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."

22 of 658 comments (clear)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    6. Re:Well, so much for... by 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.

  2. 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 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/
    2. 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.

  3. 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 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/
  4. 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.

  5. 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.)

  6. Re:Godwin time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  7. 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.

  8. 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)
  9. 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?

  10. 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.

  11. 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..."
  12. 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.
  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.