy", regardless of the fact that unions are often just as parasitic as a business's management.

      Collectives falsely usurp and exceed the power of individuals, even though no group should be able to claim greater rights than any its individual constituents possess.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    30. Re:And? by demonlapin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's not in his programming.

    31. Re:And? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Right, because voting Democrat is a logical move for someone who wants a smaller, cheaper federal government. The Republicans may not act on that idea, but at least they pretend to care.

    32. Re:And? by crakbone · · Score: 1

      And that did not get corrected till the North decided that they needed the vast amounts of money in the South. And that one of the ways to get the man power for the army was to get rid of slaves. Of course it had the added bonus that it removed the main labor force from the south as well. Your fundamental change was the Government running out of money and its loses after the failed Mormon war.

    33. Re:And? by stanlyb · · Score: 2

      But the war was not started because of the slavery, but because South refused to accept to be ruled by the federal government.... Funny, ain't? One good cause (slavery) was fought for, but another bad cause (central government) was the side effect....or the opposite more likely.

    34. Re:And? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      So who are you planning to fight a civil war against? Bureaucrats?

    35. Re:And? by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 2

      Plus, previously the argument has been "if you don't want to be searched, then don't travel by a private airline where you know you'll be searched."

      That doesn't hold water in the case of the people who traveled by train, not knowing they would be searched, and then were not searched until they got OFF the train, where they could not refuse the search by declining the travel. Whole new ballgame there.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    36. Re:And? by AmbushBug · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter. Just keep doing it with as many people as possible like they did in the Free Speech fights in the early 1900s. Fill the jails!

    37. Re:And? by nadaou · · Score: 1

      > 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.

      not with that attitude.

      or, for our paranoid friends in the audience:
      that's exactly what they want you to think.

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    38. Re:And? by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it" http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

      So no, leaving it on his desk would have just given it an automatic pass.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    39. Re:And? by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That is an assumption that holds true of a few pseudo-unions (things which are called "unions" but aren't, the same way that many dictatorships have "democratic" in the name) but which simply doesn't hold true of unionism in the historical context. Historical unions don't depend on membership and historically it was unions that fought to keep incompetents OUT of jobs, forcing employers to hire people who were skilled at the job.

      True, historic unionism is highly progressive and helped boost profits for the businesses (it turns out that cheap labour produces poorer-quality products and has higher accident/disability rates, inflating net costs in the long-term) and boost the members (since members weren't so subject to office politics and therefore were more likely to be promoted according to merit).

      --
      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)
    40. Re:And? by Samalie · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, you've been drinking the Fox News koolaid.

      Buisinesses are not refusing to invest in people because of ObamaCare. (Don't get me wrong, I think ObamaCare is a big fucking turd too).

      Business are not investing in hiring people because they don't fucking have to...they're finding more than enough people willing to give up 80 hours a week keeping their business afloat with half the staff they should have because said people are "thankful, in this economy, that they even have a job" and only employing 1/2 the people they should allows them to line their and thier investor's pockets with huge piles of fucking cash.

      Corporations, small business, doesn't fucking matter...they are there to line their own pockets, NOT yours.

      I do agree though that the government can't do fuck all about the problem, because the problem is the very fucking root of capitalism....make a shitton of money, live the American fucking Dream baby. If they start regulating the shit out of business, then they're creating a "hostile environment" for business and they all threaten to pack up and take all their toys to Elbonia or something. If you de-regulate the shit out of everything, then you have subprime mortgage scandals and investment fraud and other such bullshit.

      In the end, the rich get richer, the poor stay poor, regardless of what the government does.

      The only true answer is abject pure communism where the country and economy is managed by everyone equally, and everyone gets an equal share of everything. But communism is just a failed an idea as capitalism where in reality a few jerkoffs take everything and everyone else suffers too.

      Basically, the system is fucking broken, regardless of what system it is, because a few greedy piles of shit control it all.

      If you have an answer, you're smarter than me.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    41. Re:And? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      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."

      On the other hand, it must be remembered that Medicare reimbursement to doctors is low enough that many doctors will not take new Medicare patients (it's apparently illegal to STOP providing service for someone on Medicare, but NOT to accepting a new medicare patient). This is becoming a problem in some parts of the country where doctors are a little scarcer on the ground than most metropolitan areas...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    42. Re:And? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      It's because IT work requires a base level of intelligence combined with the ability to critically think in order to do the damned job. Thus the number of IT workers willing to sign money and control over to ANOTHER bunch of money-grubbing thugs in addition to their bosses and the government is nice and low.

    43. Re:And? by meglon · · Score: 1

      They pretend to care... say it like it is, they LIE about caring. They use that lie to gain the only thing they want: Power. The bigger problem is the idiots who believe them time after time.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    44. Re:And? by pgpalmer · · Score: 1

      And if they include the trains, too, use the car instead.

      And what if you don't own a car or driver's license?

    45. Re:And? by jd · · Score: 1

      Unions were invented by the staff and students of Cambridge University. If you believe they have a lower intelligence and a lesser ability to critically think than the average, then you're on the wrong damn planet.

      --
      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)
    46. Re:And? by jd · · Score: 1

      Apparently, it is "overrated" to point out that Knowledge Chartists were the founders of the Trade Union movement under the name "Mutual Improvement Societies" where they collectively founded libraries, schools for the children of employees, health insurance systems and worker advocacy groups. Yeesh!

      As I mentioned in my prior post, you wouldn't look at The Democratic People's Republic of Korea to understand democracy, yet Americans in particular will point happily to Mafia-run "unions in name only" groups and claim that this is what unionism is. Even the Tea Party, as hopelessly ignorant as they are on most issues, has figured out that "in name only" means bugger all. If it ain't a Mutual Improvement Society, it AIN'T a union, whatever damn name they care to give it.

      --
      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)
    47. Re:And? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Okay. One party lies to me most of the time, and occasionally tells the truth. The other one tells me to fuck off at the front door. People make all sorts of compromises in order to harness the power of a political party.

    48. Re:And? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Take the bus, find someone to share a ride with, be creative.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    49. Re:And? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      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.

      I'd love to know how you think "deregulation" put us in this mess. One could argue that over-regulation was to blame, not under-regulation. The government-mandated Community Reinvestment Act, as well as other legislation and regulation forced banks to offer loans to people who were high-risk individuals for very affordable rates. This is the direct cause of the bubble, and the resultant housing collapse was a prime trigger of our current economic woes.

      Peter Wallison described it fairly well in his wsj article:
      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574475110152189446.html

      ... it was government policy for these poor quality loans to be made. Since the early 1990s, the government has been attempting to expand home ownership in full disregard of the prudent lending principles that had previously governed the U.S. mortgage market. Now the motives of the GSEs fall into place. Fannie and Freddie were subject to "affordable housing" regulations, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required them to buy mortgages made to home buyers who were at or below the median income. This quota began at 30% of all purchases in the early 1990s, and was gradually ratcheted up until it called for 55% of all mortgage purchases to be "affordable" in 2007, including 25% that had to be made to low-income home buyers.

      As to how to get businesses to get off their liquid assets - driving up US debt is not going to do that. While it sounds very noble, putting teachers, firefighters, and policemen to work for a year (part of Obama's stimulus plan) is going to do anything significant to stimulate the economy, especially when the money has to come from taxes, printing, or borrowing. Borrowing is the least likely to hurt the economy in the short term, yet as the government continues to accrue long term debts from which it appears unlikely we can easily climb out of (~$45K per capita and rising), it contributes to business' economic fears. Debt has to be paid off at some point, and the more debt the US has, the less will be available for sustained economic movement in the private sector, since it has to siphon a higher percentage of revenue to pay off the interest, meaning more money has to be collected overall to meet its financial obligations.

      sigh... I can't understand how people think Keynesian economics makes sense. I'm not a government laissez-faire type person - some regulation is absolutely needed. The problem is that a massive amount of spending, while it may in fact provide stimulation, will also produce negative drains in equal amounts in other economic areas, either directly (taxes) or indirectly (increased debt -> lack of consumer confidence). Borrowing money is the least painful of these options, but because we're already so far in debt, a massive amount of additional debt will put a huge pressure on revenues because of future interest payments. Essentially, our back is against the wall because of previous administration's / congress' reckless spending (all parties). Our citizens are getting older, and Medicare is predicted by some to become insolvent by 2024 (that wonderfully efficient program you're talking about), and our national debt continues to skyrocket.

      I don't have a magical answer to fix everything, but it feels like massive government spending as "stimulus" is just digging the hole deeper.

      P.S. "death panels" is obvious hyperbole which I probably shouldn't have used, and likely pr

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    50. Re:And? by funkboy · · Score: 1

      Fill the jails!

      Uhm, in case you haven't been reading the news for the last 20 years, the jails are already full, mostly with nonviolent drug offenders...

    51. Re:And? by x_IamSpartacus_x · · Score: 1

      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 report specifically talks about how INEFFICIENT Medicare is and makes recommendations to change that.

      This USA Today article complains that Medicare funds the vast majority of residency training in the USA. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a substantial amount of money that is not going to treatment as you said.

      This report says fraud is costing in the billions. And this article says that fraud is a growing problem in Medicare costing $60 billion per year and says that fewer than 5%... that's 5% of claims are audited.

      According to this Congressional Research Service report Medicare's budget is $420 billion for 2009. If $60 billion is just fraud, that means nearly 15% of Medicare's budget is NOT going to treatment not including all the rest of Medicare's expenses (funding residency, other misc overhead).

      Sorry, but to say that Medicare is efficient is just plain wrong.

    52. Re:And? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      There's two sides to the story. The ideal workplace is one that the owners have set up such that people want to work there as opposed to having to work there. Unions are a reaction to employers who take the "you'll do it because you need this job" approach, both the action and reaction are bad for business.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    53. Re:And? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      This is very different to the Westminster tradition where politicians are expected and indeed do vote along party lines. Some social issues (abortion, gay marriage,etc) are declared a conscience vote where the expectation is dropped, the party usually doesn't have a specific policy opinion on the issue anyway. But other than a few execption s, voting against party lines is considered to be "crossing the floor" and "breaking ranks" is seen as a big deal. Having said that the results of party line votes be exactly the same as what you describe and often land in the hands of a single nutter...err...independent. But I think it's also easier for the public to pick which team to barrack for based on their form guides.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    54. Re:And? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Basically, the system is fucking broken, regardless of what system it is, because a few greedy piles of shit control it all.

      Yes, but some systems are more broken than others, here in Oz government inefficiency brings us better health care than the US and pays for it by a 1.5% tax on income, the US government proportionally spends about the same ~1.5% of income tax revenue on health. So the US govt could provide "free as in beer" world class health care for all it's people with current spending, removing the need for private insurance or the possibility of going bankrupt without it. The fly in the ointment is the same one that Australia had in the 70's, ie the constitution requires that all the states have to agree to a treaty handing certain powers to the feds before it can be implemented.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  7. Illegal Search by Matt.Battey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every TSA pat-down, especially those outside an air terminal, are illegal searches. There is no probable cause for agents of the government to initiate a search, even in air terminals, hence is a violation of 4th Amendment Rights. Every time Pistole is questioned about this by Congress, he insists that Air Travelers (and all travelers, by VIPR assumptions) are guilty until proven innocent, and that American children are all bomb carrying agents of Terrorism, because terrorists have used children and women in other parts of the world.

    1. Re:Illegal Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most certainly, Even A Terry Pat requires reasonable suspicion.

    2. Re:Illegal Search by stewbee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Two weeks ago was the first time that I flew in several 2 years. I fortunately was spared being patted down or going through the whole body scanner. However, this time they did something that I had never seen before, and that was that they randomly checked people's boarding pass as they were getting on the plane. All I could think to myself was 'WTF?'. Was not the circus that I just went through enough for me to get on the plane? I was pissed off.

      The TSA just needs to go away. I am a firm believer that it has outlived its usefulness and now is just a money sink for federal taxes. Not to mention the fact that their entire existence is just Washington wiping their ass's with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

      An attack like 9/11 will not occur again, plain and simple. The people on the airplane will do what they can to keep some random jack asses from doing anything stupid that would keep them from landing safely since the passengers now know that death is a possibility for them if they allow the hijacker/terrorist to have control of the airplane or execute their plans.

    3. Re:Illegal Search by lm2s · · Score: 2

      I have seen this 4th Amendment Rights mentioned, and mentioned, and mentioned, and ..., well you get the point. My question is the following, if this is illegal why is it still happening, since it is not a new event, why? I know rules can be bend, and even dodge, etc, so what kind of strategy is being used to keep on doing something illegal to the people of the USA without receiving any consequences? I'd really like someone to answer this in a serious and objective manner.

    4. Re:Illegal Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      National security.

    5. Re:Illegal Search by camperdave · · Score: 2

      So here's the question: What are YOU going to do about it?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:Illegal Search by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      However, this time they did something that I had never seen before, and that was that they randomly checked people's boarding pass as they were getting on the plane. All I could think to myself was 'WTF?'. Was not the circus that I just went through enough for me to get on the plane? I was pissed off.

      Wow. You weren't pissed off because you got patted down or microwaved, which you didn't, you were pissed off because they checked boarding passes as people got on the plane?

      You may not have seen them doing this before because you haven't been flying for two years. I have, and someone has checked my boarding pass before I've gotten on every flight I've taken. I've even had TSA people pull me out of line for a random research of my bag. I guess I should be really pissed, huh?

      I've even almost gotten on the wrong plane, once, which was prevented because someone else looked at my boarding pass before I did. So, no, simply getting through TSA main security isn't enough to get on the plane, and it never has been.

      An attack like 9/11 will not occur again, plain and simple.

      If by "like" you mean exactly like, you are probably right. It will be very hard for 19 people to hijack four or five major aircraft and run them into things.

      If by "like" you mean "an attack by foreign terrorists", you are patently and amazingly wrong. At some point in time, it is almost certain that some group of nutjobs will take things into their own hands and punish "the great Satan" or whatever they are calling the US then, and they'll try something.

      I am, frankly, quite surprised that the body cavity bomb hasn't been tried yet. Give it time. Your planeload of vigilante passengers won't have time to stop him; he'll walk into the lavatory and detonate and evereyone else will be going "WTF, asshole, come back out here where we can whip your ass before you blow us all up." Except they'll not be saying it out loud, they'll be dead.

      Now, you are probably reading this and seeing it as a justification for TSA goonery, which means only that you are assuming things that I didn't say. I'm mostly laughing at your decision to be pissed because someone looked at your boarding pass before you got in the plane, and contradicting your claim that an attack will never happen again.

    7. Re:Illegal Search by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      But if you're being patted down while leaving a train in order to enter public property...

    8. Re:Illegal Search by interval1066 · · Score: 2

      Every TSA pat-down, especially those outside an air terminal, are illegal searches.

      Yes. Unfortunately, and I need to search this, but I think whenever this is mentioned to the court they come back with some argument about the interests of the public are larger then any individual and his/her Bill of Rights guarantee. Which is an, in my opinion, subtle, and astonishing, erosion of those guarantees. How any American can look at that statement and not weep for the country is beyond me.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    9. Re:Illegal Search by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I know rules can be bend, and even dodge, etc, so what kind of strategy is being used to keep on doing something illegal to the people of the USA without receiving any consequences?

      It's very simple, really: Although there have been rumblings about this sort of thing going back at least as far as Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon, the various top political elites have an unwritten but very real agreement to never prosecute each other no matter how heinous the crime. They've also generally had agreement to protect their top financial contributors, which is why practically no executives are in jail for fraud regarding worthless mortgage-backed securities.

      Here's where the flaws appear to be:
      1. The politically appointed (or in some cases elected) prosecutors can choose whether or not to zealously prosecute a defendant regardless of the strength of the evidence against that defendant. So when Lloyd Blankfein commits fraud on a massive scale, but contributes to the president's campaign, the president tells the AG to tell the US attorneys to ignore any evidence of his crimes.
      2. In states with elected judges, it's not uncommon for judges to trade favorable decisions for campaign contributions.
      3. And of course, if all else fails and somebody is convicted of a crime, elected leaders can override court decisions with pardons and commutation (e.g. Scooter Libbey).

      The trouble is, there's no obvious solution to any of these. Forcing prosecutors to do their jobs won't work because they're the ones responsible for enforcing the rule that says they have to do their job. Appointing judges won't completely work because you'll just get the governor's or the president's cronies. And there's really no way to stop a president from letting somebody go even if they've been convicted of a crime.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    10. Re:Illegal Search by stewbee · · Score: 1

      I am, frankly, quite surprised that the body cavity bomb hasn't been tried yet. Give it time. Your planeload of vigilante passengers won't have time to stop him; he'll walk into the lavatory and detonate and evereyone else will be going "WTF, asshole, come back out here where we can whip your ass before you blow us all up." Except they'll not be saying it out loud, they'll be dead.

      You have heard of the underwear bomber, right? He failed miserably,and he even entered onto the plane where there is probably negligible security. Oh yeah, and he failed. Now, I agree that it is possible that something malicious will happen again. (no need to be a troll with quoting my 'like' phrase). However, I am willing to uphold the rights provided to everyone in the US Constitution. I already did it once while I was in the Navy while sacrificing my own freedom. It is what I put my life on the line for. What have you done?

    11. Re:Illegal Search by jd · · Score: 1

      So what? The Supreme Court has ruled that even International Law can't be applied unless it has been duplicated in Federal Law. International Law is given the same weight as the Constitution. Ergo, nothing in the Constitution can be regarded as provably enforceable unless also Federal Law - the Supreme Court ruling can be used to selectively exempt anything that isn't duplicated. That's what makes the ruling so horribly dangerous. (The Law of Unintended Consequences, however, doesn't need to be on statute books and doesn't need a federal agency to apply it - although most agencies do a superb job if it anyways.)

      In other words, the fact that it's nominally an illegal search doesn't mean that the Supreme Court will say it is. It's why exceptions are such horribly dangerous things. If the law is flawed, replace it. Putting in exemptions - particularly for political purposes - can be extended forever and are unlikely to ever get repealed. And political exemptions are never going to be politics the way YOU like it, no matter what it is that you happen to like.

      The TSA and the Supreme Court rulings - however frightening and un-Constitutional - are merely symptoms. A fever will kill but a fever isn't a disease. The diseases, in this case, are fear, ignorance, insularism and superstition. Fighting for rights is no more than aspirin (and complaining about rights is no more than baby aspirin at best) - important but no antibiotic. If you want to cure the diseases, not merely mask them in the hopes they'll go away, you need superior education (a wonderful vaccine that is being withdrawn from many areas for being "expensive") and superior culture (the best antibiotic is to not have society imagine we're somehow neolithic pig farmers - the popular remedies that worked in 1776 BC barely worked in 1776 AD and certainly don't work today.)

      Education is going to be the tough one. 2011 saw a budget of $23.75 billion for mandatory spending. (If you want universal quality, mandatory matters and discretionary does not.) That covers 19.7 million college/university students, around 55.5 million students K-12 and somewhere around 97 million from there on up to college. That's around 172 million students, so about $13.8K per student. The actual cost, as claimed by that highly reputable source of dubious numbers Wikipedia puts the actual cost per student per year at about twice that. (The University cost is the one that matters, because the student:staff ratio is usually saner, facilities are usually closer to being on-par, textbooks are almost decent and bake sales aren't used to cover over the cracks. If all K-18 schools were of high calibre, they would cost about the same per year per student as a University.)

      The idea that Congress might actually cover the cost of inflation is laughable enough. That they'd do that and THEN double the total is absolutely hysterical. That the States (busy ordering textbooks that include Intelligent Design, flat Earths and fake moonlanding claims, no doubt) would then use the money "intelligently" and design a credible education system from the ground up is a joke of almost lethal proportions. They're way too busy warding off the evil eye with chicken blood and sacrificial heavy metal albums.

      (University standards aren't perfect - far from it, way too much parroting and way too little skill building - but you've got to start somewhere. You can get 40%+ just from a mix of rote memorization and test-taking skills in most University exams, never having to understand a damn thing. I'd like to see that reduced to an absolute ceiling of 10%, but let's be honest - if there's absolutely not a chance in hell of even getting UP to sub-par but to

      --
      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)
    12. Re:Illegal Search by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Every TSA pat-down, especially those outside an air terminal, are illegal searches. There is no probable cause for agents of the government to initiate a search, even in air terminals, hence is a violation of 4th Amendment Rights.

      The position of the TSA is that it's not an illegal search because you are free to refuse. If you refuse, you can't fly, of course, but you don't have a right to fly.

      I don't like this line of argument at all. But the courts have upheld it, so you can't get anywhere in a court by arguing it's an illegal search.

    13. Re:Illegal Search by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      if this is illegal why is it still happening,

      Those in power do not care about your rights. Is this really news to you?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    14. Re:Illegal Search by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Because our government is corrupt to the very highest levels. Even the Supreme Court issues blatantly unconstitutional decisions, simply because they know nothing will happen to them.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:Illegal Search by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

      My question is the following, if this is illegal why is it still happening, since it is not a new event, why?

      It's not illegal if you consent to the search. If a policeman pulls you over for speeding, it's illegal for him to search your car. But if he asks if he can search your car and you say "yes", then it's ok for him to search. You have voluntarily given up your 4th Amendment right for your car to be searched without a warrant. (And before anyone brings it up, the law is different for pursuit in the commission of a crime. But if all you did was speed, the cop cannot search your car without either a warrant or your permission.)

      The problem is too many people just agree with these searches like sheep. Unfortunately, airports and Amtrak are government-owned, so if you refuse the search the TSA can refuse to let you board. But buses and ferries are private, and the TSA has no authority to prevent you from boarding if you refuse the search. (Though the bus or ferry company could refuse on the advice of the TSA if the ticket contract allows it.)

    16. Re:Illegal Search by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      No, you volunteer to be searched when you walk up to the boarding gate. If you don't want to be searched, stay out of the airport.

    17. Re:Illegal Search by interval1066 · · Score: 2

      Bad argument as in this modern age travel is a requiement more often than not. Dire consequences can arise from people not travelling. Its not a luxury anymore, in a global economy its a nessessity.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    18. Re:Illegal Search by makubesu · · Score: 1

      In the classic film noir Detour, I remember the main character is stopped for a search when he tries to cross the state line. I know you shouldn't believe everything in movies, but I sort of figured that was a standard practice back in the day, and it fell under the border exception. If this is true, I think TSA would be able to legally search you in these cases (that is, if they weren't doing these unreasonable strip searches), because unless you're flying from San Francisco to LA, you're probably crossing a state line.

      Any law geeks on here know what the deal is with this?

    19. Re:Illegal Search by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      As far as I know they check EVERYONE'S boarding pass as they get on the plane... They certainly have on every flight I've ever been on. You know, because the boarding pass is the way they can tell you bought a ticket...

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    20. Re:Illegal Search by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      And afterwards the TSA will mandate full cavity checks on any person travelling onto a plane, bus, or other form of public transit. It is at this point that said transportation companies (and the people who still use them) will realize how freaking ridiculous the whole charade has become.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    21. Re:Illegal Search by Bucky24 · · Score: 2

      I think the main reason people agree is because A) they have nothing to hide (yes I know it's a ridiculous argument, but generally people think "sure, whatever"), and B) because people are scared that they will be arrested if they say no. You'd be amazed (or maybe you wouldn't) how little understanding people have of the rights they are given. That's why it's so easy for those in power to take those rights away.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    22. Re:Illegal Search by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You have heard of the underwear bomber, right? He failed miserably,and he even entered onto the plane where there is probably negligible security. Oh yeah, and he failed.

      Yes, I've heard of quite a lot of failures in every field of human endeavour. That doesn't mean the next person won't succeed. "If God had wanted us to fly, he'd have given us wings, Mr. Wright.".

      (no need to be a troll with quoting my 'like' phrase)

      I wasn't trolling. "Like" is a very nebulous word and it can be a comparison between many different things. I don't know if you mean "like" as in "exactly identical to", or as in "shares some properties of". An ice cube is like a glacier in that both are frozen water; an ice cube is not exactly identical to a glacier. I agreed with you -- it is unlikely that an attack exactly like 9/11 will happen again, simply because there is too long a period of time between the act of hijacking and the final result. But I strongly disagree that an attack "like" 9/11 is unlikely. It is almost a given, given enough time and enough nutjobs. The fact that the shoe bomber was incompetent doesn't mean the next one will be, too. Claiming that "it isn't going to happen exactly the same way" and using that as a reason to disband TSA is just, well, ridiculous.

      I already did it once while I was in the Navy...

      Thank you for your service, but I'm not going to get into a "who has the bigger dick" kind of contest with you as a way of proving who is right and wrong in this discussion. Let's just say that you aren't the only person who was in the service in this discussion and get back to dealing with the issue, ok?

      Being pissed off because someone was looking at BOARDING PASSES when people are getting on the plane is just stupid. You haven't flown for two years and haven't seen it before; I've flown for decades and it has happened EVERY TIME I get on a plane. In almost every country I've been in. And rightly so. Reserve your pissed off nature for the true problems that TSA creates. Checking a boarding pass is a ridiculous reason to be pissed. Some day you may wander onto the wrong plane by accident and be glad that someone looked at your pass and stopped you.

    23. Re:Illegal Search by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      You may not like the argument, but it is the legal basis for airport searches.

    24. Re:Illegal Search by TPoise · · Score: 2

      My question is the following, if this is illegal why is it still happening, since it is not a new event, why?

      It's not illegal if you consent to the search. The problem is too many people just agree with these searches like sheep. Unfortunately, airports and Amtrak are government-owned, so if you refuse the search the TSA can refuse to let you board. But buses and ferries are private, and the TSA has no authority to prevent you from boarding if you refuse the search. (Though the bus or ferry company could refuse on the advice of the TSA if the ticket contract allows it.)

      You can be arrested if you do not consent to the search. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-11-20/business/sfl-airport-scans-pat-downs-refual-20101121_1_tsa-airport-checkpoint-sari-koshetz

    25. Re:Illegal Search by stewbee · · Score: 1

      Ahh, I see my mistake. What I meant to say was checking ID's and boarding passes while at the gate. I was at work and just writing without proofreading. I hope this clarifies what you might see as my petty indignation. I don't see the point of having my boarding pass and ID checked at security to then again have it checked at gate. It's pointless.

      The reason I brought up my service was not to have a big dick contest. It was more to illustrate that there are certain rights given to us as US citizens and as a Vet I swore to defend them. The one most relevant to this type of discussion of course is the 4th. I am a firm believer that the full body scanners and frisking are totally in violation of this amendment. I don't care that Chertoff and others think that they can make airports a Bill of Rights exclusion zone. The Bill of Rights says in plain English that you and I and others should be secure in our persons and not subject to unlawful searches without a warrant and have probable cause to instigate the search. It says nothing about only in certain physical areas are the Bill of Rights valid. This is to protect us from the tyranny of the state, which I see the TSA as baby steps to this end game. (Yes I have dawned my tinfoil hat at this point). Government has a hard time giving up power once they have had a taste of its divine goodness. I certainly would not join the military today, since I have been jaded from the past ten years of disgrace that has happened in the name of security for the people. Namely things like the Patriot Act, Guantanmo Bay, and the TSA come to mind.

      Now I agree that some security is required to operate an airline. Only an idiot would think otherwise. Certainly the airlines themselves would have some security if it was not provided by the government since airplanes just cost too much. But there is always some risk that you will die when boarding a plane. It's not natural for humans to be at >30k feet flying at 500 knots. And sure, while someone who is determined could blow it up at any minute because they were crazy. I understand these are the risks you take, but I refuse to be paralyzed by fear otherwise I would never leave the house. If I were to see someone trying to commandeer the plane or something else as malicious then you bet I would do what I could to stop them. I don't think that I would be the only one. Realistically, if this person has his way, then you are likely going to die. So the rational options are do nothing and die, try to stop the guy and while you might still die there is also a good chance you will live since he will likely be outnumbered on the plane and people would gang up on him. Given those choices, I would fight since it is the only option in surviving is a viable outcome.

    26. Re:Illegal Search by ironjaw33 · · Score: 2

      The problem is too many people just agree with these searches like sheep. Unfortunately, airports and Amtrak are government-owned, so if you refuse the search the TSA can refuse to let you board. But buses and ferries are private, and the TSA has no authority to prevent you from boarding if you refuse the search. (Though the bus or ferry company could refuse on the advice of the TSA if the ticket contract allows it.)

      Most major commercial airports are owned and administrated by a port authority, which is controlled by municipalities and/or states. The states could try to remove the TSA but it probably wouldn't get far because of the commerce clause.

    27. Re:Illegal Search by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 2

      And for those who say that air travel is a privilege, and that we aren't given the right to fly anywhere (ignoring that whole tenth amendment bit
      "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."
      there's also a law that gives that right explicitly:
      "49 U.S.C. 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace
      (2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."

      --
      Not a sentence!
    28. Re:Illegal Search by Travelsonic · · Score: 2

      Funny, since the argument first off usually regards the CHECKPOINTS not the gates, and 2. ignores that these methods must stand up to scrutiny - and are not legal JUST BECAUSE they are implemented [and of course acknowledge that challenges do occur in direction of the TSA and their practices, but that they take time.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    29. Re:Illegal Search by slashdotjunker · · Score: 1

      This is so true. And just to give slashdot readers a simple way to exercise this right: never allow yourself to be searched when you exit Fry's. For over 10 years I have always walked straight out without stopping. I have never been hassled. The bag checkers know that they have no right to search anyone. Sadly, I have often gotten surprised looks from the other shoppers.

      Our rights are disappearing because people either don't know what they are, or don't care.

    30. Re:Illegal Search by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Ahh, I see my mistake. What I meant to say was checking ID's and boarding passes while at the gate.

      I know what you meant to say. That's why I replied with comments about checking boarding passes at the gate.

      I don't see the point of having my boarding pass and ID checked at security to then again have it checked at gate. It's pointless.

      No, it isn't pointless. Like I already pointed out, it keeps people from getting on the wrong plane, either accidentally or deliberately. Like I also already pointed out, it has been done FOREVER. Save your indignation for something more serious than this triviality. It isn't an illegal search by any stretch of the imagination.

      The reason I brought up my service was not to have a big dick contest.

      You were trying to prove how much you care for the constitution. You brought it up and then wanted to know what I have done, as if it mattered. I won't play that game with you, it is stupid and insulting and meaningless.

      You clearly have the biggest dick because you say so. I won't tell you how many times I've had to take the oath for different federal and state positions (because it truly is irrelevant to this dicussion), so you win.

    31. Re:Illegal Search by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      And just to give slashdot readers a simple way to exercise this right: never allow yourself to be searched when you exit Fry's. ... Our rights are disappearing because people either don't know what they are, or don't care.

      Our local greek system got the bright idea recently to team up with the fire department to deliver pizzas for a commercial pizza company. They (frat boy/girl and fireman) showed up at the door and people would get the pizza for free ... if they could prove that they had the required number of functioning smoke detectors in their home.

      In other words, people were agreeing to a government search of their homes in exchange for the price of a pizza. The pizza company got taxpayer funded delivery service. The greeks got credit for a public service event.

      The local paper gaves this operation a "rose" in their weekly "roses and raspberries" editorial.

    32. Re:Illegal Search by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Nicely put. General ed wasn't that great in '65 when I graduated high school; I can't see that it's gotten any better. From what I've seen, most people don't want education - they prefer indoctrination, compliance, and 'tickets' to good pay.

    33. Re:Illegal Search by Nyder · · Score: 1

      ...

      The TSA just needs to go away. I am a firm believer that it has outlived its usefulness and now is just a money sink for federal taxes...

      They were useful once?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    34. Re:Illegal Search by jd · · Score: 1

      I'll agree that money is only half the equation. It needs to be wisely spent, or it's just a number. I'll also agree that you can't buy competence but you CAN buy incompetence, which is why there's a problem in areas where money actually does exist.

      Having said that, let's take a look at the numbers. A top university will have somewhere between an 8:1 to 10:1 student:tutor ratio. That's about right, on a per-subject basis. However, 172 million students implies that you need a minimum of 17.2 million highly skilled instructors in EACH subject that is taught. Assuming 10 subjects, that implies 172 million teachers/lecturers. That's a lot of competent people. Assuming the Byzantine General's Problem applies to office politics, you need a minimum of 50% + 1 to not only be competent but also devoid of corruption. Good luck. Remember, the national population of the US is 360 million and we're already at 344 million of those. If "above average" isn't considered good enough, you're not going to find enough that are good enough.

      Obviously that's not going to work too well, if only because you've now got nobody left to do anything else. (It's one reason I think you actually WANT a country to specialize in just education. It's too labour-intensive if it's going to be done right. Remember, to stay current a teacher has also to be doing research and reading literature, which is time-intensive. It's going to damage just how much staff optimization you can do if the staff is going to remain skilled and relevant.)

      If you can't maximize education, you're left with optimizing it only as far as you practically can. That part can't be done arithmetically and it's beyond my ability to suggest where you'd even start. All I can say is that it'll involve de-standardizing and doing a lot of custom optimization on a per-class basis, just as compilation is best done in a mix-and-match style.

      --
      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)
    35. Re:Illegal Search by jd · · Score: 1

      Agreed and whilst I can churn the numbers to show what a hypothetically competent system would cost, nobody can conjure up motivated staff or interested students. Those are either there or they aren't.

      --
      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)
    36. Re:Illegal Search by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I am, frankly, quite surprised that the body cavity bomb hasn't been tried yet.

      I'm not surprised in the slightest. I believe that while there may be a threat from 'evil' foreigners it is mostly hype and bullshit. The real threat comes from the people who actually committed 911 and 7/7 and the Bali bombings. Call me an insane conspiracy nut all you like I really don't care. When you do I hope you remember that the Lusitania didn't carry war material(forgetting or not knowing that the germans put an ad in the NY times warning Americans not to travel on it), the gulf of tonkin was super real. that there was no warning of pearl harbour and that the plethora of other truths used to justify war and opression were just that truths and didn't make anyone richer or more powerful ever.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    37. Re:Illegal Search by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      You have heard of the underwear bomber, right? He failed miserably,and he even entered onto the plane where there is probably negligible security.

      That's right he got on without even a passport after being escorted on by a man of which their are no images apparently available. If only someone had managed to grab his balls they might have caught him.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    38. Re:Illegal Search by riondluz · · Score: 1

      Very incisive observations; thank-you.
      I cannot provide citations or links, but i listened to an interview on the radio a couple of weeks back of a pysics professor who spoke about a new paradyme in the undertaking. It is based on accepting that lecturing does not work and being able to prove it as a fact. That those who 'get it' would do so anyway and those dont are prefocused on the mechanics more than fundamentals. That comprehension is best transmitted by peers approaching the subject for the 1st bec the teachers understanding is highly refined over many years; to apparently self-obvious.
      Anyhow, there is much more on the subject, these studies have gone national and perhaps academically viral. Am sure many K-12 teachers already have adopted peering; recognizing (finally) that we all learn differently.
      As tough as education has and will become, my hope is that those in school today will learn from our mistakes (edu as assembly-line) and change the model into one that encourages finding owe's strengths thru understanding and self-awareness rather than conformance.

      --
      resist propaganda
    39. Re:Illegal Search by riondluz · · Score: 1

      Without elaborating into a boring wordball, I think its about what it has always been about: control by the elites. It was easy (in the USA) when times looked good and seemingly prosperous; now, the finer controls are slipping from their hands and they are having to resort to more direct intervention via government and the officials they can influence.
      From locking down the borders and constitution-free zones, to RFID cards in everything down to tires, to surveilance and license-scanning cameras on patrolcars; our mostly pathetic and mostly predictible actions are as on-demand as the payperview entertainment they try to feed us on.
      Most of us feel we will never be flagged, rarely if ever detained on the road or in our homes, never see 1st-hand or even hear the stories of what is going down in the shadows; while we slave away at a job we feel bound to in a country we hardly recognize anymore.

      America is preparing itself to be run like a dictatorship; like china, authoritarians pushing austerity. A growing legion of bureaucrats in an alarmingly swelling shadow government.

      The powers that be are trimming from the edges for now. Immigrants, the sick and poor, But they have plans in place for real disaster-economics when 'adjustments' are announced. Inflation, draught, the ripple-effect of some remote disaster.

      It used to be that only the rich could get around; network, enjoy mobility and the freedom of travel. It provided valuable information that is now a commodity in todays' internetworked world.
      They have lost their propaganda-cum-smoke machine
      and if they cannot control, subjugate that medium it will be their undoing.

      We can only hope that the hackers prevail and good people stand up or soon blackwaterXe will be comming to a neighborhood near you.

      Think about that - private armies and operatives under contract to defend some despot and his bankrollers. It is the true origin of the word 'company' and hasn't been around for about as long.

      But they're here now and growing in leaps.
      As retired generals (see EngCorp) privatize defense and 1M$ taxpayer trained grunts head off for 6figure salaries to bully some poor campesinos NITBY; you just know we'll all end up on the wrong end of the pointy stick in due time.

      How else does one keep 7 trillion in their place?

      Keep your head down and don't forget to duck!

      --
      resist propaganda
    40. Re:Illegal Search by martas · · Score: 1

      Oh, but there is at least one partial solution -- extremely stringent campaign financing regulations, perhaps at the constitutional level.

  8. hrm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Next will be random vehicle searches because hey, a car bomb during rush hour would do some damage.

    I thought the terrorists lost? wth is this?

    1. Re:hrm.. by Haedrian · · Score: 2

      Of course the terrorists lost, you don't see them attacking our freedom anymore!

      Now spread your legs and put your hands against the wall.

  9. Appropriate Quote by decipher_saint · · Score: 2

    "Now they got the whole country sectioned off, you can't make a move without a form."
    ~Harry Tuttle, Brazil

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
  10. No more public transportation? by Sedated2000 · · Score: 2

    Is their goal to prevent anyone from wanting to use any sort of public transportation anymore? It seems like now the only way to avoid these ridiculous searches is to drive your own vehicle somewhere. Too many agencies are allowed to decide their own scopes of authority and (seemingly?) dictate their own budgets.

    1. Re:No more public transportation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You won't even be able to do that if this continues, roadways are public.

    2. Re:No more public transportation? by Govno · · Score: 1

      Random vehicle searches already exist, primarily in the form of DUI checkpoints .. but after 9/11, I've seen them on main roads into/away from national parks, the hoover dam, and random other places.

    3. Re:No more public transportation? by jd · · Score: 1

      Well, duh. When "public transportation" or "public healthcare" get mentioned in the media, the view is almost entirely that such things exist only in Commie Pinko Subversive countries and that Americans who prefer such things are "traitors" to Megacorp Inc. The people who elect officials and the officials themselves are the same people who (a) read the press, and (b) control what the press says. Therefore, the press is a good reflection of the mood and thus this incredible persecution complex which feeds itself.

      --
      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)
    4. Re:No more public transportation? by cstacy · · Score: 1

      Is their goal to prevent anyone from wanting to use any sort of public transportation anymore? It seems like now the only way to avoid these ridiculous searches is to drive your own vehicle somewhere.

      They will soon be stopping and searching private automobiles. There is plenty of precedent for it. Soon.

      All movement of persons will soon be controlled and monitored by the government.

      It goes along with all communications intercepted, controlled, and monitored by the government.

  11. Big Brother is here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As the human race goes we always create whatever it is we imagine. We imagined Big Brother and "HE" is here!

  12. I'm at a loss for words. by Gorkamecha · · Score: 5, Funny

    How is this possibly of any use to anyone. Hey, TSA! I have this rock that keeps me safe from terrorist. To date, it's be 100% effective at protecting me and everyone else I interact with from terrorism. It's also had zero false positives! I'll be happy to sell you my rock at the bargain price of 250 Million dollars. For another 50 million, my rock will also protect you from vampires, space aliens and Bears (The football team, not the animal.)

    1. Re:I'm at a loss for words. by Gorkamecha · · Score: 1

      Well played sir, well played.

    2. Re:I'm at a loss for words. by gizmo2199 · · Score: 1

      Lisa, I want to buy that rock!

      --
      This Sig does not Exist.
    3. Re:I'm at a loss for words. by jd · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the US military bought a whole bunch of those rocks for detecting IEDs in Afghanistan and the rock budget is currently empty.

      --
      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)
  13. Tyranny... by raydobbs · · Score: 2

    As long as we, the people, are not heard in regards to our wishes - this kind of thing will continue. I, for one, have stopped flying because of the security theater; and I will not be forced to drive or walk to avoid being sexually assaulted in my own country - and PAY for the privileged of being mistreated.

    1. Re:Tyranny... by spasm · · Score: 1

      2,170 deaths nationwide due to choosing driving instead of flying between 9/11/2001 and 12/2005: http://dyson.cornell.edu/faculty_sites/gb78/wp/fatalities_120505.pdf

      Driving is *so* much more dangerous than flying that the number of deaths due to people choosing to drive rather than fly, either because of fear of terrorism or annoyance at the TSA lunacy, that you can easily show the number of deaths caused by it. By now it's probably in excess of the number of people killed on 9/11.

  14. Patting down people on Trains?? WTF by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    Do the TSA people not realize that trains run on well defined paths, on well defined schedules (Well, maybe not Amtrak .. lol) , and that any terrorist worth his salt could set an IED friggin' well anywhere they wanted???!?!?
     
    WTF is up with these idiots???

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Patting down people on Trains?? WTF by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What makes you think this has anything to do with terrorists.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Patting down people on Trains?? WTF by Altus · · Score: 2

      But checking the tracks is hard and expensive and doesn't give anyone a chance to grope someone else against their will.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    3. Re:Patting down people on Trains?? WTF by X86Daddy · · Score: 1

      What makes you think this has anything to do with terrorists.

      Indeed... check out the graph in this article: http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/patriot-act/

      Except for the tiny fraction spent on our crumbling roads and schools, our tax dollars, by and large are spent on the "War on US Citizens."

      How on earth could our government possibly spend fat tax dollars improving "transportation safety" in this country? Hmmm... most of our bridges are on the verge of collapse... and people need jobs... Let's molest more people!!! This bullshit is why people on both ends of the polarized, ridiculous US "political spectrum" are trying to get away from the major parties: those parties do not serve the people, and they're actively running this country into the ground. Occupy and Tea: keep trying, unite and try harder. This is your enemy.

    4. Re:Patting down people on Trains?? WTF by jd · · Score: 1

      If we'd put the money into Amtrak rather than the TSA, the trains would not only run on time but at 115MPH (like the rest of the world) rather than 55MPH. And, no, 115 doesn't require maglev. Even British Rail does 115 with tracks that probably haven't been maintained since the 1940s and which "don't work" in the "wrong type of snow" or when there are "leaves on the line".

      --
      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)
    5. Re:Patting down people on Trains?? WTF by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Tracks are routinely inspected by both LEAs and railroad companies. Many natural and malicious threats to rail operations are discovered and negated by these inspections all the time. Rail might be a relatively soft target, but it's not as neglected as you imagine.

      I don't defend the TSA, but their role is primarily to interdict threats from passengers, not infrastructure.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  15. Considering... by Genda · · Score: 2

    The first nuke, that get's detonated on U.S. soil is far more likely to get here by UPS or FedX than missile, the TSA should start groping delivery guys in shorts and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

    FedX, when it absolutely, positively has to blow up there over night.

    1. Re:Considering... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Back when the first nuke that got detonated on US soil FedEx didn't even exist yet so I guess they must have used UPS.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Considering... by Nethead · · Score: 1

      "No, the DHS must be de-activated because it is in 100% opposition of the US Constitution."

      You do realize that ICE (border control) is part of DHS. So no bitching about the "illegals" now.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    3. Re:Considering... by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      If a hostile nuke ever gets detonated on/over American soil, whatever is left of "freedom" in this country will be annihilated with it.

      --
      ~X~
  16. Ron Paul 2012! by mnewcomb · · Score: 4, Informative

    He is the only candidate that is against this sh*t...

    1. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by rotide · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate to admit it, but his crazy ideas start looking a little less crazy every day. I do respect him for sticking to his ideals but he takes a sledge hammer to things that really need a little more precision.

    2. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      see there you idiots go again. most of that stuff you just listed is not within the constitutional scope of the federal gov't. if you want it to be, go ahead and pass an amendment. it's because of people like you who want a huge illegal gov't that we get a huge gov't ignoring our rights. why can't you make that connection? the only way to preserve our rights is to force the gov't to follow the rules of the constitution, not just ignore it and pass whatever laws they want.

    3. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      And slavery!

    4. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      I hate to admit it, but his crazy ideas start looking a little less crazy every day. I do respect him for sticking to his ideals but he takes a sledge hammer to things that really need a little more precision.

      Maybe, but wouldn't it be nice to have someone who sticks to their ideals for once (even if you only agree with most of them).

      Perhaps after 4 (or 8) years in office he would leave our domestic policies cleaner then when he found it.

    5. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 2

      'I'd like to make an important announcement: Henceforth, the TSA, as part of VIPR, will be examining vehicles crossing state lines to intercept the unauthorized transportation of all hammers. The Department of Homeland Security reports that a tip came in at 3:43 today that chatter on underground internet discussion boards indicate the possible use of sledge hammers to damage the interests of the agenc... er... American people. To reassure the American people, the TSA will also be targeting claw, ball-been, and framing hammers as well. Further, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission will be issuing a recall of the Fisher-Price Tap 'N Turn Bench which may be used as an anti-social or terrorist recruitment tool. Freedom does not come for free and the public can be assured that the TSA is doing everything, whether or not it is in its power, to protect freedom by ensuring the proper payments are made.'

    6. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by jandrese · · Score: 1

      If only his sane ideas weren't counterbalanced by his crazy ones...

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    7. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by Jeng · · Score: 1

      If you want to appear skinny hang out with fat people.

      If you want to appear sane and connected to this reality hang out with GOP candidates.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    8. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 1

      Or you could support Gary Johnson, who is also opposed to the TSA, but is a REAL libertarian, unlike the poser Ron Paul who doesn't have the guts to stand up for gay marriage.

      Why should the Federal Government be involved with marriage at all? I think Ron Paul's stance is that it shouldn't be a Federal issue. Don't you think it is a little hypocritical to say that you are against all instances of the Federal government stepping outside of the bounds established by the constition *except* in regards to gay marriage? To be honest I personally don't even think States should be in the business of endorcing marriages, but as there is nothing in the constition that prohibits it I guess it would be up to the individuals in each state to get marriage laws pulled.

    9. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 1

      If only his sane ideas weren't counterbalanced by his crazy ones...

      What is crazy about thinking the Federal government should only do the things the constition allows it to do? And please don't say that society would collapse. We'd still have plenty of government at the state and more local levels.

    10. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 1

      Too bad he is such a nutjob in other ways...

      Yeah, he isn't at all like all of those non-nutty politicians that want us to invade half the world, have military outposts in the other half, pay for it by printing more money, and ignore the constition whenever it is convinent..... If you want more of the same vote for anyone except for Ron Paul.

    11. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Why should the Federal Government be involved with marriage at all?

      Our tax code includes special provisions for marriage couples. Marriage has always been a legal matter; the idea that marriage is strictly about love and spending the rest of your life with your one true love is a relatively modern trend.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    12. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 1

      ...only because he wants to send this country back to the 1800s in terms of education.

      Ignoring the rest of it the Department of Education was formed in the 1980's; not the 1800's. And America's quality of education has been going down ever since.

    13. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I hate to admit it, but his crazy ideas start looking a little less crazy every day. I do respect him for sticking to his ideals but he takes a sledge hammer to things that really need a little more precision.

      My impression is that he is well aware that he will not be elected president or even vice-president. Given that reality, when he runs for president what he is really doing is using the race as a way to inform the public about libertarianism in the hope that some of it will make its way into the general american consensus. If he were to take less of an absolutist position all it would do is dilute the end result even further.

      As support for this belief consider his position on the Federal Reserve - that it should be abolished. He's now the chair of the Federal Reserve Oversight Committee and yet he hasn't killed the Federal Reserve because he realizes that doing so would be impractical, if not impossible, at this point in time. However he has been trying to reel it in, proposing bills to publicly audit it and make it more accountable - which sounds like the kind of precision versus sledge-hammer approach you are advocating.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    14. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 1

      Our tax code includes special provisions for marriage couples. Marriage has always been a legal matter; the idea that marriage is strictly about love and spending the rest of your life with your one true love is a relatively modern trend.

      I would prefer the tax code be revised.

      Also, I think you are incorrect about saying that it is relatively "recent" that marriage became about love. In about two seconds of google'ing I found a quote from Confucius saying "Marriage is the union of two different surnames, in friendship and in love..." I guess he must of just been ahead of his time.

    15. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Because rolling back the country to 1787 standards is insane? By modern standards the US was a third world country back then. Plus, I'm not seeing where my state and local legislators are that much better than the Feds, especially since so many problems are interconnected now. How would a statist deal with Acid Rain (which is generated by pollution in one state, but falls on other states)? If there's no EPA, then you're left with the messy and untenable solution of states suing other states with no higher authority to step in and resolve the disputes, and of course there are 49 individual disputes for each and every issue...

      The Federal government is far from perfect, but it's a way better solution than what Ron Paul wants.

      I also can't believe that someone can watch what is happening in the Euro zone right now and say that they want that model for the US (unified currency, but each state sets its own monetary policy, with no Fed). The level of cognitive dissonance would cause their brain to explode.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    16. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by compro01 · · Score: 1

      It existed some time before that. It was part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. When education got spun out into it's own department, it became the Department of Health and Human Services.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    17. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Then how does that not fall under the 5th and 14th amendments?

      Sooner or later there is going to be a clear establishment of a dichotomy. Civil Unions between any two adults will be an established Constitutional Right, and marriage will be something defined by whatever religion the couple may adhere to.

    18. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant.

      --
      The game.
    19. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 1

      Because rolling back the country to 1787 standards is insane?

      Which standards are you refering to exactly?

      Plus, I'm not seeing where my state and local legislators are that much better than the Feds, especially since so many problems are interconnected now.

      You'll have an easier time changing policy in your state or your local legistalators then convincing the Feds to change. And if you fail you can always move to a different state that does things more to your liking. Right now imagine if whichever party you dislike gained enough power in Washington to do whatever it wanted for the forseeable future. What would you do? Where would you go?

      How would a statist deal with Acid Rain (which is generated by pollution in one state, but falls on other states)? If there's no EPA, then you're left with the messy and untenable solution of states suing other states with no higher authority to step in and resolve the disputes, and of course there are 49 individual disputes for each and every issue...

      Ron Paul's plan doesn't eliminate the EPA (though he has talked about eliminating it in the past). Ron Paul's position is that the EPA allows companies to pollute and that parties on the recieving end of pollution can and should sue in civil court. The Federal government is far from perfect, but it's a way better solution than what Ron Paul wants. I also can't believe that someone can watch what is happening in the Euro zone right now and say that they want that model for the US (unified currency, but each state sets its own monetary policy, with no Fed). The level of cognitive dissonance would cause their brain to explode.

    20. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by nuggz · · Score: 1

      In our democracy all candidates are a trade off.

      if you think any candidate, that isn't you, perfectly reflects your values, you're either an idiot, or partisan hack. Sorry for the redundancy.

      Now some of the more extreme candidates might not be your first choice, but their very presense forces the other candidates to at least consider those issues.

      That being said, most poeple vote for teh same party time and time again.

    21. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 1

      The Federal government is far from perfect, but it's a way better solution than what Ron Paul wants. I also can't believe that someone can watch what is happening in the Euro zone right now and say that they want that model for the US (unified currency, but each state sets its own monetary policy, with no Fed). The level of cognitive dissonance would cause their brain to explode.

      The last bit of that post is a quote from the above poster that wasn't properly wrapped. I'll respond to that here. I think you are misrepresenting Ron Paul's position on currency. Ron Paul wants to allow multiple currencies that can compete with each other. On a world wide level we already deal with this without too much trouble.

      Also, in regards to what do you claim there is "cognitive dissonance" going on? All I want is for the Federal government to stick to the functions defined in the constition and for the more local governments to fill in the vacume left behind (and I want it done in an orderly manner).

    22. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      But there have been many politicians that stuck to their ideals. Bush, Kim Jong-il, Mugabe, Hitler, Musolini, Nero...

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    23. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by witherstaff · · Score: 2

      This time Ron Paul is in it to win it. Last time sure, Ron Paul was standing on his ideals and trying to bring the conversation to things that matter. This time he isn't running for re-election in congress. He's all in.

      As to abolishing the Fed, the congressional oversight can't even get a full audit. Not even in private documents not to be shared with the public. Hard to have oversight when you don't even have the facts. He isn't for just killing the Fed, he has stated it should be first be curtailed back, stop lending money left and right secretly, and to shut off their money printing. One day he'd like it gone in an orderly fashion, but different than just axing.

    24. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Just like Ron Paul.

      He is a nutbag, and won't get elected. I might hate the current government but at least it is not as crazy as him.

    25. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      His proposed budget that cuts 1 trillion the first year rolls back funding levels to 2006 - not quite so ancient history. Yes there are a few departments axed, with sub-departments juggled around to others, and letting states manage things directly instead of the fed stepping in, but it's not 1787. He didn't say can the entire EPA, he said reduce it. The libertarian stance is to do no harm to others. If you pollute that harms others and you can be sued. Right now the EPA covers the asses of companies that meet their guidelines.

      As an aside, I life in Michigan, across the lake from Chicago. Our air quality doesn't meet EPA requirements. At the lakeshore it doesn't meet air quality as the wind is coming from Chicago (And some from Gary). Right now the EPA is considering imposing extra air quality standards here. Extra expenses on businesses that would make us further anti-competitive to other counties and states. The EPA knows it's not a local issue but is still moving ahead. Yeah, that's the sort of thing that makes gov't agencies too powerful and in need of downsizing.

    26. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by clem · · Score: 1

      Don't overlook Gary Johnson: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    27. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      LOL. What are you going to do? Sue individual automobile drivers? Yeah that will work.

    28. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Paul is definitely seriously running for president. He is polling 3rd in major polls. We did a sign bomb for him here last month and there were tons of thumbs up and honks. I was surprised at the support. At the NC state fair there were 100's of supporters walking around with Ron Paul balloons. There were no supporters for any other candidate. His grassroots support is very strong, so don't count him out yet.

      If you listen to Paul carefully, he always says he is for an iterative approach to restoring liberty. He acknowledges that we have a generation of people which are totally dependent on entitlements. He does not plan to just turn the switch off. He plans on having the next generation become less dependent on government. Most of the critics who fear monger his policies talk as if he would just completely shutdown government overnight. He has no plans of doing that. Restoration of liberty will not happen immediately, but at least he has plans to get us there.

    29. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by alexo · · Score: 1

      That's why he will never get to a position of power.
      He won't be allowed to.

    30. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul was born in 1935. He is older than the DC-3.

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
    31. Re:Ron Paul 2012! by microbox · · Score: 1

      If only Ron Paul wasn't economically illiterate.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  17. I wish they would... by the_fat_kid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ..try to search me before I get off the train.
    If I refuse? are they going to prevent me from getting off the train?
    isn't that kidnapping? I mean they can search me before I get on with the threat that if I'm not searched, I can't board, but can they really keep me from getting off at a domestic stop?
    If they touch me with out my permission isn't that assault?
    I know that my response to it will be classified as assault.
    It's bad enough that they have made air travel unbearable, do we need to let them mess up this too?
    I'm sure that it will help create jobs by discouraging americans from traveling at all.

    --
    -- Sig under construction...
    1. Re:I wish they would... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I tried that yesterday at Chicago Union Station. I was selected for a screening by Amtrak police and I refused under 4th amendment grounds. The first officer immediately informed me I COULD NOT leave. I asked if I was under arrest and he said yes I was. I asked him under what pre-tense was I being arrested. He lied and said that it was illegal to refuse a search. I then repeated to him verbatim the 4th amendment. At this point 6 additional officers surrounded me and told me I could not use my cell phone nor could I put my hands in my pockets. After several intense moments where one officer unclicked his gun belt to try and intimidate me, they finally escorted me (all 10 of them) to the Amtrak ticket counter where I was given a refund and put on a life-time no-ride list for Amtrak and officially banned from entering Union Station for the rest of my life. At then end, 6 Amtrak cops escorted me to the door. Fascist jack booted thugs: your tax dollars hard at work.

    2. Re:I wish they would... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Hmm interesting... Though I bet if you stayed on the train you would get harassed by train security. Catch-22.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    3. Re:I wish they would... by 7-Vodka · · Score: 2
      Wow, I'm sorry for you.

      But I hope you realize that it's not up to you to bring suit against the cops, amtrak and whoever owns union station in order to defend the rights of EVERYONE in the country.

      Don't let them buy you off midway through the process either. They will continue to do this to everyone if people like you don't stand against them. We'll back you up.

      --

      Liberty.

    4. Re:I wish they would... by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1

      s\not\now\

      --

      Liberty.

    5. Re:I wish they would... by the_fat_kid · · Score: 1

      No, no catch-22. My point is that I AM getting off the train when and where my ticket says and if they want to impede me they will have to arrest me.
      Making me stay on the train is kidnapping, false imprisonment, or extraordinary rendition.
      Do any of those sound like good advertising for bus or train service?

      --
      -- Sig under construction...
    6. Re:I wish they would... by firex726 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they would just expand the Constitution Free Zone* to encompass more and more area.

      *Yes, that's a real thing.

    7. Re:I wish they would... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      you got a refund? wow. too bad about the no-ride though, what reason they pinned that under, it's a too big lose of rights to have no story attached to the no-ride ban(too easy to fuck up other people just for nothing if the db has nothing attached as reason).

      no wonder I guess though that if that shit goes on usa is the land of the personal car.

      I flew to germany and took a train to austria last spring from finland. I wasn't patted down once. only time I had to show my papers were at security and boarding the flight. didn't need to take shoes off either that time.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:I wish they would... by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      What 7-Vodka said. You need some cash for a legal fight? I'll pitch in. Mother-fuckers...

      Can you link to a press article on this, or didn't it make the news?

  18. The Drumhead by tekrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  19. That's it. by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a Canadian sysadmin. I love -- LOVE -- the LISA conference (http://www.usenix.org/lisa11/). It's wonderful, informative, and fun; I've made great friends there, learned an incredible amount and generally enjoyed myself enormously.

    Last year was the third time I went. The conference was in San Jose. I took a bus and a train -- which took over 24 hours -- from Vancouver to San Jose, rather than fly and go through a naked body scanner. I figured if I'm going to talk the talk, I should walk the walk.

    I'd already decided to skip this year's conference; it's in Boston, which is a long way to go by train or bus. I didn't want to be away from my family for that long. But I had been thinking about going next year, when it's going to be in San Diego.

    I'm not going now. Not if this crap keeps up. I'll watch the video on my workstation, I'll listen to the MP3s on the bus, and I'll stay here in Canada. We have problems of our own -- but random searches and "papers, please" for the crime of taking the goddamned train are not one of them.

    I'll miss y'all.

    1. Re:That's it. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Let the organizers of the conference know your concerns.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:That's it. by Sipper · · Score: 1

      It's not just you; a lot of people are avoiding coming to the U.S. [or even traveling within the U.S.] because of what's going on here.

      Last year I had the pleasure of going to the Debian conference at Columbia University -- DebConf10. http://debconf10.debconf.org/ A few people who traveled to the U.S. did get harassed by TSA security; at least one married couple was held overnight and had their laptop confiscated. [There were not many such incidents reported.]

      This year, DebConf11 was held in Bosnia. So I had a look at how many people attended. However more people attended DebConf11 in Bosnia than DebConf10 in the U.S. One of the reasons for fewer DebConf10 attendees was because of all the perceived harassment travelers would have to go through, which included American citizens being concerned of this harassment within their own country.

      Next year's DebConf12 is going to be in Nicaragua -- and I suspect that conference will have more attendees than the one held in the U.S., too. When Bosnia and Nicaragua are perceived to be safer to travel to than the U.S., you know we've got a problem.

    3. Re:That's it. by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      You *could* fly from Van to Ottawa and rent a car... Boston is only a 10h drive from here.

      That said, that may not save you from the naked body scanners if the cons get their way. They want to buy the damned things for Canadian airports, too.

    4. Re:That's it. by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      That's nothing: I took the train from Cleveland to San Diego (2.5 days) for much the same reason. I had the time and the money to stand up for civil liberties, so I decided to walk the walk.

      The next step, of course, is to set up similar random checkpoints on highways to try to prevent people from getting around the searches by driving themselves. And then to set up checkpoints on smaller roads because the terrorists could use them to get around the highway checkpoints. Yes, I realize it's a slippery slope argument, but each slide down the slope seems very possible.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:That's it. by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      You *could* fly from Van to Ottawa and rent a car... Boston is only a 10h drive from here.

      Montreal would be a better option.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    6. Re:That's it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The slippery slope argument is not logically inconsistent when it is applied to laws. The evidence of this can be seen throughout history.

      It is logically inconsistent when applied anywhere else, particularly with "morality" ("if we allow x, then what's to stop people from y?", eg: "if we allow abortion, what's to stop post-birth abortions?" and "if we allow gay marriage, what's to stop polygamy?").

      * The more you know *

    7. Re:That's it. by greghodg · · Score: 1

      Border Patrol already does this in the Southwest. If you drive through New Mexico, Arizona on I-10 or on to California on I-8, there's a good chance you will be subjected to a checkpoint. The vast majority of arrests at these checkpoints are people with a small amount of pot who never thought they would be searched with no probable cause driving on a US interstate. All it takes is one of their dogs alerting on your car.

    8. Re:That's it. by ironjaw33 · · Score: 1

      I drove from Seattle to Vancouver a few years back. The Canadians authorities at the border pretty much waved me through. On the way back, I faced a surly US Border Patrol agent that pretty much threw the book at me for no reason I was aware of. He ran mirrors under the car, peered in every window, asked to search the trunk, and asked a whole bunch of questions about my hometown on the East Coast, trying to trip me up. The agent even had a thick foreign accent which betrayed his immigrant status, yet I was the one being treated as an illegal alien or foreign terrorist.

    9. Re:That's it. by spasm · · Score: 1

      You know you can opt out of the naked body scanner, right? I've been in the wrong queue and hit it three times in the last six months; each time I said politely I'd like to opt out. The TSA people equally politely said "no problem". ... And I got the pat-down instead. Which is at least as bad from a privacy point of view and at least as pointless from a security point of view.

      On a completely different note, I catch amtrak from LA to San Diego about once a week; I've seen sniffer dogs twice in the last 2 years and have never seen anyone be searched anywhere for any reason. Not that I'll be wildly surprised if it starts abruptly (and I'll definitely tell them to go screw themselves if it happens as I get *off* the train). So you might still be ok doing the Vancouver -> San Diego trip.

    10. Re:That's it. by badbart · · Score: 1

      I miss us too.

  20. I'm from Knoxville... by DigitalGodBoy · · Score: 1

    I didn't know we have bus service beyond a very basic series of downtown routes anymore. The TSA educated me today!

    --
    "liberty and justice for all those who can afford it"
  21. Avoiding the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is it any wonder why many people simply avoid the USA? I know I avoid it whenever I travel. I go so far as to pay extra to stayover within Canada rather than Newark when I travel to the Caribbean. I lay over in Toronto not Newark because I know I'll have way fewer issues. I know there is a TSA in Canada but as my flight will not enter into the USA, it's so much simpler to deal with rather than on a flight that terminates in the USA. Whole different set of rules it seems.

    Keep up this Neo-Nazi crazy shit guys! You're only killing your tourism industry.

    1. Re:Avoiding the USA by wsxyz · · Score: 2

      You're only killing your tourism industry.

      Hey, some people pay good money for that kind of holiday.

    2. Re:Avoiding the USA by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but usually that's in Thailand, not in the USA....

    3. Re:Avoiding the USA by robot256 · · Score: 1

      And the employee uniform is significantly more attractive...

    4. Re:Avoiding the USA by cardpuncher · · Score: 1

      Although generally US people seem quite friendly - as long as you avoid mentioning politics or religion or accidentally straying onto private land - US officials have been basically hostile to foreign visitors for about as long as I can remember. On my first visit I was rather suprised at the aggressive reaction of an immigration agent when a child made the mistake of putting its foot over the line on the floor. A couple of visits later, a local cop had stationed himself by a crosswalk to the rental car parking lot and was ticketing everyone who crossed against the pedestrian signal, most of whom were no doubt unaware that the US is quite so anal about its control of those to dare to walk rather than drive. I nearly got deported on a third occasion for saying I intended to stay "a fortnight", a word that the immigration agent apparently hadn't heard of and automatically assumed meant "indefinitely and for the purposes of overthrowing the government".

      I gave up visiting the US entirely when fingerprinting started and the admission fee that is now charged for the privilege of being abused is hardly likely to tempt me back. Still, I'm sure all those Russian sleepers feel right at home.

  22. Because "They" would not enjoy it as much by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    besides in The Courts groping a Man is not a crime (possibly rude but never a crime)

    [/snark]

    I predict that someday a group of criminals will forge TSA credentials and take hostages in some train station (inventing all sorts of "New Regulations" in the process). Heck all you would have to do is have hidden cameras and a few boxes to "confiscate" things and you could make a nice profit.

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  23. How can you be free when constantly searched? by kawabago · · Score: 1

    Freedom means nothing if you are constantly searched by authorities. Not a single plot has been foiled by these searches. Millions of searches and they have turned up nothing. You would think at some point someone would say, "this is ridiculous". It's like the war on drugs, if it isn't working, do it more.

    1. Re:How can you be free when constantly searched? by dcollins · · Score: 2

      "It's like the war on drugs"

      No, it IS the war on drugs. Under a fraudulent name.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  24. Re:Sexist much? by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

    well we are but we'd be hard pressed to complain. get it? hard pressed? nevermind...

    --
    insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  25. Don't like it? Get involved. by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Write PAPER letters to your state and national Representatives and Senators (and mayors and governors). Tell them that you want them to OPPOSE this.

    Get your friends to write the same kind of PAPER letters to the same people.

    If the politicians do not fight this on your behalf, then replace them in the next election cycle.

    Get educated. Get motivated. Get involved.
    A cynic who stays at home will never change anything.

    1. Re:Don't like it? Get involved. by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Write PAPER letters to your state and national Representatives and Senators (and mayors and governors). Tell them that you want them to OPPOSE this.

      That's not going to work, unless your paper letters include large campaign checks. That's the problem: Your elected representatives don't give a damn what you think, because they know that the opposing party's candidate won't attack them for supporting counter-terrorism efforts.

      If you really want to do something, find your local Occupy protest and see what kind of help they need to make it through the winter.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Don't like it? Get involved. by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      I've gotten responses (some that even addressed the issue I wrote about) from the offices of politicians representing all the districts and states I've lived in since I turned 18 with the exception of one, and that's Cathy McMorris Rodgers. I'm not a fan of politicians of most stripes, but this particular letter was actually about an issue that most people I've talked to (and, given what most politicians proclaim, they should too), and that's removing jury compensation from the list of income* that is taxable.

      *I use the term loosely, since calling it income implies the time you spend legally compelled to serve must be considered to have a value very close to zero.

    3. Re:Don't like it? Get involved. by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Bleh. There's an important word missing in the above, but it should be pretty clear what it is and where it goes. :)

    4. Re:Don't like it? Get involved. by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      Elected officials are Pavlovian dogs. They respond to pleasure and pain. If enough people embarrass the politician, get them bad press, turn their major donors away from them, etc then the politicians WILL eventually change their behavior, ESPECIALLY if they think it could hurt their reelection chances.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
  26. Why you complain citizen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is exactly the same Democracy and Our Way of Life (TM) we have been QA'ing around the world for centuries. Field testing has shown great promise and now we are deploying it at home (after all Animal Testing abroad). If you read any "foreign news" you would have noticed it much earlier.

  27. Slippery Slopes? by kd5zex · · Score: 1

    The Slippery Slope argument is fallacy and conspiracy theory!!!!

  28. What do they do if they find guns? by kwiqsilver · · Score: 2

    I drive on the freeways armed, as I'm sure many people in TN do. I ride the WA state ferries armed. (I did notice the ferries mentioned in TFA were both interstate transit). But what would they do if I set off their metal detectors? Or if they find guns on a traveler in TN? It's perfectly legal to carry guns in most of the USA.
    Also, for trains and ferries, they could refuse to let someone who ignores them board, but what if you refuse a search on the freeway? I used to drive through the border patrol checkpoints in AZ and CA (but not on the border) dozens of times per year. They'd ask if I was a citizen, I'd ask if they had a warrant to compel that information. They'd tell me to answer the question. I'd ask if I was being detained. And after a minute of back and forth, they'd tell me to go. They had no authority to compel me to answer, and they knew it. The TSA should be in the same situation. Without a warrant, they shouldn't be able to do anything but request to question or search a person or vehicle.
    I guess one benefit of all of this is that being so blatant about their invasive searches will push popular opinion over the tipping point, and Ron Paul won't be alone calling for the TSA's dissolution in Congress.

    1. Re:What do they do if they find guns? by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      The TSA will probably only be disolved once they get to the random cavity searches, which means they have a couple more years of groping fun to enjoy.

    2. Re:What do they do if they find guns? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      The TSA will probably only be disolved once they get to the random cavity searches, which means they have a couple more years of groping fun to enjoy.

      That will lead to a whole new class of tourist starting to travel. Guys just opt for the pat down and make sure you are patted down while having an involuntary erection or drop some viagra before travel.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  29. Yes. by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

    It's for the children. And by that I mean it's for the purpose of groping and taking naked pictures of the children.

  30. Your democracy is being defended by jwijnands · · Score: 1

    And you complain...? Weird. It's, after all a democratic country and there's so many countries being mean and nasty to poor old America that this is all a necessity. Or, that's the official line at least. What always amazes me is that a large part of you Americans is willing to put up with all sorts of abuse. I see it a lot on dpreview.com. Every case of police being, nasty, mean or committing police brutality there's always quite a few people willing to defend any heave handed and irrational action. So... unless you guys put a lot of pressure on your politicians your TSA will get a bigger budget and pretty soon you'll have checkpoints and pat downs all over the country. Personally, I'd go to the states if my job required it, not for a tourist trip, not until sanity returns

  31. Re:Police State? by kwiqsilver · · Score: 1

    At what point does America become the unofficial police state of the world?

    January 20, 2009. The day Obama broke every campaign promise about restoring civil rights and government transparency.
    They had a big party to celebrate. You must have missed it. I think there was cake.

  32. Re:TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please refrain from lumping those hooligans with us, we're gone as far as renaming ourselves the Breast Sucking Aficionados. Hopefully our new acronym won't link us to any other unsavory organization.

  33. USSR by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Informative

    Realize that in the former USSR there were similar controls (and even current Russia has some of these controls still), where people had in their passports. Yes, INTERNAL passports, that had name, birth date, parents' nationality! So in case of USA that would be nationality and religion, have to keep those Muslims on a short leash, right? There was a bunch of personal information there and the PLACE of where they live, so the address basically, and one couldn't really move from place to place without this document and couldn't really move from city to city without a lot of bureaucracy and it was actually designed in the first place to ensure a larger farmer population, to keep people from moving to cities, because living in Russian villages is not exactly wonderful (to say the least), and the gov't wanted to keep people working in these 'collective farms'.

    Also this worked well for all the antisemitism in the country. Also USSR (and now Russia) had and still has this document, where they put information about every place of work, it's a 'work-book'. So one didn't need a resume, this was an official document, very important if one wanted to work at all.

    Everybody was 'equal', except that some people were MORE equal than others, especially the members of the Communist Party.

    For some reasons I see so many of these OWS protesters saying how they want socialism in USA. They have no idea what that actually means, they truly need to pay attention to people who LIVED in systems like that, here is a funny video about that.

    People, stop before you completely screw this up for yourselves, it is NOT the right road, you are going the WRONG WAY.

    The right way is to STOP the GOVERNMENT from breaking your free market capitalism. You had the most prosperity before federal government politicians figured out how to crack your system by breaking your monetary system (counterfeiting the currency, started in 1913, together with the prohibition, which is not a coincidence, US gov't used to make 50% of revenue from alcohol sales), and they started taxing your income, which is totally wrong. Taxing income is wrong for government, because government is a spending item.

    Gov't spending should be PROPORTIONATE to your spending, not to your income, otherwise gov't can consume your entire income and you will have nothing left beyond the bare minimum, you won't have any savings and won't be able to invest into anything on your own.

    Well, they have already achieved that goal. Majority of US citizens don't even have 1000 dollars in savings.

    People, this is NOT about the 'rich' not paying some kind of 'fair share'. In fact the rich are paying much more, both, fractionally and in absolute numbers than anybody below their earning bracket. But it's OK for the rich to bear more cost, but it should not be that with more money, the income is taxed at higher rate. Well, the income shouldn't be taxed, period, but if it is taxed, it cannot be set so that majority can vote to steal more money from a minority. This is pure political BS propaganda, this is how the government takes your eyes off the ball.

    The ball is that your economy is screwed, and it's only going to get worse, not better. No more better, it's going to crash and burn and you will with it, and the rich will probably escape that.

    What you need is to crash and burn your government before it does it to you and you need to get back to actual sound monetary system and real Constitutional principles of government, where gov't actually only acts on its authority and doesn't grab power, so that it can sell it.

    That's why you really need to vote for Ron Paul and support him in every way, because I like America, but I will never do business there again if you turn it into USSR (by stupidity, not even by design.)

    1. Re:USSR by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      OWS has nothing to do with wanting a communist state and that is what you are describing.

    2. Re:USSR by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what OWS wants, the entire system is moving towards more of a fascist state, not a Communist one, not that the difference is that important, in either case you'll lose all your liberties.

      But as I said, these demands read more like Communist Manifesto than Mein Kampf.

    3. Re:USSR by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Sweden is slowly but surely moving away from socialism, don't make me school you here. There is no such thing as good socialism in any proportion.

    4. Re:USSR by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Buffet is FULL of it. He is a LIAR.

      1. He works for free in terms of personal salary, he choses to be paid in dividends. Any amount of money he gets that is from dividends is taxed at 15%. OTOH if he sells any of his stocks, that's capital gains.

      2. He is the major shareholder of his company - Berkshire Hathaway. He owns majority stock, he is still the actual owner.

      3. Any corporate taxes that his company pays, is the money he is not getting in dividends, it's HIS money. If his company pays 35% (not exactly, he is a hypocrite so he is fighting IRS on a few points there), then it's HIM who is not getting that money.

      If his corporate tax WAS 35% and dividends were taxed at 15% and that was it, he ends up paying 44.5% in overall income taxes.

      4. The fact that his company is NOT paying 35% in taxes, but pays somewhat less based on various ways he structures it, means that his company will NOT pay any increased amount.

      Anybody who can escape the full amount of taxes today will NOT be paying the full amount in taxes even if the rates go up.

      5. It is wrong for people to have to pay more PERCENTAGE of their taxes the more money they make, because there is a HUGE portion of population (50%), who don't pay ANY income taxes. For those people there is no reason NOT to vote for ANY increase in income taxes.

      All taxes should be apportioned, the 16th amendment needs to be abolished, but the Supreme Court is just a political extension of the rest of the government, nothing else.

      The problem with taxes that some people pay and some do not, is that those who don't pay benefit tremendously from increasing the taxes on those who pay in every instance, and it's completely unfair, all taxes should be apportioned to the States and divided among population, otherwise it's basically gov't legalized robbery and bribery.

      6. Most of the people who are high earners do pay 35% personal, 3%Medicare taxes on their entire salary, that's 38%. Then there is 12% SS and the State taxes, which are different from place to place, can be 0 (Texas), can be 7% (Connecticut).

      7. The high tax rates that were present during the WWII and for some time after it were NOT paid, because people didn't pay themselves these salaries, instead they used the business money to write off ANY expenses. It was possible because information was not as tightly regulated and consolidated with all the computer systems.

      There is a reason it is now illegal to transact in cash in Louisiana for second hand items (so basically the cash is outlawed if you do a garage sale for example), I think the pawn shops are still exempt. There is less and less actual freedom and liberty in USA.

      8. Berkshire Hathaway makes plenty of money on buying up and restructuring businesses in fire sales when the death taxes have to be paid, because death taxes cannot be paid just from some cash that sits somewhere, people invest all of the money they don't spend, that's why it's a completely wrong policy to tax income and not spending because any income that's not consumed is being reinvested into economy. If income is taxed it's not invested, it's consumed by gov't.

      But again and again: WARREN BUFFET IS A LIAR.

    5. Re:USSR by Chardansearavitriol · · Score: 1

      So voting for ron paul. That will get me the neurology and therapy I need to function, and wont take all ym money to do so? Cause I dont have any money because I need to see a damn neurologist because a sensory processing disorder literlaly and in no way exaggerating, TURNS ALL SENSATION INTO PAIN. Is ron paul gonna get me the healthcare I need? Because it takes all my willpower to not kill myself if I happen to think about my future. Didnt think so, ass. Come back when you have someone who actually cares about protecting those weakest of us. Ill be waiting, i cant do anything else, since even the sensation of my own hair on my skin is more painful than you can possibly imagine.

    6. Re:USSR by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Maybe you need something to help you with that pain, ever tried pot?

    7. Re:USSR by alexchorny · · Score: 1

      "work-books" were used to calculate pensions. In many ex-USSR countries they are still in use, so I guess that they are considered useful.

    8. Re:USSR by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what OWS wants, the entire system is moving towards more of a fascist state, not a Communist one, not that the difference is that important,

      The difference is huge. Just because you are too entranced with conservative bullshit to see the rest of the world doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

      in either case you'll lose all your liberties.

      That is 100% wrong. Communism does not inherently take away all liberties, no matter how much you may want the opposite to be the case. The way communism has been sold in the real world bares almost no resemblance whatsoever to what Marx had called communism when he wrote the manifesto.

      But as I said, these demands read more like Communist Manifesto than Mein Kampf.

      I don't know if you've read the latter, but I can confidently say you haven't read the former. It isn't a long read, you might want to try it some time and maybe you'll realize how full of shit you are.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  34. 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..."
    1. Re:CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

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

      And that would be highly ironic, as tar and feathering is considered cruel and unusual punishment and is thus banned by the very same constitution that the TSA is infringing upon. Just saying... The idea of "they don't follow it so neither should we when dealing with them" isn't a good one.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    2. Re:CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The irony is not in the resistance to unjust authority - but in the imposition of that authority through the means and rhetoric of a nominal republic.

      There is a difference between, on one-hand, the officially sanctioned actions of the state, in violation of the social-contract as established by adherence to rule-of-law and - on the other, the wrath of a plundered and terrorized population.

      There is the root of your"irony".

      When law serves only the interest of the powerful, and leverages the language of justice to pervert that which is actually just, then expect these people to be treated as were the tax-collectors for George III, in Philadelphia, Williamsburg and Boston.

      Tom Paine and Patrick Henry were ignited over lesser abrogations.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The Nazi's didn't, but their sucessors the STATSI did.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Unless large is at least half the size of a small car and it's anchored into the ground, that probably won't work to properly derail the train. Certainly cause it to come to an emergency stop though.

    5. Re:CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN by Raenex · · Score: 1

      It's vigilante justice and makes you just as bad as the people you are railing against.

    6. Re:CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Whatever you say, Tory redcoat fool.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    7. Re:CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN by Smidge204 · · Score: 2

      All it has to do is sit on the inside of one of the two rails, lift the first truck up a few inches and guide the wheels over the top of the rail. It would be maybe 20 feet long and could be build in 4-5 sections to be installable by one or two people.

      Or with about the same level of effort but less planning required, cut the rail, break a few of the ties and bend it out. A set of cheap jumper cables will likely keep any track circuit detectors from noticing the break.
      =Smidge=

    8. Re:CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN by Raenex · · Score: 1

      "No taxation without representation." We have representation. That the people don't make it a priority is their fault.

    9. Re:CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

      Representation is variable. If a district has 700,000 people in it, the average citizen can expect to be poorly represented. If a district has 30,000 people in it, the average citizen can expect to be represented reasonably well.

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    10. Re:CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Two words: "Citizens United".

      Stop trolling yourself.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    11. Re:CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      One billionaire is better represented than 10 million working middle-class producers.

      "Some Animals are more equal than others". == "corporate personhood"+"Money is speech"

      In the US, a "Banana Republic" level of Animal Inequality has been achieved.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    12. Re:CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Citizens United doesn't have a vote. If the people really cared, and most of them don't, then the TSA abuses could be overturned.

    13. Re:CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN by WNight · · Score: 1

      No we don't. We get to elect people but I've never been asked by a politician what I want them to do and they few I've offered my opinion to have ignored it.

      In an open market I wouldn't pay them a penny. Here they cost millions and we can't get rid of them when we catch them lying.

    14. Re:CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You're just one person among a populace. There's no perfect system. However, if enough people were people a single issue then it could be changed.

    15. Re:CELEBRATE ENDLESS GODWIN by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yes! Not only have you broken down in to generalizations about someone you have no clue about(tip: canadian), but you have no idea what you're talking about. The STASI used not only the state but the average person to control, check, and impose control on the population. Including the checks of all personal mail. The information out of the archives gives that 4:5 people worked directly or indirectly for them.

      And sadly the nazi's weren't virulently anti-communist. They were anti-soviet, and that is the difference. Many of the nazi's ideas came directly from the works of marx. You may now carry on with your lack of understanding of not only history, but how far the 'reach' of the STASI was.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  35. buncha comsymp traitors by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    Don't you effete liberals realize a scary muslim could fly one of those trains right into a skyscraper and cause mass chaos?

  36. Re:Sexist much? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    No,and it's not because men aren't surprised, either.

    It's that men are just not such attractive nuisances to most TSA agents.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  37. Re:Ron paul 2012 - The only candidate against this by Zancarius · · Score: 2

    No, I don't.

    Because Ron Paul is a nutjob. Yeah, he's good for 5 minutes, but then he keeps on talking, and then you realize just how nuts he is.

    Exactly.

    Congress controls the purse strings, so the selection for President doesn't ultimately matter with regards to the TSA. I'm sure it would be feasible for a President to sign an executive order dismissing it, but I imagine that would be challenged on numerous fronts and the President called a terrorist-loving anti-American.

    I'm feeling pessimistic today. There's nothing that can be done to eliminate the TSA--not now.

    --
    He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
  38. Travel is a PRIVILEGE by jeko · · Score: 1

    Remember, if you don't like it, don't travel. Travel by any means of conveyance is a PRIVILEGE, people. You don't have a right to it. Don't like it? Don't ride.

    (Powering down Troll mode.)

    OK, we're here. First it was planes, then rail, now buses, ferries and roads. Go baby, go baby, go baby, GO!
    The faster this program expands, the sooner we can get the general revolt started. :-)

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    1. Re:Travel is a PRIVILEGE by Holi · · Score: 1

      As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

      Shamelessly stolen from http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:Travel is a PRIVILEGE by Builder · · Score: 1

      I thought that the constitution enumerated the things that the federal government could regulate and control. I thought that all other rights were held to be explicit?

  39. Re:Wellcome to the 3rd World club by imric · · Score: 1

    It's the goal.

    That's what removing social safety nets and reducing regulation is all about - creating a desperate underclass that will work for slave wages. You have to get 'those people' used to police abuse early, or they might realize how badly they outnumber the oligarchy. No, just keep telling them that abusing their freedoms is the only way to 'keep them free', and the people will be satisfied, nay, they will DEMAND abuse.

    Simple, huh.

    --
    Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
  40. truth in labeling by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    They must be required to have electronic signage providing up to date reporting of the following Rolling totals:
    Cost to the taxpayers of that VIPR mission to that point in time.
    Cost to taxpayer per hour, per day.
    Number of CITIZENS groped
    # of not-so-scaryists plots prevented
    Avg # plots prevented per VIPR mission
    Cost $$$ per Citizen of groping
    Cost $$$ per plot defeated
    Finally a Direct phone line to John Pistole to express an opinion on his decision to violate their 4th amendment rights.

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  41. Re:TSA by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    And those members of the Rectal Inserters Anonymous Assembly and their buddies in the Mutated Pederasts Alaskan Association are now being persecuted because their acronyms are shared with some really sleazy scumags.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  42. Re:Ron paul 2012 - The only candidate against this by purpledinoz · · Score: 2

    Do you really think that Ron Paul is a nutjob? Or is it the media telling you he is?

  43. welcome to the police state by Tom · · Score: 1

    A policeman on every corner and all that. Except that they won't be police, exactly - they're much cheaper and less well trained.

    With all their flaws and mistakes, I still respect the police in general. My respect for private security companies and crap like the TSA can only be seen with a very strong microscope. You can become a guy like that in a week, with a total of two days of training, did you know that? Most of those who ask you the "would you like fries with that?" question know more about their jobs than many of those bullies.

    Yes, there are some good men and women in there as well. I have no idea what they're doing there, but they exist. They're the exceptions that don't invalidate the rule.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  44. Land of the Free, Home of the Brave by liquidweaver · · Score: 1

    I pledged that every morning in gradeschool. How far we have come since just the 90's. I really dear for the quality of life of my kids and especially my grandkids.

    --
    mov ah, 4ch
    int 21h
    1. Re:Land of the Free, Home of the Brave by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      What Did You Learn in School Today?
      Words and Music by Tom Paxton

      What did you learn in school today,
      Dear little boy of mine?
      What did you learn in school today,
      Dear little boy of mine?
      I learned that Washington never told a lie.
      I learned that soldiers seldom die.
      I learned that everybody's free.
      And that's what the teacher said to me.
      That's what I learned in school today.
      That's what I learned in school.

      What did you learn in school today,
      Dear little boy of mine?
      What did you learn in school today,
      Dear little boy of mine?
      I learned that policemen are my friends.
      I learned that justice never ends.
      I learned that murderers die for their crimes.
      Even if we make a mistake sometimes.
      That's what I learned in school today.
      That's what I learned in school.

      What did you learn in school today,
      Dear little boy of mine?
      What did you learn in school today,
      Dear little boy of mine?
      I learned our government must be strong.
      It's always right and never wrong.
      Our leaders are the finest men.
      And we elect them again and again.
      That's what I learned in school today.
      That's what I learned in school.

      What did you learn in school today,
      Dear little boy of mine?
      What did you learn in school today,
      Dear little boy of mine?
      I learned that war is not so bad.
      I learned of the great ones we have had.
      We fought in Germany and in France.
      And some day I might get my chance.
      That's what I learned in school today.
      That's what I learned in school.

    2. Re:Land of the Free, Home of the Brave by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Oh God this is a real song... I thought at first you made it up and were being sarcastic... This realization scares me.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  45. Re:TSA by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    Hopefully our new acronym won't link us to any other unsavory organization.

    It does, of course: The Business Software Alliance.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  46. I don't get it. by MoldySpore · · Score: 1

    I really don't understand why people aren't up in arms over this kind of crap. It literally makes the 4th amendment for anyone who travels completely moot. There should be 300 Million Americans beating down the doors to our government demanding this stop. When did people become complacent in letting these assholes steal away our basic rights like being innocent until proven guilty or not allowing unwarranted/unauthorized searches?

    I'll be giving the finger to any of these assholes if they try to pay me down, and refusing a search, especially outside of an airport (I specifically avoided air travel to avoid possibly punching a TSA officer in the face). Even the people who were for the airport searches should see this is getting crazy, no? I hope the rest of the country is with me on this, otherwise you may as well bend over and spread your cheeks now. Regardless of race, creed, nationality, political affiliation, or sex, everyone will be equally fucked if we let this continue.

    --

    "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

    1. Re:I don't get it. by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      When you can't afford to travel however will you be offended?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    2. Re:I don't get it. by lexsird · · Score: 1

      I am with you, fuck these fucking fuckers. Seriously. I will not fly because of these assholes. Not that I need to fly or travel, because I don't, but if I did, this would turn tragic as hell in a heartbeat. "Do I seriously look like a fucking terrorist??" would be the first thing out of my mouth. Then I am sure hand to hand combat would be the next thing in order, because I will not tolerate being handled. I feel like it's my duty to beat these Nazi fucks down the second they try to lay their hands on me. I can't help it. I doubt I could even stand in line and watch them grope old women, children, women. It would be on.

      It wouldn't last long, I am out of shape as fuck, and older and I hurt just moving around. Why didn't they try this shit 20 years ago when I was younger and could "run through the jungle"?

      But sadly, you and I need to watch our mouths. They will round us up and stuff us in a dark hole if we are lucky. If we aren't lucky, who the fuck knows what becomes of political "problem people" these days if they can pick you off one by one in the night. America, home of the free? That makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time these days. It's not getting any better, and it will only get fucking worse.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    3. Re:I don't get it. by Chardansearavitriol · · Score: 1

      Lots of reasons. Im pissed about it. Sometimes i get really upset, and scared to go out. But I'm so sick (like, more than once, someone with cancer has felt bad for me. I dont need that sort of pressure!) i cant. If the wind is a bit too cold it causes pain. Everything = Physical pain. Im really upset about this stuff. But I cant risk being arrested. There are like, nearly ten places on my torso, where if i accidently touch them, then pain is enough to make me drop things, or curl up in reflex, or if its a bad day, send me into a nervous breakdown or make me throw up. Since I cant get any health care (I dont have insurance. I dont have insurance cause I cant get a job. I cant get a job because everything is pain. I cant get the pain treated because I have no health insurance.) And I cant get medicare because IM 25 YEARS OLD. Im helpless. You. You go fix it for me. I will gladly wave a little pennant with your name on it if you do...So long as i dont have to pay for it.

  47. I've said it a hundred times... by phoenix182 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This will ONLY stop when a large number of people begin physically assaulting TSA agents and seriously injuring them. ONLY pain is instructive with these types of people. When the agents are fearful for their lives they will refuse to do what is asked. In a short time, it will stop. There has NEVER been a voluntary surrendering of power/control, and there never will be. Only force counters force.

    1. Re:I've said it a hundred times... by lexsird · · Score: 1

      You can't just punch one of these little pigs out and go about your business. It doesn't work like that. The other little pigs will squeal and the big pigs will come running to help them. They are well armed, we aren't. They are organized, we aren't. They can roll in tanks, jets, the entire military if they need. They could nuke us, because their Pig in Chief has the "legal right" now to help enforce the police state ANYWHERE with the military to "restore order".

      We have more people in prisons that any other country in the world. That equates into this is the biggest police state in the world, we have a polished system to deal with "resistance to authority". We also have a big, high tech military that is well trained via Iraq with dealing with "resistance to authority".

      Why do you think they rip the masks off of the protestors in NY? So they can get pictures of them. They have us all on file. Our dumb asses posting here, I am sure is/will be on file.

      You are seriously fucked if you try to use force to change this. Blunt application of force would not work. Our only hope is this charade of a voting system and by voting against these corporations pulling the puppet strings with our wallets. Good luck with that though, that deck is stacked against us as well and we are one seriously confused, stupid, clusterfuck of idiots as a collective of people. We fight each other while the puppet masters laugh at both sides of a divided people that they orchestrated.

      Just shut up, take your bite of the shit sandwich and pass it over so I can take my damn bite and pass it on to the next idiot so he can have his.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    2. Re:I've said it a hundred times... by phoenix182 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say you'd punch em and leave. You'll have to fight desperately and will eventually be overpowered. In fact people may end up dying. Unfortunately that's just what it takes to be victorious against that level of authoritarian fascism. Actually, many of us are armed just as well as they are (small arms at least). The military is a non-factor as they couldn't deploy heavily on American soil without galvanizing opinion against the government. That's not even considering groups like Oathkeepers or just general morality among service members who would refuse to participate. Trust me, I'm ex military. Voting is useless because we're only offered two sides of the same corrupt coin. You cannot force evil to change, only overwhelm it.

    3. Re:I've said it a hundred times... by BuildMonkey · · Score: 1

      As much as I detest TSA policies, violent resistance to TSA personnel is NOT the answer. These are blue collar folks who have a job. Violence against them is wrong. Civil disobedience, like everyone requesting a Freedom Fondle (TM) rather than go through the body scanner is more likely to be effective (by jamming up the lines) and does not visit violence on those who deserve no such thing.

    4. Re:I've said it a hundred times... by phoenix182 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure someone said the same thing about the brownshirts. ANYONE participating in an evil act are themselves evil by definition. Period. Everything ends in violence. It's just a matter of time and degree. In other words, how many will you allow to be violated and harmed before you finally do what's needed?

    5. Re:I've said it a hundred times... by lexsird · · Score: 1

      Voting is only useless because we don't exploit the system at the grass roots level. We are too lazy to organize, and send forth REPRESENTATIVES, (not politicians) and in mass change things. The Tea Party was a good idea, but it was in the hands of the wrong people and was instituted by those in power to manipulate this situation proactively from within. But you did see the effect it had on Congress. What we need is OWS to be as political in their voter registration and sending forth THEIR REPRESENTATIVES this next election.

      What we do is set back and let the lame stream media, who is just a bought and paid for as the politicians spoon feed us whom to vote for. Our levels of trust in the media are misguided and ill placed. Thankfully we have the Internet and social media to exploit to bypass this massive propaganda machine that fights against us, polarizes us and we fight each other instead of the puppeteers.

      We must be intelligent about this, we do after all have enemies in this world that would see us stumble and fall as a nation. I am reminded of what Isaac Asimov wrote; "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Violence will bring about damage and massive loss of human life. We can't afford these things. We need to be progressing forward as not only a people, a nation, but as a species. Our goal should be upward and that my friends is to space and to the stars.

      Sadly though, and I have given this some thought. We have vast evil intrenched in our systems. I don't fear the violence starting with the average person, such as you or myself, or even our military, or even some fringe element like the most devout of militia. I fear the evil in the system, once cornered will bite like a cornered rat. Due to its inhumane nature, when pressed it will not shy away from draconian measures in order to preserve itself. It will not slink away into the night like a wounded, defeated monster that it is, it will bellow, roar and rage against the people.

      The only silver lining in that horrible storm cloud is the righteous will no longer need to question their conscience when it comes to taking to battle against this darkness.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    6. Re:I've said it a hundred times... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately I agree with you. That's why the people with the 'love is the answer' signs at the occupy protests make me laugh. Nothing will change until those who hold power are made to fear and/or feel the pain(espec. in the USA). Once the PTB start using real ammo on the protesters then things might change but I suspect those who believe in love will just go home and hit the bong.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    7. Re:I've said it a hundred times... by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      You might be right. In short order, the agents will have firearms. From there it's only a matter of time before those bozos shoot somebody they shouldn't. "TSA agent kills Brad Pitt" "Agency to be closed"

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
  48. Protected rights. by Holi · · Score: 1

    Well it is not in the Constitution there is plenty of precedence regarding the right to travel freely through out the country. This is starting to look like a violation of the right to travel.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  49. Terrorism has nothing to do with it by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    Goldstein was not the reason Big Brother's tyranny continued, and terrorists are not the reason the TSA's tyranny has continued. The constant threat of terrorism is just a propaganda tool used by the executive branch of government to justified ever expanding power. The TSA is never going to find anything of value through these pat-downs, they only hope to keep people terrified so that nobody stops to question what their government is doing.

    Keeping people in a state of perpetual fear is a good way to ensure that the population remains under your control.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  50. Don't like this? Sign the petition against TSA by awkScooby · · Score: 1

    The White House recently added a section to their website that allows people to create petitions. Here's the link to the one against TSA: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/abolish-tsa-and-use-its-monstrous-budget-fund-more-sophisticated-less-intrusive-counter-terrorism/c7L94bFB

  51. starve the tsa beast by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    if any program needed to be starved of funding and die it is the TSA. It has nothing to do with making people safer and everything about making a couple rich people richer.

  52. So when are they going to set up roadblocks... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    ...on the Interstates and start searching passengers in private cars? The drivers will get a pass, of course: they're crew.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:So when are they going to set up roadblocks... by almechist · · Score: 1

      Interstate roadblocks? Uh, they've been doing exactly this for many years. I drove through one of those roadblocks on I-91 southbound in White River Junction VT years ago. Every single car on the interstate was stopped and examined by an official looking dude with a big flashlight. Most cars were waved through, but not all. I don't know how they chose who to give the full search treatment to... Drivers certainly didn't get a pass for being crew, that's for sure. This was a DHS operation that ran on and off in the same location for years. Guess how many terrorists they caught? Yep, zero. Haven't seen that roadblock lately, not since the economy tanked. Maybe the good people of VT finally got fed up and demanded an end to this kind of wasteful idiocy, but I wouldn't bet on it. As soon as there's federal funding available again, that roadblock will probably be back. Welcome to the new America. You voted for it, enjoy!

  53. Why not do BOTH? by khasim · · Score: 2

    If you really want to do something, find your local Occupy protest and see what kind of help they need to make it through the winter.

    Why not do BOTH?

    How much does some stationery, envelopes and stamps cost? In time and in money?

    The thing is that a PAPER letter has a LOT more weight with elected officials because of what it represents. And it represents someone who is willing to GET OFF HIS ASS and get involved. And that kind of person influences his friends. That is something that you cannot buy.

    The same with the protesters at Occupy X.
    Someone willing to camp out in a tent is someone who won't have any problem standing in a line to vote.

    The person staying home and sending them blankets and food is still more likely to vote than someone who isn't doing anything. Even if they aren't as committed as the protesters.

    Staying home and doing NOTHING except complaining on /. is exactly what keeps the situation deteriorating the way it has been.

    Get involved. Get as involved as you can be.

  54. Re:Police State? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

    no there wasn't The cake was a lie

  55. Re:TSA by LocutusMIT · · Score: 1

    No, no, no. It's the Boy Scouts of America.

  56. Re:America the lucky country by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    America is not worse than a dictatorship. You should look into it: dictatorships are much worse. Major problems where only the richest get a say in some of the most important matters, but "no one else gets a say in anything" is far from true. Items like this show things are getting worse, but it's not as bad as you say yet.

    Besides, your Australia has its serious problems, too, also at the hands of the richest. Fix your own country into a leader for the rest of us instead of whining about us as if you're not in trouble too.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  57. I love Bruce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    tl:dr: The Government is the answer as long as The Right People® are in charge.

    I love Bruce, but unless he is appointed as head of the TSA for life, he would last a week. The mob would be screaming for his head after he put real security into place. The mob doesn't want real security. They want bread and circuses. They want TSA jobs.

    The TSA has had a decade to get its act together and it has failed. NASA put a man on the moon with a mere 3x the annual budget of the TSA. There are some things the federal government can accomplish, but it requires the political will to make it happen. The political will for the TSA to be a well-functioning security machine is lacking. No one wants it. The mob wants to feel cozy. The politicians want to pander to the mob. The authoritarians want the government to be intrusive; and hey, if the TSA fucks up, it's because they don't have *enough* power.

    Put this shit back into the private sector. If the federal government *must* have a role (and after 9/11 I'd say they should) let it be to regulate.

  58. Re:TSA by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

    Jesus Christ, I'm getting a chill from all the WHOOSHing going on here. Wotta bunch of morons.

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  59. We should trust Obama why? by witherstaff · · Score: 1

    Remember Obama was against the illegal wiretaps as a congressman, but voted for it as a candidate, and has supported it as a President. (If I remember Dodd was the only Dem who voted against as a candidate). The Hope and Change came when O went from the legal scholar candidate advocating change to Bush part 3.

    1. Re:We should trust Obama why? by Chardansearavitriol · · Score: 1

      Yeah thats a bit far dotn you think? I certainly dont recall Bush trying to repeal dont ask dont tell. Im not completely happy with Obama, of course not.. But I also havent been letting the 24/7 rightwing propaganda machine get to me. Clearly, some have. You. You have. Theres a LOT wrong, and a lot i dont agree with. But heres what I do agree with: Obama got Russia to agree to the biggest nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the history of nuclear weapons. He pushed for the repeal of DADT so people who wanted to serve could do so without fear, without having to effectively abandon their loved ones. That means more than you have recognized. Clearly. Because you see, if any group, anywhere, can be subject to blanket attacks simply because they are part of a group, then anyone can. Even you. As long as "rights" are something 'on the table' it may be yours next time. It may be you whos being told you better keep your head down or risk getting it cut off. Do I agree with Obama all the time? No. Still voted for him. Still gonna vote for him again. Because you see, the democratic party is the oldest and longest lasting political party in the US, for a reason: We dont immediatly take our ball and go home and demand purification when we disagree. From an outsiders perspective, it may look pointless. From our perspective? If everyone agreed all the time, youd just have another Bush. See what I did there? Stop pretending this is black and white. Even Pokemon Black and White was less Black and White than the world you seem to think exists. And that game is pretty damn black and white. Come back when you want to be a responsible member of society. Unlike the hatred constant directed at us, we will continue extending the olive branch, we want to forgive you. Even if you insist on smacking it down.

  60. Why Dd TSA Pat Down Kids/Adults Getting Off Train? by BubbaDave · · Score: 1

    Wrong question- why did they submit?

    I would not have, I will not, if they try you will read about me unless they just whisk me to gitmo.

    "Sir, you are going to be searched"

    " No, I am NOT going to submit to a warrantless and unconstitutional search, I am going to walk away, if you approach me I will consider it a kidnapping attempt and I will defend myself."

    This is worth my job.
    This is worth my risking my freedom.

    Dave

  61. I'm sorry but.. by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    Drive, buy an older used car (without electronics) keep your cell phone in a static bag with the battery removed, take secondary roads, pay cash for gasoline, food, etc.

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    1. Re:I'm sorry but.. by md65536 · · Score: 1

      Yikes, it sounds like to live free, you have to live like an outlaw!

      Is freedom technically outlawed yet in the states? They must be pretty close to succeeding with that plan?

    2. Re:I'm sorry but.. by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      "Is freedom technically outlawed yet in the states?"

      Yes, in fact we have the most restrictive, highly surveilled, regulated, paranoid "Police State" in the so-called "free" world!
      The only "freedom" we have is the "right" to own lots and lots of guns!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  62. Not that it would happen... by flibbidyfloo · · Score: 1

    The TSA should take the extra money and pay their workers more so they won't be so apathetic about their jobs and also maybe train them better.

  63. Re:Ron paul 2012 - The only candidate against this by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Because Ron Paul is a nutjob. Yeah, he's good for 5 minutes, but then he keeps on talking, and then you realize just how nuts he is.

    On which issues specifically is he a nut-job?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  64. Re:America the rest of the world hates you by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Suck shit America. The rest of the world is laughing their collective asses off.

    ...except when we have to fly to the US, of course.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  65. Re:TSA by zoloto · · Score: 1

    WHOOOSH!

  66. So much for the land of the free by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

    Bin Laden must be having a party in whatever place is soul is. He achieved a strategic victory beyond his wildest dreams. Not even in China they bother with this crap.

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  67. False equivalence by zooblethorpe · · Score: 2

    It's vigilante justice and makes you just as bad as the people you are railing against.

    Um, no.

    On the one hand, you have a powerful group saying "protect!" and instead engaging in wholesale personal violation. For fun and profit.

    On the other, you have (potentially) a public group provoked into mob rage by the unjust actions of the above powers-that-be. And who would probably be happier just going about their business but for the bullying actions of these same powers-that-be.

    I'm not saying that either is just, but equating them is intellectually dishonest at best.

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
    1. Re:False equivalence by Raenex · · Score: 1

      So "mob rage" is the answer to people violating personal freedoms? The fact is we still have the right to vote, but enough people don't care to make change happen.

    2. Re:False equivalence by Raenex · · Score: 1

      If people cared enough they'd vote for Ron Paul. They don't.

    3. Re:False equivalence by cusco · · Score: 1

      Yes, Deibold and ESS still let you vote for whoever you want. And then they make sure that your vote is counted for whoever THEY want.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  68. Gah! My eyes! by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    ... naked body scanners ... gropings ... bipartisan clusterfuck ...

    Well, just THANK YOU very much for putting the horrid image in my head of the 112th Congress of the United States getting all sweaty-snugglebunnies in front of one of these scanners. :-P

    Where's the brain bleach?

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  69. Attractive career opportunities by md65536 · · Score: 1

    Hundreds of years ago the church held a lot of power, which attracted certain types of people. Part of the reason the church has been corrupt in history is that it attracted people who didn't exactly join the priesthood for religious reasons.

    Now, people who want to fondle children have a great career option. Others will let them do it, thinking nothing of it until someone's caught being a pervert and the cover-up isn't enough.

  70. New, IMPROVED! TSA Education Program! by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    I blame public education.

    Only now with the gropings, it gets to be pubic education! BA dum...

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  71. Occupy TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If the #occupy people wanted to make change, they should take over airports, bridges, ferries and transit hubs and take their country back from the TSA.

    Have the people provide the level of security they can live with.

  72. Don't terminate: Fix by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

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

    How about just getting your government to make the TSA behave like most other western country's airport security? I've yet to see Canadian and European airport security turn up in a railway station and start frisking passengers.

    1. Re:Don't terminate: Fix by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Given that TSA hasn't caught a single terrorist (but did let two through), I see no reason to keep paying for their idiocy at all.

  73. TSA has always intended.... by Hasai · · Score: 1

    "TSA has always intended to expand beyond the confines of airport terminals."

    But of course: A bureaucracy's first priority is to survive. The second is to EXPAND.

    'Nuff said.

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

  74. Comic book villians by Belial6 · · Score: 2

    You would think that when they form a comic book villain organization that they would have the sense not to name it as one. Seriously. VIPR??? It isn't even an original league of evil name. Marvel should sue the US government for trademark violation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_Command

  75. Re:Ron paul 2012 - The only candidate against this by bmo · · Score: 1

    I have followed his career since the mid 1980s when I first heard his interview on the David Brudnoy show on WBZ (rest in peace, David, talk radio has never been the same). In which I thought his ideas were intriguing and wished to subscribe to his newsletter.

    But he's changed over the years. I've changed over the years. Purist ideology like his fails to take into account asshats. Libertarianism of his and his son's bent, only works if people behave the way they should and not the way they are.

    But hey, what the fuck do I know. I've only been listening to him for 25 years.

    --
    BMO

  76. Re:Ron paul 2012 - The only candidate against this by bmo · · Score: 1

    Correction, it's only been 20 years. The interview was in 1991, but I can't find an archive of it. There was a Rapidshare link from LewRockwell.

    --
    BMO

  77. Re:his NAME is HARRY BUTTLE! by Agripa · · Score: 1

    After withholding consent to be searched and asking if you are free to go, have a panic attack and throw up on them.

  78. Exactly! by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, my ass.

    We are in one of those historical moments when everything is gathering to a point of profound dislocation. The powers that be are unwilling to change because the status quo benefits them. But somewhere deep inside they sense that the whole thing is starting to get away from them, so they rush to grab as much as they can as fast as they can before the hammer falls, in much the same way that looters smash & grab whatever they can carry. And while the powers that be rush to steal anything that's not nailed down, they close ranks and tighten the screws on the people hoping to contain the building pressure for a little while longer so they can steal just a few trillion more.

    Except, all of this intensifies the inevitable explosion. Where can these thieves go to escape the wrath of the American people? Switzerland? China? The moon? Where do they think they can go to find sanctuary when the rest of the world hates them more than we do, and when there is no place on Earth that the American people cannot reduce to smoldering rubble if they so choose, if any place should be so foolish as to give them shelter?

    I for one will not allow my children to grow up in this Orwellian dystopia they are erecting. I would prefer to vote them out or even hold a second Constitutional Convention to restructure them out of existence, but if those avenues are shut off and we the People have no other recourse, then I will take up arms.

    I was born in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, and that is where I will die, no matter the cost.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  79. Re:We Are At War by lexsird · · Score: 1

    It's a war we have already lost. They have been prepared for this for decades, and the American people are way behind the game. We are too little, too late. Our two sided political system is a joke, they are both bought and paid for. The main stream media has been pumping us full of propaganda for decades, crafting the American mindset to accept whatever they want to dish out to us.

    Welcome to the American Nightmare. The dream is over.

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
  80. Re:Illegal Search (and judges) by adrn01 · · Score: 1

    Having thought about this a bit, I concluded that judges should be randomly selected from the lawyer pool just as jurors are selected from the voter pool. Higher level ones could be picked from those judged by their peers to have done a reasonable job at being a low level judge.

  81. Re:Ron paul 2012 - The only candidate against this by bmo · · Score: 1

    I'll just throw these out:

    Gold standard. As if a super hard currency is any more helpful when it comes to making an economy more stable. See the panics of 1890 and earlier.

    The "right" of businesses to discriminate in public accommodation. There's a reason why the Civil Rights Act happened. Absolutism when it comes to "the right of business" vs the rights of everyone else is just nuts. Ron and Rand's justification for this is that "everyone's dollar is equal, and businesses would not be acting in their self interest by not catering to everyone." When we know this is not true and there was 100 years of Jim Crow backed by white business interests to put the lie to this.

    I could go on. But you get the idea.

    --
    BMO

  82. Security theater is for Europeans, too! by DrVomact · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about just getting your government to make the TSA behave like most other western country's airport security? I've yet to see Canadian and European airport security turn up in a railway station and start frisking passengers.

    I agree that the German security krewe that screwed with me aren't likely to show up at the Bahnhof by mistake, but this is an international show, Mr. Moore; you can buy your tickets with Euros, too!

    On my last trip to Germany (last year), I made the mistake of bringing my reading light. The trip before that one, I had gotten an airplane seat with a broken light, and I wasn't going to suffer through another 10 hours of boredom if I could help it. Unfortunately, this is a somewhat modded LED headlamp: I had one headlamp that had an OK headband and mount, and another one with really neat optics and a broken mount. So I combined them. Unfortunately, aesthetics are not usually my prime concern when I make gadgets for myself—the thing has a largish lump of black epoxy on top where the wires come out. Yeah, it occurred to me that it might confuse people if I stuck this into my pocket, but I couldn't find anything else, and hey, it's obviously a flashlight. How much trouble can that cause?

    And in fact, I got through the Dallas-Fort Worth airport just fine. None of the National Security Goons said a thing about it, even though I had my usual snarling match with the dumb f*cks. Ah, but on the way back through the Frankfurt airport, the guy running the carry-on X ray machine literally danced on his tippy-toes, holding my ugly duckling light up high in the air for all to see, calling for a "Sonderuntersuchung". Yep, special handling for the Doctor.

    They took me to the Room For Bad Boys (at this point, a certain amount of Reality Skew had already set in, and I was getting junior high school flashbacks). What I thought was really weird is that none of these people understood why I would want a reading light. I tried to explain to them that reading was fun, but was met by looks of blank incomprehension. This was not some sort of language problem, as the Doctor's native language is German. (Well, OK, with a heavy Bavarian accent, but I think even these damn Prussians could understand me just fine!) They kept shining my light on the ceiling (after I showed them how to turn it on); I remember apologizing several times about how dim it was, and offering to change out the nearly dead batteries. Maybe this wasn't a smart thing to say to people who probably can't tell a flashlight from a Klingon phaser. But eventually, they gave me back my reading light, and let me go.

    I had taken no more than three steps when I felt a hand on my arm. I was notified (in English) that I had been selected for a "special security check". It was like the scene you've seen in 50 movies where the prisoner is released, thinks the ordeal is over—and is instantly re-arrested by hard-faced guys wearing the 20th century's most snazzy uniforms with those jagged lightning bolt runes. There were at least five of these guys, and two of them were women. Evidently, this somewhat confused paunchy 60+ year old guy with the fuzzy white beard sent the danger meter into the red zone. The woman who was seated behind a desk said, "Empty your pockets please." Further Reality Seepage followed.

    I can explain why I lost control. You see, I was wearing my Vest of Many Pockets, and every pocket was filled with things I considered interesting or useful (like reading lights, books, interesting rocks, you know, the usual stuff). I had a mental image of myself emptying out a nearly infinite multitude of pockets, drawing forth who knew what (I certainly had very little memory of what I had collected in the past weeks), a process that, with the accompanying explanations, would clearly consume months. I started laughing. I couldn't help it, I was bent over in paroxysms of laughter, holding on to Frau Schnipperschnapps' desk for support, for what seemed like a

    --
    Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
  83. Why the people do that? by devent · · Score: 1

    Why the people listen to the TSA agents? Get of a train and let you searched and patted down? Are people that stupid?
    I'm not american, but I know you have something like the constitution and there is something like that: "The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause"

    Why the hell do people comply with the TSA agents? I would just ignore them and told anybody to do the same.
    Are the people that brainwashed by FOX News?

    "The TSA's Blogger Bob writes that what the Savannah train passengers encountered is known as a VIPR operation, a randomized search "where anyone entering an impacted area has to be screened.""

    Where are the law-suits? If someone gets hot coffee over their leg there is a class-action-law-suit one week later, but if an government agency violates the 4. Amendment you get just the comment: ""Their apology is kind of lame," he says. "I thought this whole thing was very unprofessional and very shady.""

    Unprofessional and very shady? It's just plain illegal.

    --
    http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  84. So. What are we going to DO? by Flaming+Cowpie · · Score: 1

    Reading and patting each other on the back and being all witty and intelligent. But what are WE going to DO? How about an analog version of /.ing congress with our collective voices? Otherwise this is all just a big wet fart.

    --
    Sigs? We don't need no steekin Sigs!
  85. Re:Don't like this? Sign the petition against TSA by kermidge · · Score: 1

    What do you think the odds are that everyone signing unpopular petitions at whitehouse.gov gets put on someone's watch list?

    Nope, not paranoid, I've simply read too much history and science fiction (a lot of Heinlein comes to mind) since the '50s. This is gonna get a whole bunch worse before there's even the slim possibility it'll get better.

    Gunner Joe AND the Stasi would've loved this. Heydrich and Beria are cackling in their graves. Even if there were a journalist with the perception and integrity of Murrow, or even Cronkite, he'd never get air time. Nope, this'll have to play itself out, rather like a cancer corrupting and killing its host.

    I hope that I'm wrong, but it's slim pickens'.

  86. Trading away liberty... by DeathSquid · · Score: 1

    With the introduction of full body scanners, the indignities of security screening have been taken to new heights. Not only is the process invasive to the point of illegality in most countries, but the required steps appear to be calculated to maximize degradation. Subjects are required to stand on certain spots and hold their hands in the air, much like dangerous criminals are treated when arrested.
    Every subject (currently) has the option of refusing to be degraded like this, at the cost of a few minutes of their time. If the majority of passengers chose this option, this would act as a massive economic countermeasure against the TSA's attack on basic freedoms and dignities.
    And yet, when travelling recently through the USA, I observed exactly zero fellow passengers exercise this option (I always opt out of the scanners). It is apparent that the average US citizen values their dignity somewhat less than a few minutes of their time. One wonders how they chose to spend these minutes that were so dearly bought with their liberty. Perhaps they enjoyed a coffee at Starbucks or watched TV?
    What happened to the great principles that the USA was founded on?

  87. Re:America the lucky country by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    We make governments to protect our rights. When our governments are filled with people who don't do anything, that is by design: the design of the people who damage our rights. While governments dither and deadlock, corporate people are robbing and damaging us. Every day corporate teams produce new ways to attack us, which requires government diligence that has failed miserably.

    Rather than applaud from a distance, you should go to an Occupy Australia demonstration. This is direct action that you support - in principle. The more people support that action in person the more it will mean. It's the next step away from representative democracy. And since that last step is a sham, it's the closest step to it you can take. Just do it. BTW, it's a lot of fun, and the despair you might have (but might not even feel - yet) shrinks in good company.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  88. Re:We Are At War by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    It's guaranteed to be over only if you surrender. You are a part of the American mindset. It's your job to change your mind, and as many around you as you can. We surround them.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  89. A few years ago, I took a bus. by Chardansearavitriol · · Score: 1

    Well, several, on my way from colorado to california and back. See, Mom, I have REAL friends!!..she wont be reading this. ANYWAY....In san francisco on the way back i had a two hour delay because greyhound can go to hell. Well I saw the dumbest thing ever. People were getting patted down and having their bags searched before getting on the bus...I payed close attention here. Why? I had a fair deal of pot with me. yes yes I know, probably shoulda found a better way but anyway. During my two hour delay, i watched them. They werent making people remove their shoes. So, i went to the bathroom. I took the pot out of my backpack, and put it in my shoe..This might gross some folks out, apparently, but i tend to overheat badly because I dont sweat, like at all, from my feet. Its rather horrible as shoes can make me pass out. They searched my bags. Didnt search my shoes., I got on the bus, and successfully brought my shouldnt be illegal drugs home. Idiots. Heh.

  90. Re:Non-secure airline? by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

    How about setting up an airline that doesn't use TSA? We're supposed by have a "free market" right? Why not let the market decide? We have "no frills" airlines that reduce cost by cutting in-flight service. Just apply the same logic to security.

    Instead of the standard TSA procedure, you get an Israeli-style interview check. The airline could even charge a premium for these "no-TSA" flights. I for one would gladly pay an extra %1 for such a ticket, and I know I'm not the only one. Actually, I think the market would be quite substantial.

    Unfortunately, that will probably never happen. Because that would mean the TSA would have to give up some of its power, and entities that hold that kind of power almost never give it up willingly. Also, the security industry has already grown to the point where its lobbyists are able to prevent any such legislation getting through Congress. So basically we're screwed (or rather pawed) until we can get the money out of politics, and after the SCOTUS's Citizens United ruling, the only way to do that is by a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  91. Land of the Free, Home of the Brave? by fygment · · Score: 1

    You ain't free, 'cause you ain't brave. American Woman, stay away from me!

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  92. Papers, please! by ormondotvos · · Score: 1

    In this world, papers please is a necessary condition for the survival of democracy, especially. Don't confuse civil rights with defense. They're separate. Privacy ain't that important.

  93. Re:This is what happens when you disarm. by mikechant · · Score: 1

    ...SHOOT that agent.

    OK, you go first; let us know how it turns out...

  94. sorry but this should be of interest by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1
    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.