Slashdot Mirror


The Ineffectiveness of TSA Body Scanners

TheNextCorner points out a video that lays bare a glaring flaw in the TSA body scanners used in airports to detect weapons and explosives. In such scans, citizens are depicted in light colors, while metallic objects show as very dark. The problem comes when you consider that the images are taken with a dark background. From the transcript: "Yes that’s right, if you have a metallic object on your side, it will be the same color as the background and therefore completely invisible to both visual and automated inspection. It can’t possibly be that easy to beat the TSA’s billion dollar fleet of nude body scanners, right? The TSA can’t be that stupid, can they? Unfortunately, they can, and they are. To put it to the test, I bought a sewing kit from the dollar store, broke out my 8th grade home ec skills, and sewed a pocket directly on the side of a shirt. Then I took a random metallic object, in this case a heavy metal carrying case that would easily alarm any of the “old” metal detectors, and walked through a backscatter x-ray at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. On video, of course. While I’m not about to win any videography awards for my hidden camera footage, you can watch as I walk through the security line with the metal object in my new side pocket."

494 comments

  1. Stop aiding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    the enemy by pointing out stupidity!

    1. Re:Stop aiding by Osgeld · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the "enemy" is much smarter than 10000 bureaucrats being sold by a used car salesman

      after all this decades enemy has sustained life for thousands of years in an environment most of our citizens would die in, in a matter of hours... they do have some tricks "up their sleeve"

    2. Re:Stop aiding by sjames · · Score: 2, Funny

      One day, a man tripped over a gopher hole. The entire TSA yelled, "OW! My ASS!".

    3. Re:Stop aiding by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Funny

      I really want to understand this joke.

    4. Re:Stop aiding by bmo · · Score: 0

      No, no, the words are...

      "Ow my balls!"

      --
      BMO - IT'S GOT WHAT PLANTS CRAVE

    5. Re:Stop aiding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I really want to understand this joke.

      It's a saying - "they can't tell the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground'

    6. Re:Stop aiding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The entire TSA can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground.

    7. Re:Stop aiding by BenJCarter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Idiocracy is a most apt description of our political class...

      --
      For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
    8. Re:Stop aiding by Moofie · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can certainly tell the difference between that joke and something funny...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:Stop aiding by perpenso · · Score: 2

      ... after all this decades enemy has sustained life for thousands of years in an environment most of our citizens would die in, in a matter of hours... they do have some tricks "up their sleeve"

      Yes, but its not being smarter. I'd say the smarter people relocated to more pleasant and more bountiful areas.

      Being less open to change, or perhaps fearful of change, seems a better characterization.

    10. Re:Stop aiding by LordLimecat · · Score: 0

      But.,.... it would be the man who was unable to tell the difference....
      Maybe its that GP cant understand the difference between a joke and a hole in the ground?

    11. Re:Stop aiding by JockTroll · · Score: 4, Funny
      Was the hole in the ground near a tree by a river? And was there an old man of Aran going around and around near it? In this case, know that his mind is a beacon in the veil of the night and for a strange kind of fashion there's a wrong and a right.

      But he'll never, never fight over you so you're toast, loserboy nerd.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    12. Re:Stop aiding by mdm42 · · Score: 0

      A better term is "Kakistocracy" imho.

      --
      New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
    13. Re:Stop aiding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you put your ass in a hole in the ground?

    14. Re:Stop aiding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      It's a saying - "they can't tell the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground'

    15. Re:Stop aiding by oreaq · · Score: 1

      Which means you are not working for the TSA.

    16. Re:Stop aiding by netwarerip · · Score: 2

      after all this decades enemy has sustained life for thousands of years in an environment most of our citizens would be smart enough to move the hell out of, in a matter of hours... "

      FTFY

    17. Re:Stop aiding by cmiller173 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      kind of begs the question ... Where did the TSA put the gopher? .....

    18. Re:Stop aiding by daem0n1x · · Score: 2

      Yeah, they would change, if you'd be so kind as to give them a room in your house.

    19. Re:Stop aiding by daem0n1x · · Score: 2

      It's not like they don't try to move out, but the other countries have some issues with it. I wonder why...

    20. Re:Stop aiding by netwarerip · · Score: 1

      I really think it's more a "this is our home and where we want to be" mentality. The same mentality that made people move back to Galveston after 1900, New Orleans after Katrina, and every damn trailer park in the midwest after every damn tornado.

      People are just uncomfortable with change. Well, stupid people are at least.

    21. Re:Stop aiding by daem0n1x · · Score: 3

      Ah, nothing like judging tens of millions of people on the other side of the world while sitting one's fat ass on a comfortable couch, munching a cheeseburger, watching sports on a giant LCD HD TV and feeling the sweet breeze of air conditioning.

    22. Re:Stop aiding by LtGordon · · Score: 2

      Reminds me of this Dilbert book I saw the other day, "It's Not Funny If I Have To Explain It".

    23. Re:Stop aiding by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Go away, I'm 'batin!

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    24. Re:Stop aiding by netwarerip · · Score: 1

      Hey, my ass is not fat. And the TV is a plasma. Shows how much you know, mister smarty-pants!

    25. Re:Stop aiding by forkfail · · Score: 1

      They installed the gopher on their new 300 million dollar VAX systems.

      --
      Check your premises.
    26. Re:Stop aiding by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of this Dilbert book I saw the other day, "It's Not Funny".

      I would have just stopped the title there.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    27. Re:Stop aiding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://xkcd.com/169/

    28. Re:Stop aiding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of judging...

  2. SSDD by Johann+Lau · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As far as I'm concerned, all of this airport security--the cameras, the questions, the screenings, the searches--is just one more way of reducing your liberty and reminding you that they can fuck with you anytime they want. Because that's the way Americans are now. They're willing to trade away a little of their freedom in exchange for the feeling---the illusion---of security.

    -- George Carlin

    1. Re:SSDD by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 0

      While the body scan is not perfect, it has a dissuasive role. A terrorist who knows he has a 50% chance to be uncovered and spend most of his/her life in jail may prefer to give up.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:SSDD by Johann+Lau · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sure. Meanwhile, funneling mountains of money into BS like this, not to mention all the military hardware, ends up leaving more people out in the cold, and effectively killing them, than all terrorist attacks of all history combined, and people who do the real harm get rewarded for it ("too big to jail"). I mean, it's not like people have this inate tendency to be hateful towards freedom and generosity -- it's just that that's all pretty much BS, and for all we know, every single terrorist was trained by the CIA, because that's what's needed to keep people in check and the actual wolves running wild. That surely would make more sense than the hilarious explanation you're offering. Thanks for the chuckle though.

    3. Re:SSDD by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Why bother to go on a suicide mission if something BAD could happen to you instead?

      --
      This space available.
    4. Re:SSDD by hoggoth · · Score: 2

      > A terrorist who knows he has a 50% chance to be uncovered and spend most of his/her life in jail may prefer to give up

      I'm probably responding to a troll, but you realize he also has a 50% chance of not being uncovered and blowing up and dying. Jail is the more pleasant option.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    5. Re:SSDD by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A terrorist who is actually planning to blow himself up anyway would simply do so between the scan and the pat down upon detection—probably diving into the security line to maximize the casualties. The body scanners are thus completely and utterly ineffectual as a deterrent.

      More to the point, the terrorists weren't afraid to bring box cutters onto an aircraft; the metal detectors were obviously not a deterrent. Based on that bit of history, what possible reason could you have for believing that this magic tiger-repelling rock will work better than the last one?

      --

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

    6. Re:SSDD by funwithBSD · · Score: 3, Funny

      Silence!

      I keel you!

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    7. Re:SSDD by SethJohnson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More to the point, the terrorists weren't afraid to bring box cutters onto an aircraft; the metal detectors were obviously not a deterrent.

      At the time of the 9/11/2001 attacks, it was legal to bring a box cutter aboard an airplane.

      Another way this security theater is easily bypassed is in the case of liquids. Currently, the TSA will only allow a passenger through the security check with 100ml containers of any given liquid. Want to bring an entire liter of liquid aboard an airplane? Just go through the security checkpoint ten times, each time carrying a single 100ml. You'll have a liter inside security. You could also have ten friends each bring in 100ml and combine it when you get past the security checkpoints. This is all fake. It's all BS masquerading as doing something for the sake of security.

      Seth

    8. Re:SSDD by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Meanwhile, funneling mountains of money into BS like this, not to mention all the military hardware, ends up leaving more people out in the cold,

      There are several assumptions (mostly incorrect) in your post:
      A) that money that is spent on airport bs would otherwise be allocated to "the people out in the cold"
      B) that there are a large number of people in this country dying of exposure (the number is astonishingly low)
      C) That those who DO die of exposure could have been saved with more money
      D) that if the government doesnt become a charity, then it is responsible for their deaths

      You may want to reexamine these assumptions. B especially you may want to research.

    9. Re:SSDD by aztektum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sometimes I remember George Carlin & Hunter S. Thompson are both dead now.

      I get sad when I do that.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    10. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As mentioned before Israel Doesn't Use Scanners. Since we can pretty much say most terrorists don't really have much "faith" in US reporting / news why do you think they would believe US news sources when one much closer to home is saying the screening is garbage to begin with?

      Some how I sincerely doubt any terrorists were fooled, just you :)

    11. Re:SSDD by Xeno+man · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The dissuasive role you are referring to is what keeps American from flying more often if at all. It's what is keeping international business people from visiting America. While it may keep joe blow from bringing a gun on a flight just to make a point, it doesn't do a thing to a terrorist because they know they are going to get through because they have studied the system and know what they are doing.

    12. Re:SSDD by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Informative

      At the time of the 9/11/2001 attacks, it was legal to bring a box cutter aboard an airplane.

      Untrue. Pocket knives were legal. Box cutters and straight razors have never been allowed as best I can determine. (Source: planesafe.org)

      Besides, there's reason to suspect that they were never taken through security in the first place, making the entire question moot.

      By the way, it might be happening again.

      --

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

    13. Re:SSDD by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A large part of the US military spending goes to destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. Both in the name of liberation and whatnot - but the fact is that lots and lots of locals have been killed, either directly by bombs or bullets, or indirectly due to loss of their home and destruction of general infrastructure in their countries.

      Not bombing Iraq and Afghanistan would save the US a lot of money (effectively lowering your immense deficits), and would have saved many lives in the countries affected. Not having military operations all over the world would possibly even have prevented many terrorist attacks to happen in the first place, due to less bad blood about US activities.

      Sure you can not prevent all actions from all mad men. Most bombings on US soil have been by US nationals. But not meddling in other countries' internal affairs helps a lot (and that's not an endorsement of either the Taliban or of Saddam Hussein). Leave that meddling to the UN, it's what that organisation was set up for to begin with.

    14. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If he is ready to give up, he isn't terrorist material in the first place.

      No, if he does get caught, he'll just trigger his bomb in the airport instead. Plenty of people there.

      Now, what will a TSA agent do, if he realizes the guy is carrying enough explosives to blow up a 747? Try to apprehend the guy, knowing that he will die himself, along with the people waiting in line, or pretend nothing happened, killing just as many people on the plane, but not himself? This is not the secret service we are talking about, the guys who are ready to give their own life, to save the president. These are the TSA rent-a-cops, whose only quality are that they want to molest strangers (those who don't want to fondle strangers won't get the job).

    15. Re:SSDD by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No. The terrorist goal is to blow a plane, not an airport room (they could go to any crowded shop instead). The idea behind my post: while there is currently no perfect weapon detection system, the body scan has an impact anyway as, yes, it helps to discourage some people - not all terrorists are part of a more or less organized al qaida - in being involved in a spectacular action. This is a psychological impact on those weak people who realize their frustration (inferiority complex) may not find as easily a counterbalance solution. It helps. I'm not saying this is perfect. And yes, it costs me some karma :-)

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    16. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention there are plenty of liquids that are dangerous in tiny quantities. According to Wikipedia and some calculation: 100ml of nitroglycerin (160 grams at room temperature) corresponds to roughly 240g of TNT. An M67 grenade is filled with 180g of Composition B, which corresponds to 243g TNT.

    17. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between dying for something (which, according to them (to be clear: not to me), is a just cause), and spending the rest of their life in prison for failing to do that.

      Sure, they might still think it's worth it, but since the impact of the outcome is significantly reduced, the number of people willing to go through with it is probably significantly reduced.

      Therefore, having working security measures (i.e. not nude-scanners) are a good idea since it reduces the odds.

    18. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a thought once that what TSA is trying to protect is not really the people, but the planes, the multi-million dollar passenger planes.

    19. Re:SSDD by petman · · Score: 1

      Freedom is overrated.
      So is security.

    20. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd call BS.
      Blowing up a security checkpoint in a major airport would be just as effective as blowing up a plane. Even if you take only 5-10 people with you. The end goal, scaring the public, would be achieved either way.

    21. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nevermind you'll be dead too.

    22. Re:SSDD by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      In Europe shelter is a human right, meaning that if someone really has absolutely nowhere they can stay then society (via the government) is responsible for getting a roof over their head. The accommodation provided is horrible and no-one would want to stay there, but basically we put an end to people sleeping rough on the streets. It didn't even cost that much.

      The US could do it too, and the problem isn't money. The problem is that such a move by the government would be politcally unacceptable. Charities helping is fine for some reason, but not making it an actual right that the government must uphold.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And Vonnegut.

    24. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'No. The terrorist goal is to blow a plane, not an airport room '

      So the goal is to make millions of people avoid flying planes?
      I can let you in on a secret: They already won.

    25. Re:SSDD by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      I'm sure jail is absolutely terrifying to them, when compared to the 100% chance of being blown into tiny bits if they are NOT discovered.

    26. Re:SSDD by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "Want to bring an entire liter of liquid aboard an airplane? Just go through the security checkpoint ten times, each time carrying a single 100ml."

      Just use 2 half liter lens cleaning fluid containers.

    27. Re:SSDD by pulse2600 · · Score: 2

      Europe has not put an end to homelessness. I have seen people sleeping on the streets in London.

    28. Re:SSDD by mSparks43 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm still waiting to get asked to go through one of these scanners (UK doesn't send everyone through them).

      I can get naked in under 5 seconds, and plan to demonstrate this skill as soon as they request naked pictures of me.

      Only fair I share the wealth of my gorgeous nakedness with everyone in the airport when requested to do so by airport staff.

      My wife panics everytime we get near them, she knows I'll do it, and is obviously petrified I'll get mauled by all the sex hungry girls in the vicinity.

    29. Re:SSDD by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Or just buy it at the shop inside. You don't think deliveries of sealed bottles to those shops have every bottle opened and checked do you? They're delivered by guys earning minimum wage who don't receive security vetting. Just get one of your guys to apply for the job. He can replace a 2L bottle of booze with a 2L bottle of something explosive, or stick a few guns in a biscuit tins. You then go in, buy it, and take it onto the plane.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    30. Re:SSDD by makomk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't worry, there won't be any of those soon. The Government is rounding them all up and forcing them to leave in preparation for the 2012 Olympics.

    31. Re:SSDD by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      fact is, the government SHOULD be a charity. that's one of the reasons it exists. to help and assist the less fortunate.

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
    32. Re:SSDD by stewbacca · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A large part of the US military spending goes to rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq, which is the real problem. The military is meant to blow things up and kill people. Spending military money on building schools and infrastructure is no longer military money. I suppose if the UN actually had any teeth and actually did things like, oh, follow up on their word when they say things like "let the inspectors in...or else!", then we wouldn't have things like Iraq (well, if there had been a different US President AND the UN did its job, I suppose).

    33. Re:SSDD by stewbacca · · Score: 1, Funny

      This is probably totally anecdotal, but my four years of living in Europe disprove your theory that "shelter is a human right".

      I've always contended the reason Germany has such a great U-Bahn system is to provide a place for the homeless to sleep. Nothing smells better than the U-Bahn at 2 in the morning!

    34. Re:SSDD by eyenot · · Score: 1

      Care for a side of sad with that: so is Sherman H. Skolnick.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    35. Re:SSDD by HopefulIntern · · Score: 3, Informative

      Needlessly, because we have homeless shelters for them to go to.

    36. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UN? Russia and China veto any action the UN could take on their own. When has the UN ever done anything useful?

    37. Re:SSDD by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Hey crazy guy, according to most shock horror buy this newspaper or die stories. Most terrorist tend to want to get caught and kill as many people as possible whilst doing so and then dying, excluding the plotters and schemers of course. Then again the plotters and schemers never go near airports et al with explosives and firearms, so are you saying the scanners have a psychic dissuasive role reaching out across hundreds of kilometres to where to plotters, schemers and bomb makers are hiding.

      How many crazy arse for profit schemes that seem to catch next to nobody can you idiots claim works because no one carried out those crimes. Hint if you catch nobody then you really are irradiating people for nothing and soon you'll be doubling the dose, thanks to this little expose.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    38. Re:SSDD by Mabhatter · · Score: 1

      First, boxcutters were not illegal at the time, and second the terrorists didn't actually carry ANY currently prohibited items through security.

      They profiled the psychology of hijackings and found a weakness to use the plane itself as the bomb. The next true attack (and not just an irrational idiot with a bomb in his chest) will be something nobody has thought of yet.

      The TSA's approach is to have management keep up on spy novels and CNN and make knee-jerk reactionary policies.... When the horse is out of the barn... We're dealing with sheep and wolves... When we REALLY need more wolves (prepared regular citizens, not necessarily armed) walking around and police capable of actually working with the public and not actively against them.

    39. Re:SSDD by Mabhatter · · Score: 1

      Or the REAL method, raid a broom closet on the other side of security... There's large bottles of stuff in the shops. Is EVERY SINGLE SCRAP inventoried at least one a week for security?

    40. Re:SSDD by silanea · · Score: 1

      A terrorist who knows he has a 50% chance to be uncovered while trying to hijack a plane may prefer to simply blow up the queue in front of the body scanners.

      FTFY.

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    41. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fuck that, this is a world of finite resources and everytime you spend a dollar on one bullshit program you take money away from an effective and helpful program.

      It might not have been spent on something directly, but getting rid of all that waste would at least stem some of the cuts that are going to actually helpful programs.

    42. Re:SSDD by thereitis · · Score: 1
      Ask yourself: How large of an area do you want them to secure - out to the parking lot? What about terrorists who dive into the parking lot screening area? And so on..

      I don't agree with a lot of what they do, but I think a lot of us here (including myself) need to educate ourselves a little more on the subject.

    43. Re:SSDD by shilly · · Score: 1

      While there are real defeats for these security measures, the ones are pretty ineffectual. You don't have the option to leave airside and come back repeatedly, at least here in the UK. You certainly can't leave material on one side. You'd have to secrete it somewhere, 9 times, without being spotted. And each pass through security has a risk attached to it -- 10 people passing through in the same airport is a substantive increase in risk, both at the time of pass through and in all the prep. While it clearly can be done, it's an operational risk that presumably terrorists will seek to avoid if at all possible.

    44. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a minimum wage job at a food vendor inside the secure area. Then cart a 5 gallon jug of explosives instead of deep fry oil through the side door that non passengers use. If getting that job is too hard, then kidnap a child from someone who already has the job, and tell them they are smuggling designer handbags for you.

    45. Re:SSDD by RubberMallet · · Score: 3, Informative

      The stupid part is, there is a place for them all to go in Germany. There is a whole infrastructure in place to help them out... a dry warm place to live (albeit basic and not luxurious by any stretch of the imagination, but it beats sleeping rough on a U-Bahn floor), food, medical. There is no valid excuse except maybe that they are so far gone they don't care anymore, or they are illegals.. and as such are not in the system... being IN the system in Germany is critical.

    46. Re:SSDD by HBI · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is this insightful? Where has the UN had any success at all? Just last week, a dual veto of a SC resolution that would have done something about Assad killing his people in Syria occurred. This is an effective organization, one that can't do jack shit about people being killed in the street? But this isn't isolated: let's see what else the UN has done.

      Korea? The only reason action was taken in Korea was that the Soviets boycotted the session in question, avoiding a Security Council veto. The UNC structure and DMZ are still there, 60 years on. All of the allied nations have fled except the US. There's a rousing success story.

      UN peacekeepers have been involved in Israel since 1948. Note the many wars since.

      UN peacekeepers have been in Cyprus since 1964. No resolution, of course.

      We can't forget the Iraq-Kuwait observer mission from 91 to 03. They really prevented war in Iraq, border incursions or ground to air attack. They also made sure Hans Blix got into Baghdad and got his mission accomplished. Not.

      Note the rush to get the UN involved in such affairs as:
      Vietnam
      Bosnia
      Serbia - the Kosovo intervention happened after the Serbians were pummeled outside UN authority...Russian veto again...
      Afghanistan in 2001 (they were there in late 80s-early 90s...great job, UN, first in stopping the 10 year Soviet occupation and then managing its aftermath so well)
      Libya in 2011

      The list just goes on of UN failures in action, or failures to act in this area.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    47. Re:SSDD by FictionPimp · · Score: 3, Funny

      Plus, if a terrorist does get though, he might also get cancer.

    48. Re:SSDD by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      The UK isn't part of Europe, except geographically.

    49. Re:SSDD by FictionPimp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yea, I can't imagine why terrorists wouldn't want to target a place where a lot of people are forced to bottle neck....like a security checkpoint....

      I mean, nobody would give a shit if a few hundred people got blown up waiting to take their shoes off and walk though a body scanner right?

    50. Re:SSDD by impaledsunset · · Score: 1

      I've passed with a 500ml bottle of liquid through the security. They detected it, warned me about it, and told me "If you want to drink it before you board, I might let you in with that, but you can't bring it with you on the plane".

      So if the security person is in the mood, you might bring your dangerous liquids with less iterations.

    51. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've carried box cutters and entire silver cutting/carving sets with 8-10" sharp blades on airplanes before 2001. You know the fancy silver used for Thanksgiving turkey carving?

      Mom brought her complete set of knitting needles too.

      The TSA doesn't have legal or illegal standing. Anything you can have in the real world (baring special laws for firearms, etc) are "legal" to have in an airport. It is a policy they are implementing, not a legal thing.

    52. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey dumbass, its a figure of speech.

    53. Re:SSDD by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Informative

      That the UN fails in many situations does not mean the UN is not the body that is supposed to handle it. One of the reasons the UN fails is that many countries, the US being a notorious example, don't accept the UN's decisions and go their own way. Or simply do not pay their dues, either in cash or man power. That is the problem.

      The UN was set up to handle international conflict in a peaceful way, and to enhance peace in general. The fact that we have the UN is a success in itself. That it's not set up properly (e.g. giving six countries absolute veto power - thus allowing a single country to override consencus reached by the rest of the world), is another matter.

    54. Re:SSDD by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Everything going on in that region can be traced back to the pipelines. There is billions of dollars to be made. Natural gas is really cheap right now, there is lots of it, so the strategy is to destroy everybody else's pipeline so you can charge monopoly prices for transmission in yours. The US military is used for these energy companies. They are still in Afghanistan because it's an important transmission route for gas and oil. There is bombing and fighting is Homs Syria because that's where the construction of the Arab pipeline is stalled. The US is now supporting the TIPA pipeline, which will go through Afghanistan. The competition would be the TI pipeline, which is the real reason for all the saber rattled over Iran.

      Here's a clue: Why is Gohmert trying to carve out an independent province in Pakistan? Because that's where the TAPI pipeline would be built through. The Pakistanis are rightfully pissed about it.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    55. Re:SSDD by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      There are several assumptions (mostly incorrect) in your post:
      A) that money that is spent on airport bs would otherwise be allocated to "the people out in the cold"
      B) that there are a large number of people in this country dying of exposure (the number is astonishingly low)
      C) That those who DO die of exposure could have been saved with more money
      D) that if the government doesnt become a charity, then it is responsible for their deaths

      fucking WOOSH, dude. way too dumb to even bother responding.

    56. Re:SSDD by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Exactly... :/

    57. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right. the alternatives are even better!

    58. Re:SSDD by Inda · · Score: 1

      Don't forget tourists.

      My wife and daughter would love to visit the USA, but I read too much internet and there's more chance of me visiting China than there.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    59. Re:SSDD by netwarerip · · Score: 1

      Sorry I don't have any mod points for this. Well written and documented, thanks.

    60. Re:SSDD by jittles · · Score: 1

      While there are real defeats for these security measures, the ones are pretty ineffectual. You don't have the option to leave airside and come back repeatedly, at least here in the UK. You certainly can't leave material on one side. You'd have to secrete it somewhere, 9 times, without being spotted. And each pass through security has a risk attached to it -- 10 people passing through in the same airport is a substantive increase in risk, both at the time of pass through and in all the prep. While it clearly can be done, it's an operational risk that presumably terrorists will seek to avoid if at all possible.

      I'm pretty sure I went thru security several times at LHR in 2005 when the lovely travel agents my work used F'ed up my itinerary leaving the UK. And I Know I went thru security over 10 times in Munich one time, when I was stuck waiting 6 hours for a delayed plane. The great thing about the Munich airport, and the reason I left so many times, is there is a great little grocery store at the airport terminal. I bought lots of snacks that night...

    61. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is actually a good point. Some of these lines I have been in have a few hundred people in it. I have seen 'small' airports with 50-100 people waiting to get thru a line just for 1-2 'puddle jumpers'. I would shudder to think if it was at one of the big airports. Think about it first thing in the morning you have 20-30 planes all waiting to be filled up. Everyone showing up and waiting in a large crowd to get on.

    62. Re:SSDD by harl · · Score: 1

      Complex sensational version:
      1. Take flight lessons.
      2. Get airport credentials.
      3. Open gate with credentials
      4. Drive explosive laden car next to airplane.
      5. Boom.

      Optimized sensational version:
      1. Drive explosive laden car through fence.
      2. Drive explosive laden car next to airplane.
      3. Boom.

      This is why the best security is not checkpoints, machines, and fences but getting to know your fellow students/pilots/workers and keeping an eye open for weird things.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    63. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can let you in on a secret: They already won.

      mainly thanks to heavy[handed] assistance from the TSA...

    64. Re:SSDD by C0C0C0 · · Score: 1

      By the way, it might be happening again.

      Mmmm. Pretty sure it won't. I'll bet cash that no flight crew or passenger will stand down to box cutters at this point. We've seen how that movie ends.

      Which is why we should look to empowering, not humilating, the people in the plane. That's the only sure way to prevent another hijacking.

      --
      You are totally blocking my view of the wall. - Dogbert
    65. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same as last olymics then.

    66. Re:SSDD by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the UN is really meant to keep member states from attacking one another. I guess it's been pretty good at that.

      I really think we need a UN for representative democracies, though, with many of the same powers. To be a voting member, you'd need to adhere to certain thresholds for openness, corruption, and press freedom.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    67. Re:SSDD by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      That's a reasonable position, but you need to convince 50% of the population. My view is a bit more nuanced - I feel it should be the charity of last resort. The government safety net should be pretty far down the list of resources, and the scope and duration of the government should be as limited as possible. Private entities are more efficient and encourage volunteerism, which I feel is more beneficial to society than "I paid my taxes, I've done my part".

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    68. Re:SSDD by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ok, this is both an insightful and informative post. If people want to understand why the world is the way it is, this type of thing is a good place to start. The US military has been the enforcement arm of corporate America for a century if not longer. The wars and conflicts we have engaged in have had much more to do with that than with freedom, or liberty or human rights, or any of the other claptrap the media sell us.

      And yes, Curunir_wolf, you are a crackpot. You are a crackpot because none of this dynamic is ever explained to the American people, and they will look at you like you are crazy if you try to explain it. They can't fathom that Brian Williams could be bullshitting them (whether he knows it or not). So they walk around with their heads up their asses about how their country actually operates on the world stage. Thanks for the links.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    69. Re:SSDD by cavreader · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, the UN is really meant to keep member states from attacking one another. I guess it's been pretty good at that."
      I really hope you are joking with this statement.

    70. Re:SSDD by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Yea, I can't imagine why terrorists wouldn't want to target a place where a lot of people are forced to bottle neck....like a security checkpoint....

      I mean, nobody would give a shit if a few hundred people got blown up waiting to take their shoes off and walk though a body scanner right?

      Quite right. This is one of many pieces of evidence that there is no terrorist threat.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    71. Re:SSDD by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a general problem here: we're fixing last-year's problem.

      So we had a plane highjacking by people with knives. The hijackers ran the planes into buildings. This is what we're most focused on preventing, but it's not very likely to happen again. First, pilots and passengers are less likely now to allow someone with a knife to take control of a plane. The reason they allowed it before was that it was basically the policy to do so-- they weren't expecting hijackers to use the plane as a missile. We also are more vigilant about keeping an eye on planes in the airspace around population centers, and we'll be more ready to shoot down planes that are too close to downtown NYC and not following their flight plan. 9/11 won't happen again.

      And why would they even try? It's much more effective to find some new vector of attack. It increases your chances of success, and it also increases the terror that it causes in the general population. By using various methods, the attacks become unpredictable and encourage the perception that you might get hit anywhere, at any time.

    72. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't you have signed that "Douchebag"?

    73. Re:SSDD by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      'No. The terrorist goal is to blow a plane, not an airport room '

      So the goal is to make millions of people avoid flying planes?
      I can let you in on a secret: They already won.

      Actually... the terrorists haven't scared me away from flying. However, the TSA has.

    74. Re:SSDD by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      B especially you have taken too literally. It's an idiom.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    75. Re:SSDD by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Not so easy. Every additional person brought into the operation significantly raises the chances of things going wrong such as detection, mistakes happening, etc.

      Look at it from the perspective of it being an intelligence or other clandestine operation - because it shares almost all of the characteristics but with a different objective.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    76. Re:SSDD by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on my definition of "pretty good". We certainly haven't had any world wars - though I guess you could argue that is due to nuclear weapons as a deterrent. The idea that any organization can stop war is absurd, so I was going with a loose definition of "pretty good". Most conflict in the world is directly related to internal problems/civil war, not territorial disputes and land grabs assassination of princes and secret alliances other early 20th century stuff. Iraq was a notable exception, and the UN did nothing to prevent it from annexing Kuwait, nor was the UN effective in holding Iraq to it's ceasefire agreements - which of course eventually led to another conflict.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    77. Re:SSDD by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Well, speaking from my perspective:

      I don't fly when possible because it's so damn expensive these days... not because of the security.

      If I do have to fly: I calmly opt out, and grin and bear it - just like the poor sap who has to search me.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    78. Re:SSDD by Bardwick · · Score: 2

      Common misconception. Terrorist are NOT trying to blow up airplanes. That is FALSE. They are trying to destroy our economy, freedoms, and our way of life. Taken in that context, we're losing.

    79. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hang on - you're asking people to trust Germany to catalogue them? That didn't go over well a few years ago ...




      sorry for Godwinning the thread

    80. Re:SSDD by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, it most areas of the US there are more than enough shelters and beds to provide anyone who needs it a place to sleep. The vast majority of people who don't take advantage of these facilities do so by choice or they are so far gone they can't manage to get there. The majority of these facilities are NOT provided by government.

      Your assumption that society=government is flawed. I believe that the best government is limited government. All else is the road road to serfdom.

    81. Re:SSDD by daem0n1x · · Score: 2, Funny

      To be a voting member, you'd need to adhere to certain thresholds for openness, corruption, and press freedom

      Then the US wouldn't qualify.

    82. Re:SSDD by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      I live in a poor country in Europe. I've never seen so many homeless people in my life as when I was in the US.

    83. Re:SSDD by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      There's, of course, also people who actually like the freedom and don't want to be a part of the system.

      Honestly, you can have the Department of Free Blowjobs and Hundred Dollar Bills and you still wouldn't have everybody using it.

    84. Re:SSDD by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      The terrorist goal is to blow a plane,

      Man, they must have like... huge mouths, or be able to dislocate their jaw like a snake, or something...

    85. Re:SSDD by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      By the way, it might be happening again.

      Seriously? Is the media that fucking oblivous?

      Somebody opened a cardboard box on the plane to unload supplies such as napkins, food, etc. They put the box cutter up in the overhead bin for a moment and forgot about it. That's what happened.

      A plane is typically cleaned between flights in 10 minutes or less. It's very hectic. Honestly anyone who really wanted to stash a weapon on board would be able to conceal it in a much better place than just sitting on the overhead bin.

    86. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Box cutters were allowed at the time, you nit.
      I could carry a freaking Swiss Champ on board back then...

    87. Re:SSDD by RubberMallet · · Score: 1

      Living in Germany means you are (generally) indexed and catalogued. When you move into a new house/apartment, you are required to unregister from your old address and register as living at your new address. They know everything about you. Walk into your local immigration office to do a renewal of your residence/work permits and they will have all your info on file even if you never went to that office before (personal experience).

    88. Re:SSDD by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Of course those people are after any occasion to hurt hard a country. But... we are talking about scanners at airports, to prevent the said terrorists to... blow up a plane. Why do terrorists want to hijack a plane - while they have tons of easier solutions to kill hundreds - because
      1 A plane IS a weapon, fast, heavy, bloody and that can be piloted up to a target
      2 The 9/11 symbol and the general plane-hijack image

      This is probably why there is still no scanner in front of malls or subway stations (for long, hopefully).

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    89. Re:SSDD by RubberMallet · · Score: 0

      Freedom and not part of the system means you end up living rough.. sleeping in a tent under a bridge.. sleeping on a bench in a U-Bahn station... going hungry.. begging for food. Registering gives you a bed, food, clothes.. some dignity.. and a way out of the mess you're in.

    90. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you actually asked any of them what they want? The most common response seems to be that they want your soldiers the fuck out of their countries.

    91. Re:SSDD by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Charity is fine as long as nobody is forced into it. I like being charitable. I don't like when some criminal with a government ID and a gun comes and says: give us money, we are the charity.

      There is no such thing as a 'right' to THINGS, including right to food, shelter, medication, nothing. Charity literally means somebody does something for somebody else without being forced, otherwise it's a totalitarian dictatorship and all must fight it until the end.

    92. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife panics everytime we get near them, she knows I'll do it, and is obviously petrified I'll get mauled by all the sex hungry girls in the vicinity.

      Not to mention all the sex hungry lads in the vicinity.

    93. Re:SSDD by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      They only know your address, so when in Germany they'll know my address, but nothing else. Of-course this means you do your work somewhere else and you deal with taxes somewhere else, etc.

    94. Re:SSDD by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Rather depends on the standards, doesn't it? For instance, most EU countries have hate-speech restrictions on free speech, but I still think the standards should be written not to exclude them.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    95. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by petrified you mean you are married to Natalie Portman??

    96. Re:SSDD by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      I don't think that last statement is totally true. I don't think there is a sole person that would turn down free $100 bills.

    97. Re:SSDD by whitedsepdivine · · Score: 1

      "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." ~Ben Franklin

    98. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, funneling mountains of money into BS like this, not to mention all the military hardware, ends up leaving more people out in the cold,

      There are several assumptions (mostly incorrect) in your post:
      A) that money that is spent on airport bs would otherwise be allocated to "the people out in the cold"
      B) that there are a large number of people in this country dying of exposure (the number is astonishingly low)
      C) That those who DO die of exposure could have been saved with more money
      D) that if the government doesnt become a charity, then it is responsible for their deaths

      You may want to reexamine these assumptions. B especially you may want to research.

      You may want to examine not being a douchebag. The OP did not mean literally government aid to people dying of exposure when he said "out in the cold" any more than he meant "too big to jail" was for persons too physically large to fit in jail cells. What I believe he is suggesting that we stop spending so much on violence and spend more on making people happy and less likely to do violence. It certainly seems that some of the terrorist attacks that brought about these wars and security changes could have been false flag attacks, based on who has benefited from the attacks.

    99. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but some of them WANT to be on the streets. So much for freedom.

      Homeless people are very interesting. You should spend some time talking to one.

    100. Re:SSDD by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." ~Ben Franklin

      Those who misquote Ben Franklin do their cause a disservice.

      Here's the actual quote. Note the qualifiers:

      "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    101. Re:SSDD by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Most EU countries wouldn't qualify, either.

    102. Re:SSDD by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      I mean, nobody would give a shit if a few hundred people got blown up waiting to take their shoes off and walk though a body scanner right?

      Of course everybody would be unhappy about that, but unless you want to outlaw all public gatherings, there's not much that can be done about that. If we somehow got rid of crowds at the airport, we'd still have crowds at the mall, or the skating rink, or the parade, etc etc etc. Finding a crowd of people and blowing it up will always be an option for terrorists.

      The key point is that you seem to have missed is that the terrorists cannot turn the security line at (your favorite airport) into a giant guided missile and fly it into (your favorite important structure). That is the primary reason for the security gates at airports -- not the safety of the people in the line.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    103. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has not been a "world war" since the UN came into existence. That is a success. Many of your examples have been actions taken despite the UN.

      Hans-Blix was forced out of Iraq because the US was going to bomb Iraq like the next day. He found nothing because there was nothing to find, but the US did not want to hear that, they needed a reason to go to war that was "justifiable"

      Israel does not play by the rules, they are hell-bent of killing all the Palestinians and taking their land and have been in violation of UN treaty for a long time.

    104. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, NO. Governments exists because small landholders decided that it would be more profitable to pool their resources rather than defend their own small parcel of land indivdiually.

      Ideally, everyone would be their own government, but when you have 10 million people in a big city, people get in the way of each other. Helping out the less fortunate prevents poor people from getting in the way of the rich. However, since the rich own the land, the middle classes have to pay most of the taxes. (Got a mortgage? Then the banks (i.e. the rich) own your land and your labour. Even if you pay it off and sell the land, the next buyer has to pay the bank with his labour in order to give a fraction of it to you.)

    105. Re:SSDD by Jeremi · · Score: 0

      This is all fake. It's all BS masquerading as doing something for the sake of security.

      So your proposal is not to have any security, and hope for the best? How do you suppose that would be viewed in retrospect after the next (inevitable) terrorist attack on a plane?

      Or would you prefer instead to implement 100% effective security, that involves every passenger being stripped naked, anesthetized, packed into a shipping container for the duration of the flight, and revived only after being removed from the plane at the destination?

      It's easy to criticize the TSA's policies as being circumventable, but it's not like maximizing security is the only directive (or even the primary constraint) they have to operate under. They have to keep things as secure as possible while at the same time keeping it at least minimally practical to fly, otherwise the entire airline industry would go out of business, defeating the purpose of the exercise.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    106. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree. I last visited in the US in 2004. The TSA has scared me away from ever visiting again. The terrorists haven't though.

    107. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will not work in Europe. I just passed through Schiphol in Amsterdam and saw 200 ml lens cleaning fluid bottles removed and thrown into trash. The security man said this happens like fifty times per day at his station.

    108. Re:SSDD by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Some how I sincerely doubt any terrorists were fooled, just you :)

      I wouldn't put too much faith in the intellectual capacity of terrorist if I were you. Keep in mind that these are people who have been convinced that they should kill themselves because after they die they will get to have sex with dozens of virgins. So it's not like they are terribly hard to fool.

      (And as far as whether or not they would believe US news sources... don't discount the propaganda power of shiny high-tech gadgetry, either. You may recall that one of the big issues in Iraq was that Iraqis were convinced that soldiers' sunglasses had x-ray capabilities that could see underneath womens' clothing. Foreigners are just as susceptible as Americans to the "ooh, it's big and expensive and has lots of blinking lights, therefore it must have amazing capabilities" line of thought)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    109. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the presumption is that terrorists want to blow up airplanes in the air. I've no idea why. As others have said, they could get just as many people at a checkpoint or sporting event. And as you say, they could easily blow them up on the ground, so, I give up. Logic doesn't apply to security theater.

    110. Re:SSDD by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      While it may keep joe blow from bringing a gun on a flight just to make a point, it doesn't do a thing to a terrorist because they know they are going to get through because they have studied the system and know what they are doing.

      This line of reasoning would be more convincing if there had been a rash of successful terrorists on planes after 9/11.

      However, there have only been a couple of terrorists on planes, and those that did get on a plane were unsuccessful because the weapons they brought with them were ineffective (and not to put too fine a point on it, stupid). The fact that the only terrorists to actually get on planes with weapons were resorting to ineffective tricks like underwear bombs, rather than the tried-and-true methods they had used in the past, suggests that perhaps something is working. Either that or the IQ of the average terrorist has gone down since 2001... which I suppose isn't out of the question either.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    111. Re:SSDD by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      In the galley, I'd buy that explanation. In an overhead bin? Nobody has any business unloading anything within ten feet of the nearest overhead bin. AFAIK, the only things that go in the passenger section of the aircraft are magazines, an emergency first aid kid (which is almost never touched), sometimes an emergency oxygen tank (IIRC), and people's luggage.

      I'd be more likely to assume that either a clumsy maintenance person had it in his/her hand and needed both hands to repair a seat or some such. Either that or somebody forgot they had it in his/her bag, walked through security, found it while digging for something, crapped hi/sher pants, and left it on the plane to make sure that he/she wouldn't get caught with it later....

      Yes, it was probably innocuous, but the point is that if we're serious about security at all, we have to assume someone is testing our security, that they successfully breached it, and that they have co-conspirators who work for one of the airports that the plane in question flew through recently. Questioning anyone who has recently been within a hundred feet of that aircraft would be a reasonable precaution, along with recording that list of names for future reference in case it happens again. Checking the logs against the 9/10–9/11/2001 repair logs would similarly be a good idea.

      --

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

    112. Re:SSDD by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      A) that money that is spent on airport bs would otherwise be allocated to "the people out in the cold"

      Any way you look at it, that money is, currently, being wasted. You can argue that it would have just been wasted somewhere else. I will argue that we should find a way to not waste it in the first place.

      Your other 3 points are non-sequiturs.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    113. Re:SSDD by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      You'd have to secrete it somewhere, 9 times, without being spotted.

      How many people are going to notice one person handing another person a bottle of hand cream, or notice that the person later goes into a bathroom with the bottle and walks out without it (or, more precisely, with it in his or her luggage)?

      --

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

    114. Re:SSDD by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      I like being charitable. I don't like when some criminal with a government ID and a gun comes and says: give us money, we are the charity.

      And when has this happened to you? Never? Thought so.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    115. Re:SSDD by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      and if THEY really wanted to do something Evil Bad and Wrong then they would dismiss explosives as "an amateurs weapon" Bio weapons are where you get the real impact.

      1 cook up a bioweapon with a long "fuse" (optionally cook up a cure)
      2 Infect a handy Minion/Radical
      3 when the infectious but not yet sick period hits send your minion through say Chicago International
      4 WAIT (optionally give the cure to your minion)
      5 PROFIT!!

      98% of the TSA checkpoints will do NOTHING to stop this.

      (please note if anybody in the CDC is smart they have a Very Large Book on just this problem)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    116. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that our government (especially Congress) knows that it's 1,000x cheaper to BUY pipeline security with aid than with blood. Just ask France, Russia, and Germany how much they were paying for Saddam's oil, and compare that to our expenses of going in and getting it with force (if that's all we were there to do). You're going around harping that we're butchering cows to make cheese -- when milking them is more effective, less wasteful, and drums better reputation in the international community, and you get to keep the cow! No, if we're butchering them, it's for beef.

      "We're thar to get thar oils!" might be fun to say, and easy to understand, and it makes sense at face value, but it falls flat when put up to reason. This issue is a bit deeper than that.

    117. Re:SSDD by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Every single time the government collects taxes. You have something smarter to say at all? Thought so.

    118. Re:SSDD by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Not bombing Iraq and Afghanistan would save the US a lot of money (effectively lowering your immense deficits)

      I (and apparently, 519 of the 535 members of the 2001 congress) think the US was perfectly justified in going after Afghanistan; when one is attacked within their own borders a retaliation is generally recognized as being legitimate.

      Not having military operations all over the world would possibly even have prevented many terrorist attacks to happen in the first place, due to less bad blood about US activities.

      So 9/11 was OUR fault? Is this like that whole "blame the rape victim" thing, where its OUR fault for being such a tempting target?

      Leave that meddling to the UN, it's what that organisation was set up for to begin with.

      Wasnt the UN having problems actually doing inspections in Iraq? Isnt that how we ended up over there to begin with?

      And IIRC the UN wanted us in Libya (although ironically it did NOT get explicit approval from congress, which Obama supposedly thought was required for any military activity).

      Im going to assume you're a Ron Paul supporter; and to some degree I sympathize with his views. But Im not convinced that the world is so simple that we can just say "we're going back to pre-WW2 isolationism, yall figure it out for yourselves." Imagine if Japan hadnt attacked us, and we had stuck to our isolationism; you dont think there might have been hard feelings about the US standing by and watching Europe go to pot? Sometimes it is necessary to intervene, though of course not always.

    119. Re:SSDD by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      This hyperbole is obnoxious. You may be able to find a few rare examples of tiny countries with higher marks in all of those areas, but most of Europe isnt going to fit in, nor is Africa, nor most of South America, nor most of Asia, nor Australia.

      For all the issues the US has, we dont have:
      Global, enforced, government run internet filters (vs Australia)
      CCTV all throughout NYC, DC, or LA (vs London)
      A lack of non-government controlled media (Africa, Italy, im sure many others)

      And free press? We are in a country where you can write basically anything about basically anyone, label it an opinion piece, and noone can do jack about it.

      It occurs to me that perhaps the people thinking we live in 1984 in this country should spend a year in countries where there really ARE those endemic issues, and then get back to us. Go spend a year in China, do some protesting, then tell us we dont live in a remarkably free country.

    120. Re:SSDD by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Who would qualify, do tell? South America? Africa? Asia?

    121. Re:SSDD by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The US could do it too, and the problem isn't money. The problem is that such a move by the government would be politcally unacceptable. Charities helping is fine for some reason, but not making it an actual right that the government must uphold.

      Several points:
      A) There is no shortage of shelters (at least in the DC area, where I live). It is unfortunate, but there are people on the streets who either choose to be there (rather than in a shelter), or are unable to choose otherwise (mental illness, drugs, etc). Its not an issue you can just throw money at and fix

      B) When the government gets involved and gives grants and budgets to do things, accountability can become a huge problem. SInce the money is basically free (provided the right hoops are jumped through), it tends to be much less efficient and have higher administrative costs than a non-profit operating on charity.

      C) Quite frankly, it IS unacceptable, because its not the government's job, and it can be terribly counterproductive to have guarenteed safety nets. If you know you can take stupid risks and the government will have your back with a rent check, what incentive is there to live responsibly? You think handing out food stamps by and large encourages people to be responsible with their money?

      Im not saying that some government programs cant be good. But part of "freedom" means the freedom to make your own decisions (stupid or not), and to deal with the consequences. Take away the consequences, and you take away any reason NOT to make stupid decisions; mandate that people cant make those decisions and youve mandated the removal of freedom.

    122. Re:SSDD by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Ditto here in the US. I could in about 5 minutes give you a list of at least 10 shelters within a few miles of the US capitol.

      The problem is that homelessness isnt a simple problem of "spend X dollars to end Y instances of homelessness". Its a log curve, with vastly diminishing returns.

    123. Re:SSDD by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · · Score: 1

      Since you are apparently one of those sheep who follows orders without a thought given to the outcome if you rebelled, I'll spell out for you what would happen if you didn't pay your taxes.

      You are supposed to pay your taxes. If you do not pay your taxes, men with government IDs and guns will come and tell you to pay your taxes. These are the men to whom roman_mir is referring, and the fact that you have always meekly paid your taxes, and therefore have never seen the men with guns, does in no way nullify the fact that taxes are extracted from you under the threat of men with guns showing up if you fail to pay them.

      --
      I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
    124. Re:SSDD by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The stupid part is, there is a place for them all to go in Germany.

      Why do people assume this isnt so in the US? Has anyone bothered looking up whether there are shelters in a given area?

    125. Re:SSDD by vux984 · · Score: 1

      The key point is that you seem to have missed is that the terrorists cannot turn the security line at (your favorite airport) into a giant guided missile and fly it into (your favorite important structure).

      And it will never happen again anyway. locked reinforced doors to the pilots cabin and a passenger compartment full of people who will never forget 9/11 will ensure it.

      Having them scan grandmas privates won't.

    126. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Godzundheit!

    127. Re:SSDD by jbengt · · Score: 2

      They're delivered by guys earning minimum wage who don't receive security vetting.

      Actually, in order to drive a delivery truck into the airport, or get anywhere on the "airside" of the airport without a plane ticket, you need an airport ID badge, for which you do get fingerprinted and background checked. To get a badge, I even had to sign a statement that I hadn't been convicted of certain felonies, including murder, arson, and highjacking, in the last 10 years.

    128. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation on rebuilding, and the shot of the bag of rice from Iron Man does not count.

    129. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they don't know about it. Social services are not the Field of Dreams. Just because you built it doesn't mean they will come. Homeless people, due to their state, tend to be very disconnected from society and media. They won't use something if they don't know it exists. Also, people who are newly homeless may not know they exist. People tend not to be aware of services they don't use. If you've never been homeless, but suddenly have the need, the knowledge of these services doesn't magically pop into your head. And then there are the long-term homeless who tend to have serious mental problems. Everything from paranoia to depression (very different from not caring) will keep a person from seeking help.

      There's plenty of excuses for being on the streets.

    130. Re:SSDD by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      By who's standard? Yours? I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    131. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still bring my antique straight razor with me in my carry-on. I've only once had them ask me if that's what it was, to which I said "yes." The agent scanning the bag just said he liked them too and that he could tell from the scan that there was no blade in it so I was safe to go. Of course, there was a blade in it...

    132. Re:SSDD by mbone · · Score: 2

      The TSA security system makes no sense because it is not based on any recognizable threat model. All those units are not protecting against planes being used as weapons (changed procedures and attitudes did that), nor are they keeping the body count lower. In a crowded airport with a unified security system (Washington-Dulles, Atlanta, Chicago-Midway all come to mind) you can have many more people assembled together at security than on any one flight. Any detonation there would almost certainly have a higher body count and would also close the entire airport, probably for days or weeks (as it would take out the only checkpoint). And, of course, it would certainly make many people more nervous about flying.

      It is thus impossible to regard the TSA as other than security theater, designed to hassle the traveling public enough to reassure them, and buy enough gear to enrich former directors.

    133. Re:SSDD by mbone · · Score: 2

      So your proposal is not to have any security, and hope for the best? How do you suppose that would be viewed in retrospect after the next (inevitable) terrorist attack on a plane?

      About the same as with security.

      I am old enough to remember before there was security on airplanes at all. There were some bombings etc., and yet people didn't freak out. Security was instituted to prevent hijackings to Cuba, which threat seems to have passed. So, from that standpoint it might be better to have no security, so that after an outrage, "something can be done."

      An airplane is delicate enough to a single bullet that I can see measures to prevent weapons being taken on board, say, about the same as for entering the US Congress (i.e., the classic magnetometer / X ray combination). Anything more than that I think is unnecessary.

    134. Re:SSDD by forkfail · · Score: 1

      So - the purpose of terror is to affect some change through fear.

      Why, then, don't the terrorists go ahead and blow up people in crowded squares and such? It would cause fear, definitely. Anyone - not just travelers - might be killed, at any time.

      So, why do they target airplanes and trains and such? Could it be that the change they're trying to affect is that of getting us to spend money foolishly, to spend ourselves into oblivion, while at the same time, getting us to change our form of government and approach to a more totalitarian one? Which, absolutely, would further their causes -they need a permanent evil enemy with no redeeming values just as much as our government seems to at times.

      --
      Check your premises.
    135. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems you've been fooled by that particular piece of propaganda. That probably means you're not a terribly good judge of intelligence.

    136. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's fine then. The terrorists would *never* sign a paper like that!

    137. Re:SSDD by BlueScreenO'Life · · Score: 1

      Wasnt the UN having problems actually doing inspections in Iraq?

      Not really, no. They did in fact do inspections in Iraq, and found nothing (I worked at UN and met some of the inspectors). American diplomacy bullied the OPCW into not accepting Iraq as a member, which spun into the whole "Iraq won't allow inspections" disinformation, thus creating the perfect pretext to go to war.

      Isnt that how we ended up over there to begin with?

      Again, not really. Iraq (and Afghanistan) were more about justifying expenditure in the weapon industry and maintaining an active, duty-trained military.

    138. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are airport store employees suppose to stock the shelves if they can't get the boxes open?!

    139. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actual human rights don't makes slaves of others.

      Think about that while you claim that you have the right to shelter, medical care, food, vacations etc. These aren't rights and a functioning state should not be in the business of providing them. Once it starts it signals the end of democracy as people vote themselves a largess until the system collapses. You whine about the rise of facisim and corporate power yet you ignore one of the primary drivers of it.

      Once the state becomes the provider of all your life's necessities it has total control over you anyway since you can no longer survive without it.

      PS perhaps slave is to strong of a word - but what else would you call someone who is compelled to provide goods or services without any compensation.

    140. Re:SSDD by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      You fail at logic.
      Really.
      Saying what we have now is BS != saying we should have nothing, and your statements avoid the FACT that they are NOT doing the most efficient/effective methods.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    141. Re:SSDD by brantondaveperson · · Score: 2

      That may be true, but there is probably an order of magnitude fewer than there was ten or fifteen years ago. If people really want to sleep on the street there's not alot you can do about that, but for the majority who would wish a better life for themselves there is now a way out. I spoke to a homeless man a few years ago who was selling 'The Big Issue' at a railway station. I asked him his story, and it went like this:
      He fell asleep on a train one day, coming back from a days work as a carpenter.
      His tools, which were sitting at his feet, were stolen.
      Boom. Homeless.
      And I thought, there but for the grace of god, go I.

    142. Re:SSDD by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a 'right' to THINGS, including right to food, shelter, medication, nothing.

      Jesus do you Americans go to sociopath school or something? Are you all really this heartless?

    143. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UN aid, UN intervention and UN supervision prolongs conflicts, nay, nurtures them.

      North Korea would be starving if not for the rest of the world. They don't, they get food for interrupting their nuclear program, which they will restart the moment the food aid is consumed.

      Palestine only survives on UN aid. The Palestinian "holocaust", as it always gets called, made 7 million out of 400.000 refugees within 40 years. The 7 million Palestinian authority has a larger income per capita on UN aid than most African nations with no UN intervention. Conflicts solved: nil.

      And don't remember Somalia, where UN aid and the lack of its protection enabled Aidid to rise to power in the first place, stealing the stuff and selling it for a profit later, to buy more weapons to steal more stuff. Good job, UN.

      Subsistence funds given for any dire circumstance only prolong these circumstances if given for an extended period of time. On local, national and global scale. in short time frames, welfare is help getting out of dire situations. In long time frames, it is regular income, given freely for doing nothing. No one should receive regular income for doing nothing or they'll never be doing anything. Mostly. Some may produce something, but their small start-ups are quickly drowned by massive influx of free stuff from overseas, drowning their enterprising spirit with them.

    144. Re:SSDD by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Translation, it's okay for airport employees to have committed murder, arson, or hijacking, just so long as they weren't convicted.

      I feel safer already.

      --

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

    145. Re:SSDD by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      First, boxcutters were not illegal at the time, and second the terrorists didn't actually carry ANY currently prohibited items through security.

      Actually, they were, in fact, prohibited in the sterile area, along with swords, straight razors, and knives over a certain length... three inches, I think.

      You are probably correct that they did not pass through the security checkpoint, though.

      --

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

    146. Re:SSDD by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I was born in the USSR, I went to a sociopath school in a socialist country.

    147. Re:SSDD by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Not to mention shutting down a major departure/arrival location in the major city of your choice for probably a week!

    148. Re:SSDD by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      No. The terrorist goal is to blow a plane

      Normally I hate the quote, but "citation needed". I've yet to see a shred of evidence that they want to, or have EVER wanted to do this. 9/11 had NOTHING to do with blowing up planes, it had to do with destroying a few important building. Planes just *happened* to be a very simple way to do that at the time. It's kind of like having a terrorist air-drop a pipebomb down a politicians chimney using a model plane. The response would probably be to secure chimneys and track the sale of RC planes and having politicians carry radio jammers, meanwhile the terrorists will just toss a Molotov through the window next time.

    149. Re:SSDD by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I doubt they are the ones that fill the bottles, put the bottles in the boxes and load the trucks are they?

    150. Re:SSDD by Tassach · · Score: 1

      So 9/11 was OUR fault? Is this like that whole "blame the rape victim" thing, where its OUR fault for being such a tempting target?

      So you're saying the Arab world DOESN'T have legitimate grievances regarding US foreign policy in their region? That we haven't overtly supported brutal dictatorships and subverted popularly-elected governments? That we haven't been meddling in their internal politics since the 40s?

      If you keep poking a nest of hornets with a stick, it shouldn't come as a surprise when you get stung. There's a pretty simple cause and effect relationship there that even a 4 year old can understand.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    151. Re:SSDD by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Saying what we have now is BS != saying we should have nothing

      Yup, I'm aware of that. However, if someone is going to criticize the existing system, I think they ought to be able to suggest something better that could be done instead -- and be prepared to show that the practicality and security of their own proposal is at least equal to the level of the existing system. If they can't suggest something that would be more effective, then their criticism is just bellyaching. Some problems are just inherently difficult to solve well, and this is one of them.

      and your statements avoid the FACT that they are NOT doing the most efficient/effective methods.

      And those are? The Israeli system might work here, but then again it might not. It would be worthwhile to try out though.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    152. Re:SSDD by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Global, enforced, government run internet filters (vs Australia)

      You do know that Australia hasn't got one of those.

      Meanwhile, your lives are controlled by corporate interests. Corporations have put up as many CCTV cameras in US urban centres as London and there is no oversight on them what so ever.
      ACTA and SOPA are a lot more successful at restricting the internet then Conroy's aborted and non existent filter ever was or will be (CLUEBAT: it doesn't exist).
      You dont have government controlled media, you have media controlled government which is worse.

      Whilst the RIAA/MPAA are allowed to sue people out of house and home for allegedly copying a file, you cant preach about freedom. At least the Australian courts have smacked the studios down for that.

      ACTA and TSA-like body scanners are now being shoehorned into other countries via use of free trade agreements which bypasses the democratic process in those countries. So the TSA does not only violate American freedom, they're violating the freedom of other nations too.

      And free press? We are in a country where you can write basically anything about basically anyone, label it an opinion piece, and noone can do jack about it.

      So basically I can call you a paedophile, terrorist-loving, gay Nazi and you cant do jack about it (because you're a paedophile, terrorist-loving, gay Nazi).

      Don't mistake lack of rules for freedom. Freedom is more about responsibility for yourself, less about being able to do whatever the fuck you want (that's anarchy).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    153. Re:SSDD by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Needlessly, because we have homeless shelters for them to go to.

      More over, we have programs to help them find work, education and so forth so they get off the street (or out of homeless shelters) and start looking after themselves. The homeless problem in Australia is about 1/10th of that of the US (never seen the stats for the UK). You can never eliminate it completely as a lot of homeless are mentally ill and as such reject help even when it's offered (what's the alternative, lock them up).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    154. Re:SSDD by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

      It's easy to criticize the TSA's policies as being circumventable, but it's not like maximizing security is the only directive (or even the primary constraint) they have to operate under. They have to keep things as secure as possible while at the same time keeping it at least minimally practical to fly, otherwise the entire airline industry would go out of business, defeating the purpose of the exercise.

      What you say is true. The point I was attempting to make in my observation is that we're expending non-trivial resources in security implementations that can be defeated by the casual layperson. That fact guarantees our security is ineffective against determined attackers.

      Our air traffic is no safer than it was prior to 9/11. My suggestion would be to return to that security model and update it with simple in-air systems that prevent hijackers from controlling an airplane. The TSA's $8.1 billion budget could then be reallocated to covert spying operations to disrupt and prevent future attacks of all kinds.

      You've hit the nail on the head by saying maximized security is unfeasible for air travel to exist. However, a hyper-expensive, insecure system is a modern-day Maginot Line that is quite permeable to hostiles:

      "The Maginot Line was impervious to most forms of attack, and had state-of-the-art living conditions for garrisoned troops, including air conditioning, comfortable eating areas and underground railways. However, it proved costly to keep, consumed a vast amount of money and subsequently led to other parts of the French Armed Forces being underfunded."

      Seth

    155. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, funneling mountains of money into BS like this, not to mention all the military hardware, ends up leaving more people out in the cold,

      There are several assumptions (mostly incorrect) in your post:
      A) that money that is spent on airport bs would otherwise be allocated to "the people out in the cold"
      B) that there are a large number of people in this country dying of exposure (the number is astonishingly low)
      C) That those who DO die of exposure could have been saved with more money
      D) that if the government doesnt become a charity, then it is responsible for their deaths

      You may want to reexamine these assumptions. B especially you may want to research.

      No. I think he was assuming that you knew the definition of the term "out in the cold". See #30 at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cold

      Hint: his post has nothing to do with people dying from exposure. He is right to point out that spending money on this ignores more pressing things we could be spending money on...
           

    156. Re:SSDD by KeithIrwin · · Score: 1

      Please don't try and rewrite history. When the US declared war on Iraq, there had, in fact, been a UN weapons inspection team headed by Hans Blix operating in Iraq until just a few days before. They got pulled out by the UN because it looked like the US was about to declare war on Iraq, and they didn't want their weapons inspectors getting killed. The UN had said "let them in or else" and Iraq had let them in in November of 2002. The only issue which was in question was whether or not Iraq was being fully cooperative with the inspectors or not.

    157. Re:SSDD by KeithIrwin · · Score: 1

      You're going to blame the UN for the failure of Hans Blix to find all Iraqi weapons? If you've forgotten your history, the reason that Blix didn't do that was because the US got impatient and decided to start a war rather than waiting for the end result of the process. He and his team were still working until they got pulled out for their own safety once it looked like the US was going to invade.

      And, in the end, after they invaded the country, none of the weapons that the US insisted that Hans Blix hadn't found ever showed up. No nuclear program. No mobile bioweapons labs. None of that stuff. The fact of the matter is that Blix and his team accounted for almost all of the biological and chemical weapons in Iraq, and there were no nuclear weapons. So how, exactly, is that a UN failure?

    158. Re:SSDD by HBI · · Score: 1

      1) Failure to do anything meaningful about the abuses of 'oil for food'.
      2) Failure to do anything meaningful about the potshots at the no-fly zone patrols.
      3) Failure to do anything meaningful about the importation of dual use items into Iraq.
      4) Failure to hold the hammer over Saddam's head about the Blix situation. There was lots of dithering in the run-up to the 2003 war.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    159. Re:SSDD by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Taken into context, that's just nuts. Your economy is destroyed by the people at the helm of it, and the same goes for the rest. Wake the fuck up already, geez...

    160. Re:SSDD by neonmonk · · Score: 1

      Australia doesn't have "government run internet filters". Sure, there was some talk of it a year or two ago, but it was never introduced.

      Get your facts straight.

    161. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its still a waste of money

    162. Re:SSDD by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      You are the one rewriting history. I'm no fan of the wasted decade in Iraq, but at least my disdain is based on facts and not what I want history to have been. Indeed the inspectors went in once, but they were expelled by Saddam Hussein. They did not remove themselves in fear of a US invasion. This is the problem with modern discourse. People have strong opinions steeped in their beliefs and incorrect recollections and not in fact. I probably stand with you on all things Iraq war. But the way it started and the reasons recited today are usually always wrong.

      The UN demanded the inspectors be let back in and Iraq didn't abide, so the UN unanimously (not the US unilaterally) passed resolution 1441 giving Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations". Thus my comment that the UN having no teeth is completely valid. They are like parents who keep telling their children, "one more time and you are gonna get it!" and then they keep giving them more chances.

      And when exactly did the US declare war on Iraq?

    163. Re:SSDD by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Who are you quoting here..? Whoever it is, they don't appear to know what they're talking about ;)

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    164. Re:SSDD by Anonymus · · Score: 1

      One problem is that many homeless people have dogs. Homeless shelters generally do not allow dogs (I'm just assuming the same applies to Germany). Therefore, a homeless person is not going to live in a shelter, because they would have to give up their dog.

    165. Re:SSDD by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Australia:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia

      Corporations have put up as many CCTV cameras in US urban centres as London and there is no oversight on them what so ever.

      Baloney. Being the paranoid security guy I am, I watch for cameras, and there basically arent any except the token traffic camera on public property. Once you enter a bank or office building, yea, thats called private property and you will find cameras all over the place. But thats way different than being in a public thoroughfare.

      So basically I can call you a paedophile, terrorist-loving, gay Nazi and you cant do jack about it (because you're a paedophile, terrorist-loving, gay Nazi).

      I am not a lawyer, but I think it would depend on whether it was intended as opinion or fact. There are libel laws to consider, but its nowhere near as onerous as in the UK for example.

      Your example above makes specific factual accusations (primarily paedophile) which MIGHT cause you problems-- but I dont believe anyone could press charges unless you wrote a NY times article honestly asserting that i was a homosexual paedophile Nazi, with sources etc. THAT would probably be actionable, since it would be hard to claim that it was "opinion".

      Don't mistake lack of rules for freedom. Freedom is more about responsibility for yourself, less about being able to do whatever the fuck you want (that's anarchy).

      We do have rules, we just have a concept called the "chilling effect" that we try to consider.

    166. Re:SSDD by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Seems like an easy choice to me.

    167. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you keep poking a nest of hornets with a stick, it shouldn't come as a surprise when you get stung. There's a pretty simple cause and effect relationship there that even a 4 year old can understand.

      Bad analogy, and you're a bad person for using it. Really.

      Hornets are pests which have a painful sting. Not only is that why you don't poke their nests with sticks, it is why you nuke them from orbit, just to be sure (RAID works very well). A 4 year old would understand this also perfectly well. According to your analogy, the best (only, really) course of action is genocide. It's simply how you deal with hornets.

      Feel free to reconsider and come up with a better analogy.

    168. Re:SSDD by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      Well I'm not sure the USSR did socialism all the effectively. You should try a more normal country, somewhere between the sociopathic conservatism of the US and whatever it is they actually had in the USSR. Most people in most countries in the world would consider a human right to shelter and food fairly reasonable. Or I'm just in incurable bleeding-heart liberal, which is very possible.

    169. Re:SSDD by shilly · · Score: 1

      No-one, once. It's the repeat pattern that is susceptible to being spotted. It can be done, but it's an unnecessary operational risk

    170. Re:SSDD by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      OMG, more revisionist history. USSR had every kind of socialism that is possible.

      So called "right to work" (as in, you have a right to a job and socialist soviet union will provide you with it), "right to health care", "right to everything".

      Of-course none of it meant anything. The jobs were nonsense, nobody got paid what market would bear, it was all prescribed by the government statisticians.

      Most people also don't know anything economics, don't understand it, don't understand politics, don't understand money and think that employers owe them jobs. Most people are idiots, you are clearly not excluded from most people.

    171. Re:SSDD by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      How kind.

      Well I'm not sure the USSR did socialism all that effectively

      From your comments it seems that while this statement isn't detailed, it certainly isn't wrong.

      So I'm not sure where you saw me revising history.

      I'll tell you what I understand. People are human beings, and looking after people is not a bad thing. Money exists to facilitate the exchange of good and services from one human being to another. I don't believe that most people think they are owed jobs. And contrary to you I certainly don't believe that most people are idiots.

      I don't know a great deal about economics, but I don't believe that anyone does. It appears to be a system quite beyond the control of any single person, or even any single country. I don't know much about the machinations of politics, but those few I know that are involved in politics are hardworking and honest people.

      There is a casual throwaway cynicism in your post that I see very often in people who believe themselves smarter than everyone else. This is highly unlikely to be the case.

    172. Re:SSDD by Xarin · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention that when the Alaskan oil pipeline was being held up over environmental concerns, the Yom Kippur war occurred and OPEC proclaimed an embargo on oil. In response to this, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act was passed which halted all environmental legal challenges and work proceeded. There were also some problems with the Teamsters but after Jimmy Hoffa disappeared things started to improve.

    173. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Not meddling in other countries internal affairs".

      Tell that to the Taliban, who let the terrorists plan home attacks from their territory. You shit in my house, expect me to come take a big fucking dump in your living room.

      Iraq was a mistake. Afghanistan sure as hell wasn't. We'll gladly repeat the same process in Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, or anywhere else that openly allows terrorist organizations to launch operations against the US from their home turf.

      Get used to it. That one ain't changing. Ever.

    174. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its all a plaaaan maaan

      They use planes in september 11 to make people install body scanners and long queues in airport screening.

      Then, once we have condensed a maximum number of people on the ground at airport scanners they are going to fly the airports into a building.

      Once they have done that, we will install security scanners on airport entrances, ensuring that upon arrival to an airport, your car is sent through a security scan with you in it.

      Now, once we have everyone stuck in a car on their way to the airport, they are going to park a bus across the road, and maybe blow it up in the middle of winter and starve everyone to death! their horrible plan is plain to see!!.

      This means we need to install security scanners on busses. To make sure they aren't hijacked for use in this plan.

    175. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have (inadequate) shelters in the US too. Outside one of the largest shelters in New York City, you will often see homeless people sleeping on the street, sometimes right up against the outer walls. There is a reason for this, it is not happening "needlessly." The shelters are horrible places, more like jais than homes.

      And of course, remember Jay-Z's words: "Anywhere there's oppression / The drug profession / Flourishes like beverages"

      So is it "needless" to sleep outside when the inside is full of violence (probably quite often by the cops), robbery, desperation and degredation?

    176. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife panics everytime we get near them, she knows I'll do it, and is obviously petrified I'll get mauled by all the sex hungry girls in the vicinity.

      Bono, is that you?

    177. Re:SSDD by robsku · · Score: 1

      C) Quite frankly, it IS unacceptable, because its not the government's job, and it can be terribly counterproductive to have guarenteed safety nets. If you know you can take stupid risks and the government will have your back with a rent check, what incentive is there to live responsibly? You think handing out food stamps by and large encourages people to be responsible with their money?

      Im not saying that some government programs cant be good. But part of "freedom" means the freedom to make your own decisions (stupid or not), and to deal with the consequences. Take away the consequences, and you take away any reason NOT to make stupid decisions; mandate that people cant make those decisions and youve mandated the removal of freedom.

      We have good social security system - well, relatively good, luxurious in comparison to US - here in Finland, people are covered for little over 450€/month + rent up to certain amount + medical bills and then some more... I don't see a problem here, in fact this system reduces problems - and nobody thinks that living on social security alone is awesome living, making stupid choices do have consequences, no sane person want's to lose their job/business and fall into social security network, but at least we are protected by our government and society so that whatever happens we have at least basic needs and level of decent living covered, as it should be in a civilized western countries (and pretty much is too).
      Unlike you seem to think, this does not make people into crazy irresponsible idiots who don't give a fsck because their ass is covered anyways - people do want more from their lives that can be gained from social security system alone.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    178. Re:SSDD by robsku · · Score: 1

      Translation: Terrorists have scared you away from flying.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    179. Re:SSDD by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention all the sex hungry lads in the vicinity.

      Argh, hadn't thought of that. Maybe I'll send them wild by spreading my arse cheeks for the camera goatse style.

    180. Re:SSDD by Anonymus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but a lot of homeless people have emotions.

    181. Re:SSDD by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Maslow's hierarchy of needs states they should probably focus on the basics like food and shelter before moving up to higher needs like companionship.

    182. Re:SSDD by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Once per airport, maybe, assuming people are already paying close attention to you in the first place. Besides, it would have to be a pretty small airport for that to be noticed even if several people did it. At an airport with a hundred or more gates, you're not likely to be seen by any of the same people, statistically speaking. The larger the crowd, the easier it is to get lost in it, yet for the same reason, the larger the crowd, the better a target it is. This fundamental truth is a big part of what makes real security hard.

      Besides, if you want to guarantee that nobody notices, you could just do a handoff in a busy men's restroom. The first law of men's rooms is that nobody looks at or pays attention to anyone else. :-D

      So yes, you're technically right that more people and/or more handoffs increases the risk, but in practice, increasing the risk from almost zero to a bigger almost zero is immaterial. If potentially dangerous substances get through security in any quantity, from a security perspective, that is effectively equivalent to allowing the substance through in an arbitrary quantity.

      I can only conclude, then, that if an actual terrorist attack were prevented in the United States, it would be more a matter of luck than an actual indication that the system is working.

      --

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

    183. Re:SSDD by eriqk · · Score: 1

      No. The terrorist goal is to blow a plane, not an airport room (they could go to any crowded shop instead).

      Right.

    184. Re:SSDD by HBI · · Score: 1

      Oh and btw, the "no nuclear program" is a canard. I spent 6 months in-country in 07-08 helping deconstruct his nonexistent nuclear program. The weakness of left wing inquiry always astounds me. The canards that are accepted as truth ...

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    185. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sucks to be them, doesn't it?

  3. Test First by Rtarara · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go back to the old scanners. Try again in a few years with better tech if you actually create some. Actually test the tech out next time, preferably with open field testing. Geeks can break most anything and it's best to see how they can BEFORE you implement the "important terrorist stopping scanner".

    1. Re:Test First by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Go back to the old scanners. Try again in a few years with better tech if you actually create some.

      Why would you do that when you can sell useless machines now and then sell slightly less useless machines again in a few years?

      You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.

    2. Re:Test First by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Testing would have delayed the goal of making Michael Chertoff more money.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    3. Re:Test First by spokenoise · · Score: 1

      Pfft you and your testing.... how is the guy who mandated these devices from his own company [prev /.] supposed to make money sitting around actually testing stuff? And what is this 'open' business you speak of?

    4. Re:Test First by Rtarara · · Score: 2

      I just keep naively hoping that at some point they will try to at least make it seem like they are actually trying. Is that really too much to ask? Yes. Well darn...

    5. Re:Test First by NicknameAvailable · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Go back to the old scanners. Try again in a few years with better tech if you actually create some.

      Why would you do that when you can sell useless machines now and then sell slightly less useless machines again in a few years?

      You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.

      Their not useless, their causing cancer just as intended.

    6. Re:Test First by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Informative

      You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.

      The one thing I do not understand is why is this happening in so many countries. Is it that easy to get rich everywhere - just make ridiculous, useless, 6-figure machines? In London, there is not even a pat-down option if you are selected (so I am not flying out of there).
      And who benefits from the ridiculous 3-ounce liquid rules, besides the vendors inside airports??

    7. Re:Test First by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.

      They ARE intended to do something else. Actually it's their main intent - to keep people simultaneously scared shitless and give them a feeling of security if they are nice and submissive.

      And they work extremely well at this. Just look anywhere there are skeptics and you'll see people crying "as long as it keeps me safe on my flight from Omaha to Kansas City!"

      --
      This space available.
    8. Re:Test First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, was getting ready to google for this scumbag's name so I could make the same point!

    9. Re:Test First by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Geeks can break most anything

      It's often more effective to intimidate the geeks. What are they going to do? Take revenge? Then they can be treated like terrorists. It's better to repeal bad laws.

    10. Re:Test First by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Just look anywhere there are skeptics and you'll see people crying "as long as it keeps me safe on my flight from Omaha to Kansas City!"

      And this is why we as the people who understand the technology must take the time to educate the masses about what it can and cannot do. And by that, I mean we have to club them over the head with the harsh reality that these things are no more effective than a dowsing rod at catching real terrorists.

      --

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

    11. Re:Test First by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      Just look anywhere there are skeptics and you'll see people crying "as long as it keeps me safe on my flight from Omaha to Kansas City!"

      And this is why we as the people who understand the technology must take the time to educate the masses about what it can and cannot do. And by that, I mean we have to club them over the head with the harsh reality that these things are no more effective than a dowsing rod at catching real terrorists.

      Unfortunately the masses believe that dowsing works, so indoctrinating them that these things works as well as dowsing rods actually makes them believe that these things work.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    12. Re:Test First by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The one thing I do not understand is why is this happening in so many countries. Is it that easy to get rich everywhere - just make ridiculous, useless, 6-figure machines? In London, there is not even a pat-down option if you are selected (so I am not flying out of there).

      The skill is not in the making of the machines. The skill is in selling them.

      And who benefits from the ridiculous 3-ounce liquid rules, besides the vendors inside airports??

      The machine vendors, for example. They benefit from the whole fear-mongering that's going on here. Because liquids are forbidden because they're so dangerous, and can not be detected by metal detectors, so you need a machine that can detect them.

      Or if you would like to truly enter conspiracy theory terrain: maybe the whole liquid-explosives scare was just a scam. After all not a single plane was blown up. The liquids were not even mixed to explosive yet. They weren't even taken to the airport yet. No they were found in someones home instead! Wasn't this maybe a plot of corrupt government people colluding with naked body scanners?

    13. Re:Test First by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Prescient Monty Python, yet again: The machine that goes ping.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    14. Re:Test First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.

      Well, they do. Specifically, they condition the general population to accept such scanning without question. In a few decades, the lack of terrorist attacks will be credited to the machines, and in the interests of public safety they will begin to be placed into our public schools to save the kids from other kids. Eventually you will have to pass through them in any place which now requires a metal detector scan, such as sporting events, courthouses, federal buildings, public libraries, etc.

      No, I'm not pulling the "slippery slope" here, there will be some limits to how far they will be used. But by the time the high school kids today have kids of their own, they will be much more commonplace.

    15. Re:Test First by gox · · Score: 2

      Wasn't this maybe a plot of corrupt government people colluding with naked body scanners?

      Yup! Let's not focus on vendor profits here. The fear mongering industry includes all kinds of focuses of power (including agencies of the State and terrorist organizations themselves), which all benefit from it in different ways. It's not a new thing, and it's not restricted to a single region nor to terrorism.

      As for government corruption, there are almost no negative consequences for an official that installs preventive measures against evildoers, what can you expect? They would still do it even if no single party benefited from it, to legitimize their position.

    16. Re:Test First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Their not useless, their causing cancer just as intended.

      Yeah, about as much as 2 minutes aboard an airplane at 30.000 feet does.

    17. Re:Test First by f3rret · · Score: 1

      And then suddenly everyone has cancer, yay.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    18. Re:Test First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or if you would like to truly enter conspiracy theory terrain: maybe the whole liquid-explosives scare was just a scam. After all not a single plane was blown up. The liquids were not even mixed to explosive yet. They weren't even taken to the airport yet. No they were found in someones home instead! Wasn't this maybe a plot of corrupt government people colluding with naked body scanners?

      Of course not. It was pure coincidence that torture revealed this plot on that same day an anti terror law was passed in UK.

    19. Re:Test First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Just look anywhere there are skeptics and you'll see people crying "as long as it keeps me safe on my flight from Omaha to Kansas City!""

      Whereas if you tell some people to wear a seatbelt or a helmet for safety during their drive from Omaha to Kansas City, they'll consider it a trampling of their rights and bitterly oppose any law that forces them to do so. On top of that, driving is less safe than flying.

      It's just bizarre.

    20. Re:Test First by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The thing that really irritates me about these machines is that both the privacy issues and the uselessness are results of poor UI. The images that the TSA operatives see are false colour images. It would be trivial to map the range for biological matter to the background colour so that the only things that the operative sees are metal items. Then there would be no privacy issue (people wouldn't see you naked - they wouldn't see you at all) and you wouldn't have this kind of failure.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    21. Re:Test First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one thing I do not understand is why is this happening in so many countries.

      Because the USA is once again giving orders and the rest of the world is saluting. At least Australia hasn't bought any back-scatter machines during its kow-towing. I went through Sydney international airport after the shoe bomber fiasco. I don't know if the no-shoes policy was reactive theatre or discouraging copy-cats.

      Many airports in WA and north Qld service mining and farming industries which both use nitrate chemicals. Guess what chemical that bomb 'sniffer' at the airport is really detecting?

    22. Re:Test First by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      you can buy flammables and flamethrower parts at any airport.

      and liquids to drink while on the plane. more expensive than 9-11 though.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    23. Re:Test First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone that has their head in the sand.

    24. Re:Test First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or the TSA could require people to turn while in the scanner...

      Of course the TSA should also stop assuming terrorists might only conceal the explosives and weapons outside the body. Drug mules have been swallowing condoms full of heroin for years. Substitute explosives, swallow them enough hours before boarding the flight to excrete them during the flight, assemble your bomb in the privacy of the toilet cubicle. Use surgery to implant your bomb in an abdominal cavity, no need to go to the toilet.. just trigger it with your radio key fob. The security is too easily circumvented.

    25. Re:Test First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.

      They ARE intended to do something else. Actually it's their main intent - to keep people simultaneously scared shitless and give them a feeling of security if they are nice and submissive.

      And they work extremely well at this. Just look anywhere there are skeptics and you'll see people crying "as long as it keeps me safe on my flight from Omaha to Kansas City!"

      I have to agree that there seems to be an element of "it's a circus act" to these scanners. I fly at most twice a year and have yet to be subject to any body scanner other than the metal detector. On my last flight, I was about 10 people behind a group of elderly travelers that the TSA was sending through the lone body scanner. Before it would have been my turn, TSA had already cordoned off the scanner and was rerouting people through the metal detector.

      So you have to wonder about the following: 1) the scanner is not used at high-volume times, 2) it plays a role in giving a warm sense of security to older voters, 3) the scanner is activated at random times, 4) the younger TSA workers get a thrill from telling the elderly what to do, 5) etc.

      Clearly, the TSA is not intended to be run in an absolute authoritarian manner.

    26. Re:Test First by azalin · · Score: 1

      My guess is they are waiting for the outrage (where applicable) to either calm down, or wait to sell a "system update" for a hefty fee.

    27. Re:Test First by twosat · · Score: 1

      The Iraq government spent 85 million dollars buying electronic bomb detector wands which are basically a dowsing rod with some useless un-powered electronics in it, yet the government swears by it! http://gizmodo.com/5455692/ade+651-magic-wand-bomb-detector-is-a-fraud-probably-killed-hundreds http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html?_r=2

    28. Re:Test First by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Is it that easy to get rich everywhere - just make ridiculous, useless, 6-figure machines?

      Almost. You still usually have to already be rich.

    29. Re:Test First by hey! · · Score: 2

      And who benefits from the ridiculous 3-ounce liquid rules, besides the vendors inside airports??

      While I generally agree with you, I can see the point of the 3 oz rule. It has to do with what in the software world we call "non-functional requirements" -- mainly cost and performance in this instance. While the *functional* requirement of preventing liquid explosives from being smuggled on a plane could be met with a much more lax rule, enforcing that rule in a way that allows many people to be processed fast enough, cheaply enough is a challenge.

      So as system designers, how would we write the requirements for the fluid rule? Well, we'd start by figuring out what has to be accomplished, the *functional* requirement. Suppose the smallest container of any real concern would be 8 oz. The most accurate method for enforcing this would be to take the liquid out of the container and measure it in a graduated cylinder, but this would be too slow. We want the rule to allow a reasonably trained inspector to tell at glance whether a container passes the rule, regardless of the shape of the container. Those are the *non-functional* requirements. But it's simply not possible for an ordinary person to distinguish a 7.5 oz container from an 8 oz container at a glance.

      Let's say we set the rule threshold at 7 oz, in order to preclude 8 oz. How do we know that's good enough? Well, we could set up a test where an inspector has to eyeball a hundred containers in two minutes. The containers are of various shapes, some of them containing the fatal 8 oz, others are only 7 oz. The results of interest would be the set of false positives (7 oz containers erroneously rejected) and the set of false negatives (8 oz containers erroneously passed).

      This forces us to consider what we *really* need. We decide to ignore false positives and focus on false negatives. Since the practical measurement methods we have are highly imprecise, we decide that we'll try to achieve a false negative rate that is sufficiently low to deter this mode of attack. That is questionable decision, obviously, but not entirely unreasonable. We decide (probably by pulling it out of our behinds) that a 50% false negative rate would be sufficient. If the 7oz threshold produces a false negative rate just under 50%, then 7oz is a reasonable candidate for our rule.

      So we have all the parameters we need to describe this problem. We have the exclusion goal 8 oz -- let's call that E. We have a maximum false positive (F) rate of 50% -- let's call that our goal G. Our task is to choose a rule threshold T E such that F G in our empirical tests.

      Now I have no idea whatsoever whether 3oz is a reasonable choice for this rule according to this kind of analysis. I suspect it was chosen by an entirely different method, to wit: exclude ALL liquids, but then allow enough volume for women to bring common cosmetics like mascara onto the plane. That's probably a lot more restrictive than the rule needs to be, but it should produce a low false negative rate and it preserves the most significant utility to the passengers that would be lost by a total ban.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    30. Re:Test First by rjstanford · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All of which goes out the window when you realize that you can easily bring an unlimited amount on board as long as a) you're willing to separate it into 3oz containers, and b) if you end up with more of them than will fit in a ziplock, you need to bring a friend.

      Security is a good thing. Security theater is not.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    31. Re:Test First by jittles · · Score: 1

      My uneducated guess would be that the government stands by this bomb detector wand to save face. They cannot admit to their people that they spent $85M on an invisible wardrobe. The people would likely be pissed. So they must do whatever they can to save face.

    32. Re:Test First by hey! · · Score: 1

      Possibly. Like I said, I didn't actually *do* the analysis, but this is something you could take into account. The rules *also* stipulate a limit total amount of liquid (all must fit in a 1 qt bag), and if you and your companions stuffed your bags full of 100 ml containers, that'd draw attention.

      The specific liquid explosives they're concerned with are tricky and dangerous to handle. They've been used successfully in suicide bombings, but without the ability to carry on shrapnel you'd probably need a large volume to be a serious threat to a plane. That's probably why they've never been used successfully against aircraft. So a more fundamental question is, are they a threat worth addressing at all?

      The question on how much more to invest in any security measure is usually much easier to answer in relative terms than absolute terms. Who can say how safe we have to be from liquid explosives in absolute terms? But it's clear that if we can make liquid explosives much less attractive than some other avenue of attack, it makes no sense to worry about them.

      So really there's three questions you need to address, and once you get a no you need proceed no further. A "no" on any of them means the 100ml rule is a bad one.

      (1) In the absence of the 100ml rule, are liquid explosives an attractive avenue attack?
      (2) In the presence of the 100ml, would attackers be better off choosing a different method?
      (3) Of the ways we could make liquid explosives unattractive, is the 100ml rule the least restrictive?

      Roughly we need to ask is whether it is necessary, whether it is sufficient, and whether it is efficient.

      I'm against security theater, but just because the utility of a something isn't immediately obviously to me, I don't immediately stake my flag in the position that it's just security theater.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    33. Re:Test First by AdrianKemp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But there's no need...

      Being killed by a terrorist on a plane doesn't even make a damn blip on the ways you're likely to die. It *barely* makes a blip on damages to U.S. infrastructure.

      The TSA exists solely because it can, and because people want money. Some people are making a lot of money on all of this nonsense and that's all that matters. This isn't some conspiracy theory or otherwise, just simple economics. There was an opening to make a buck, someone took it and here we are.

      9/11 was caused by some box cutters, it could have been just as easily accomplished with nothing (let's face it, people weren't scared of the little knife they were shocked because something threatened them and most modern people are cowards). The (head of the) TSA knows this, they also know there is a lot of money in fear.

    34. Re:Test First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We've been over this before. You're making the (bad) assumption that these scanners are maintained and calibrated and operated correctly, and that high doses on the skin and near skin are equal to a dose spread out evenly throughout the body.

    35. Re:Test First by honkycat · · Score: 1

      I'm against security theater, but just because the utility of a something isn't immediately obviously to me, I don't immediately stake my flag in the position that it's just security theater.

      This is an eminently rational sentiment, but I grow immediately skeptical when the only evidence the powers that be are able to provide to support their rules is, "Trust us," and "Boo!" In all the discussions of the rules I've seen, I've never seen anything more specific or convincing than that.

      Given the obvious evidence of at best incompetence or (more likely) outright corruption with regards to the body scanners, I'm not inclined to give the TSA (etc) the benefit of the doubt on this one.

      Furthermore, I think you missed a question. You need to add:
        (4) Is the cost of enforcing the 100mL rule less than the cost of an attack multiplied by the probability of a successful attack without the rule.
      I think this is distinct enough from (1) and (3) that it should be considered separately. It's quite possible that the attack is attractive, that the 100mL rule would be effective and is the least restrictive such deterrent, but that the expense simply isn't worth it. Given the rarity of terrorist attacks, expensive deterrents are unlikely even to approach being a sensible cost-benefit decision.

    36. Re:Test First by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      I'd add a corollary: "If your system doesn't stop someone with a toothbrush and a sheet of fine grit sandpaper inside a magazine, just assume that people will be able to carry knives in the plane and solve that problem first."

    37. Re:Test First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA is okay with this, as long as there's a button to switch back to the original colors when a cute girl gets in the scanner.

    38. Re:Test First by Rtarara · · Score: 1

      I have no fear of flying. I wouldn't even if they completely took out any sort of security theater. It's like taking the bus. I just think if you're wasting millions of dollars, the fake-out should be better. It should APPEAR that they are doing something. Like many of the other government agencies. I have given up all hope they will actually disband it and make things easier for us all. I just want them to apear to be working and to stop harassing people.

    39. Re:Test First by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Don't fly, take the train.

    40. Re:Test First by CompMD · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, I didn't see any advanced scanners at Kansas City airport (KMCI) last time I was there (last August). Also, they don't have TSA, they have a private contractor, and a solid half of the security staff is comprised of retirees. They have always been friendly and professional.

    41. Re:Test First by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they just take these scans from multiple angles? If this guy had to turn 90 degrees, that metal box would have shown up.

    42. Re:Test First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm likely naive; how is a toothbrush and fine grit sandpaper dangerous? Are you worried they'd sharpen it? Knitting needles and pens and pencils are already legal.

    43. Re:Test First by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Whereas if you tell some people to wear a seatbelt or a helmet for safety during their drive from Omaha to Kansas City, they'll consider it a trampling of their rights and bitterly oppose any law that forces them to do so. On top of that, driving is less safe than flying.

      It's just bizarre.

      No, it's human psychology.

      We tend to feel more 'in control' when we're driving and so will think that we can decide on what safety measures are appropriate for us. However if a plane is hijacked and crashed, we feel that we will be totally out of control and so it's more frightening.

    44. Re:Test First by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Thank you for putting your finger on one of the most annoying things about the Brave New World.

      It's not that it's supposed to provide security, but fails. We all know better than that. And it's not that it's merely security theater. Or that it's expensive.

      The final insult is that it's terrible security theater. It's not entertaining at all. The affects are awful. The casting is awful. The plot goes no where. And I can't even boo, catcall, or leave the theater.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    45. Re:Test First by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      Never mind that we don't know HOW much is being given off for real, and the difference between the various types of radiation.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    46. Re:Test First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the fact that they're BOTH a MASSIVE trampling of my rights?

      The government has no more business telling me to wear a seat belt, wear a helmet, or go through a virtual strip search (or any other kind of search) than they do prohibiting me from walking down the street.

      (And yes, for those clueless types, it's my constitutional right to walk down the street.)

    47. Re:Test First by KeithIrwin · · Score: 1

      You're overstating things. Binary liquid explosives weren't even found in anyone's home. It was just an idea that they were considering and hadn't actually carried out at all.

    48. Re:Test First by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Sorry my bad. That's misinterpreting the government propaganda... didn't reallise the plot hadn't even come out of the planning stage. Making the reaction by authorities even more ridiculous than I considered it already.

    49. Re:Test First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A: It's forbidden to enter a plane with a knife.
      B: It's not forbidden to bring the necessary materials to make a knife in the airport bathroom.

      It's pure theater.

      It's equivalent to protecting your computer by putting a post-it in the screen that says "do not use".

  4. Re:Frost Piss by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Might work if you are Francisco Scaramanga.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  5. Surprise it took that long by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only surprising thing here is that it took so long for such an easy work-around to come to light. It's not that there are very few people working with those scanners on a daily basis, and I bet plenty of TSA front-line personnel will discuss those scanners and how they work with their friends.

    1. Re:Surprise it took that long by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      plenty of TSA front-line personnel will discuss those scanners and how they work with their friends.

      What friends?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Surprise it took that long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's like the emperor's new clothes...

      Except people are afraid that they'll be locked away in Guantanamo Bay for showing people how to circumvent federal security measured put in place to thwart terrorists.

    3. Re:Surprise it took that long by Sneeka2 · · Score: 2

      The only surprising thing here is that it took so long for such an easy work-around to come to light.

      Exactly, come to light. The real terrorists have been doing this for years. And they have some ass kicking to do now, 'cause this little punk revealed the trick.

      --
      Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
    4. Re:Surprise it took that long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      this has been known for years and is actually documented in public peer-reviewed publications. however, the video demonstration makes the real-world practice clear what the scientific literature addresses only in principle. also note that this workaround affects the x-ray backscatter scanners more than the swoopy-doop millimeter-wave scanners.

    5. Re:Surprise it took that long by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We were pretty sure that there was a problem with metal objects taped to the inside or outside of people's bodies when Adam Savage walked through with two 12" razor blades. This story just provides an explanation of why the scanners don't work.

      --

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

    6. Re:Surprise it took that long by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even Gestapo officers had friends...if they knew what was good for them.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    7. Re:Surprise it took that long by slashmojo · · Score: 1

      What friends?

      s/friends/mother/

    8. Re:Surprise it took that long by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      It's not the only "trick". A friend has taken a knife in the cabin multiple times, simply by overlooking the knife when packing his musical instrument. The scanner operators simply don't notice the knife amongst the other metal.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    9. Re:Surprise it took that long by wvmarle · · Score: 3

      I bet you can hide serious knives (or other weapons) inside a saxophone. And indeed even very large instruments are routinely carried as cabin luggage.

    10. Re:Surprise it took that long by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      This vulnerability was already demonstrated on german TV, a good few years ago. The security expert who demonstrated it actually got enough material through for a nice thermite bomb, using a normal side-pocket of a jacket as well as his mouth.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    11. Re:Surprise it took that long by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah. I was worried about the TSA folks having a cow about my valve oil, so I dutifully packed it in a plastic bag for my first post-9/11 trip with an instrument, wondering if I'd have to dispose of it anyway. I don't think anyone else brought bags, and as far as I could tell, nobody got pulled aside. (I waited around as folks went through just in case I needed to pass somebody a spare plastic bag.)

      It's kind of scary to realize (in hindsight) that between the couple of dozen brass players, we probably walked through the TSA checkpoint with between fifty and a hundred fluid ounces of light petroleum distillates (basically kerosene) without comment....

      If we had been terrorists, I suspect that the plane would not have reached its destination. It scares the crap out of me to realize that in spite of all their amateur theatrics, we're really not significantly safer than we were before.

      --

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

    12. Re:Surprise it took that long by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Now you mention: there are rules against taking pressurised gases on the plane (for decades - like aerosol cans, lighters). Actually I have never heard about any rules against inflammable liquids, while that is a rule that would make total sense to me.

    13. Re:Surprise it took that long by Sique · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why long? Two years ago (Jan 2010), a guy in german TV demonstrated how to get enough stuff past the body scanners to build a thermite bomb, including the lighter. And the body scanner was operated by a service person from the manufacturer during the demonstration.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    14. Re:Surprise it took that long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It scares the crap out of me to realize that in spite of all their amateur theatrics, we're really not significantly safer than we were before.

      It's only scary at first. Despite all this, no successful terrorist attack has successfully been carried out on planes for over ten years. Instead of getting rid of an overpriced, useless and redundant mess of an agency, we continue to praise it for stopping terrorists, even to the point of being scared when realizing they didn't actually stop any terrorists.

      - "Why are you constantly clapping?"
      - "To scare away elephants."
      - "But there aren't any elephants here!"
      - "Yes. You're welcome."

    15. Re:Surprise it took that long by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Possibly because testing the work-arounds would be neither trivial nor free of risk (in numerous ways).

      I'm pretty sure many people have ideas for possible work-arounds, but few actually care enough to risk being detained at an airport for hours, being questioned as a terrorist.

      Now if they put one of these scanners at a place like MIT, you'd have dozens of succesful and reliable hacks within days.

      I'm guessing the guys who develop these scanners know quite a few tricks as well.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    16. Re:Surprise it took that long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Experts have been saying this for years. I remember seeing a (German, I think) TV show where the scanner manufacturers had one of these machines, and was going on about how foolproof it was, etc. and they brought in a security expert who said he could walk through the scanner, not have anything detected and then build a mock bomb from what he had on him. The rep said that was impossible, so the guy walked through the scanner, they showed the scan as he imitated what he'd have to do during an airport scan and checked with the rep it was done correctly. Scan showed nothing - and after stepping out he proceeded to build the "bomb" from the items he had concealed all over his person. The scanner rep then started going on about how it wasn't the same as in an airport after all, and wasn't fair, etc.

      I seem to recall also that Bruce Schnier has gone through checkpoints a few times with journalists in tow to prove the ineffective security theatre point also.

    17. Re:Surprise it took that long by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      There are absolutely rules against flammable/inflammable/combustible liquids. Have a look at the signs at the counter next time you're in the airport, they're pretty clear. Whether they are all enforced is another story (a friend once brought back an airsoft gun from Greece, nobody said anything).

    18. Re:Surprise it took that long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would you go about bringing an airliner down with such a small amount of kerosene?

      Its not like the stuff is explosive on its own.

      You'd also have sneak in a 30 lb bag of fertilizer for that to work.

    19. Re:Surprise it took that long by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      My brother works for the TSA. I refuse to talk to him.

      Maybe I should talk with him, though. That whole, "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" thing.

    20. Re:Surprise it took that long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It scares the crap out of me to realize that in spite of all their amateur theatrics, we're really not significantly safer than we were before.

      Rather than be scared, it should reassure you to realize that, in spite of the horror of 9/11, we're really in no more danger than we were before.

    21. Re:Surprise it took that long by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      It scares the crap out of me to realize that in spite of all their amateur theatrics, we're really not significantly safer than we were before.

      Hmm, that's funny. I find it reassuring that despite all the BS that is the TSA and airline security theatre, there hasn't been a successful terrorist attack... Maybe that's just me -- you know, not being afraid of anything, even if I'm aware of it... because I'm an American, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"

      Don't get scared about this, that implies we should do more useless crap: "OH NO! Something could have happened! Look how easy the sheep could be slaughtered! Put them in isolation crates during transport!"

      No, instead, get pissed off that your taxes were wasted.
      Tell me something. Do you shit bricks when you walk down the sidewalk? I mean, just imagine all the near misses from the passing traffic. It should REALLY scare you to think that despite all the questions on the driver's license exam, there's still a bunch of morons behind the wheel... only half paying attention, more distracted than ever. In fact, cars kill more people than terrorists have.

      Protip: If you're cowering in fear ready for the crap to be scared out of you, then the terrorists won. People didn't initially fight back on the hijacked planes and overpower the boxcutter wielding terrorists, because they were scared that someone might be hurt. Now that everyone knows the stakes are higher than one life, that type of shit won't be possible without murdering half the passengers, and fighting off the rest.

    22. Re:Surprise it took that long by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      It scares the crap out of me to realize that in spite of all their amateur theatrics, we're really not significantly safer than we were before.

      It scares the crap out of me to realize that people capable of using a computer, logging to slashdot and writing a readable response, believed in the amateur theatrics for more than a few seconds.

      Suicidal terrorists can't be stopped. Period. It's really simple.

    23. Re:Surprise it took that long by udoschuermann · · Score: 1

      We're told that we're safer, and many people actually believe that we're safer, but a false sense of security is the makings of a perfect trap.

      --
      --Udo.
    24. Re:Surprise it took that long by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I didn't believe in any of the post-9/11 changes, but I always assumed that at least their baggage X-ray people must be semi-competent....

      --

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

    25. Re:Surprise it took that long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the basic problem.

      "It scares the crap out of me"

      Quit being such a pussy and worrying about one of the most insignificant existential threats you face.

      It scares the crap out of you? Really? We have all this theater, because these imaginary threats "scare the crap" out of people like you.

    26. Re:Surprise it took that long by OverTheGeicoE · · Score: 1

      For X-ray scanners this vulnerability has been known (at least in theory) since 2010, when it was discussed in a paper by Kaufman and Carlson. They concluded that 'an object such as a wire or a boxcutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible.' Sounds like they were right.

    27. Re:Surprise it took that long by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      It's like the emperor's new clothes...

      Except people are afraid that they'll be locked away in Guantanamo Bay for showing people how to circumvent federal security measured put in place to thwart terrorists.

      And people are seeing them naked when in fact they're wearing clothes.

    28. Re:Surprise it took that long by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      What scares me is that the TSA is wasting our time looking for imaginary threats like multi-part non-nitrate liquid explosives while obviously volatile substances are ignored en masse, one right after the next.

      It's like having police with uzis to protect against criminals with guns and then finding out that a woman was raped with a knife right in front of them and they didn't pay any attention because the rapist wasn't carrying a gun.

      --

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

    29. Re:Surprise it took that long by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, he did say "that the plane would not have reached its destination", not that they would have brought the airliner down. So all you need to do is start a small fire, watch the flight crew freak out and divert to the nearest airport, and BAM - the plane would not have reached its destination. Done.

    30. Re:Surprise it took that long by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Even Gestapo officers had friends.

      Other Gestapo officers don't count.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    31. Re:Surprise it took that long by robsku · · Score: 1

      Mod +1 funny =)

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
  6. wouldnt surprise me if this guy gets fined by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or arrested

    by now im sure there is something written somewhere stating any attempt at circumventing any screening or detection device is against the law

    1. Re:wouldnt surprise me if this guy gets fined by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Any attempt to discredit the TSA is going to get you charged by revealing a state secret.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:wouldnt surprise me if this guy gets fined by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      More likely someone with your same name and description 'coincidentally' ends up on the no-fly list. That way, they don't have to bother with irritations such as a judge and jury. They're probably patiently waiting for the ok to ship people strait to GITMO so they can be done with you and hopefully people like you.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  7. Re:Frost Piss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just wanted to join the Mile High Club.

  8. Scanner image hoax by sixtyeight · · Score: 4, Informative

    Images purporting to show what TSA scanners actually get have been demonstrated to be fakes:

    http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=154635.0

    --
    The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
    1. Re:Scanner image hoax by bmo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Any time you see a "scan image" that shows hair of any kind, it's fake.

      The radiation penetrates clothing. Why would it not penetrate hair? Indeed, we all look lumpy *and* bald going through the scanner.

      It was obvious the first time these images went 'round.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:Scanner image hoax by afaik_ianal · · Score: 2

      There seems to be some confusion here. A lot of people think the inverted image shows the TSA is showing doctored images rather than showing us what the scanners actually show. As far as I can tell, the inverted image has never been released by the TSA or the scanner companies. They were part of a hoax suggesting the scanners can see more than they were letting on.

      I don't think there's any reason to think images released by the TSA aren't real scanner images.

    3. Re:Scanner image hoax by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      The last person I'd ever trust for source material is the one who has the most to gain by lying.

      Banks don't want you to call 911 if there's fraud on your account either; they want you to call them so it can be handled internally, so they can keep claiming that fraud isn't a problem.

      Don't trust material that isn't independently verified. Period.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    4. Re:Scanner image hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banks don't want you to call 911 if there's fraud on your account either; they want you to call them so it can be handled internally, so they can keep claiming that fraud isn't a problem.

      Why? Fraud clearly is a problem, but it's a problem for the banks. No reason anyone else should care that they have a problem. Unless you think they're likely to go bust as a result, I guess, but it's not like there's another bank that doesn't get defrauded.

    5. Re:Scanner image hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      we all look lumpy *and* bald going through the scanner.

      I achieve /that/ look without any expensive technology...

    6. Re:Scanner image hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prolifetip:

      Never take the word of any person, group, or institution that is profiting from the thing you are questioning.

    7. Re:Scanner image hoax by Triv · · Score: 1

      VERY NSFW, btw.

    8. Re:Scanner image hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  9. Day in court for pointing out the obvious by WhiteStarTech · · Score: 1

    The US government doesn’t like having flaws pointed out, if they can turn this on you they will.
    However this scanner is only part of the plan and a gun will be more visible due to the nature of the device and how it works, a small metal tin is not a good test.

    1. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      What if you put the gun inside the tin?

    2. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by afaik_ianal · · Score: 4, Informative

      How many guns were smuggled onto planes as part of 9/11 again? You could easily conceal a weapon in a tin that size.

      His point is that a metal detector would've actually detected that tin, and allowed them to inspect the contents to see if contained something that might be used as a weapon, with much less impact on his privacy.

    3. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by Riceballsan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Indeed all of the actual holes that were exploited on 9/11 were pretty much patched very early. The main holes being 1. Policies saying let hijackers do whatever they want, wait till they land to have them arrested. 2. the cockpit doors being weak. Even if the underware and shoebomber both succeeded (both of which succesfully being thwarted without the super overintrusive new TSA rules), air travel as a whole still has less total risks than driving to the airport. In the end soceity has to realize that to some extent we have to ballance control of horrible deaths. I would imagine there are far more ways that people die that could be prevented if we applied anywhere near the money we put into TSA post 9/11 than we saved in reality. There are no shortage of underfunded disaster control, rescue, fire departments, starving homeless etc... We also could improve the quality of life by putting things into schools, or encorage more science by funding NASA etc... Decisions inspired by sudden knee jerk fear are rarely good ones and often we forget the scale of what we are fighting against is actually very small.

    4. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by martas · · Score: 2

      Nobody is surprised when a homeless man dies of pneumonia, or when thousands of teenagers commit suicide because of a toxic culture. These things aren't "scary", even though objectively they are much more horrible than the statistically insignificant deaths from terrorist attacks [in the US]. It's all about what is and isn't part of "the plan", to quote The Joker from the greatest part of that movie.

    5. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by ChristW · · Score: 1

      ...or just get yourself one of these: Ceramic knife, 20cm (8" blade)

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    6. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Well for many people flying IS scary. Many people that board planes are a bit nervous, hoping the thing doesn't fall apart, whatnot. Yes it's irrational but that's human nature - flying is against our nature. Giving up control is scary too, for many of us (just look at /. discussions about self-driving cars, if you don't believe me). And when boarding a plane you give up control of the operation of the vehicle, and you go fly high up in the sky. A recipe for anxiety.

    7. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by carvalhao · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod parent up! Terrorism is all about... Creating terror! And disrupting societies by leading them to change significantly due to that terror. If societies refuse to change, terrorism will fail and the funding will stop coming. Look at IRA and ETA, they were not defeated by expensive equipment or civil rights limitations, they were defeated by societies refusal to become terrified.

    8. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by martas · · Score: 2

      just look at /. discussions about self-driving cars, if you don't believe me

      Funny you should bring that up, it's actually been bugging me for a while. Most of the comments on those posts seem to either claim that it's an impossible engineering problem to solve, or that it creates legal/social problems that are impossible to solve (e.g. "just wait until one of these crashes, the resulting lawsuit will bring down all technology-related companies in the world and thrust us back to the bronze age and give everyone AIDS." I'm exaggerating only slightly...). What's up with that? I thought people on /. were supposed to like technology and all that... How long has it been cool for "geeks" to be Luddites?

    9. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      I also see a lot of fear. You see many arguments like "but how if the car in front of me breaks down?". I won't say that never happens but modern cars are really reliable so the chance is far lower than the person to your right or left not seeing you when changing lanes.

      Indeed it's strange. Technology is supposed to make one's life easier; and motorway driving is boring at best.

      But you have the problem of psychology: this is also a major reason why underground trains still have drivers, even though they're often run fully automatically and are on closed tracks and whatnot. And I have to admit standing in a train looking out the front window while it drives itself is a bit scary, even though you know that it is safe. Just the idea to not have a human on the controls is an issue, psychological.

    10. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by martas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I guess it's not completely irrational. Automated systems don't deal with highly unlikely exceptions as well as humans sometimes do. Though they also tend to make much fewer mistakes under normal circumstances (or under types of exceptions that were taken into account by the engineers) than humans do... If money wasn't an issue, I'd say that the autopilot + usually passive human operator solution is the best of both worlds. Which is exactly what Google and others have in mind while designing autonomous cars -- it would be silly of them to build/market the technology as completely driverless. And I imagine that the transition will really be very gradual. I don't think the first "self-driving" consumer cars will drive themselves completely from point A to point B. More likely we will first see for example highway-only self-driving cars, which sounds like both a much easier engineering problem as well as having higher potential for saving lives (no falling asleep and drifting, no lane changing into a car in the blind spot, etc). There would have to be a system for smoothly transferring control upon entering an leaving the highway, but again that seems like an easier problem that urban driving with all of its messiness and variety of environment types... As usual, I think the anxiety of people predicting the implications of the technology is highly exaggerated compared to the actual disruption it will cause.

    11. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by Sique · · Score: 1

      There are some undergrounds which run driverless, Lyon(France) Line D and Nuremberg(Germany) U3 being the examples first coming to my mind.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    12. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by HBI · · Score: 1

      Actually, both groups were recipients of Soviet funding (and parrots of the Marxist/Leninist thought of same) and suffered a rather significant hit by the elimination of that source of funding. The years since can be understood in context as attempts by the chastened, underfunded groups attempting to find some modus operandi with the local government in question.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    13. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You call it an irrational fear of flying. I call it a rational fear of engineers.

      Yes, it's a joke...

    14. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      While the things you mention are part of the discussion on self-driving cars, most of the posts opposed to the idea are built around one of two (or sometimes both) feelings/beliefs. The first is that the poster likes to drive and is not really interested in a car that takes that task away from them. The second is that self-driving cars will be completely trackable by the government (they will maintain a log of everywhere they have been and that log will probably be remotely accessible).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    15. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by martas · · Score: 1

      I don't think these are really what most opposing posts say, but the rebuttals are pretty obvious:

      1) If self driving cars are proven to improve safety, all else being equal it's irresponsible to resist using them purely for the sake of personal enjoyment. Every time someone gets behind the wheel they put their own and, more importantly, other people's health and lives in danger. "But I like driving" isn't really a good enough excuse in my book to do that, at least not habitually (i.e. occasionally taking over in a small, empty road wouldn't be the problem, it's rush hour on the highway that kills people).

      2) The question here is whether or not a person who is concerned about privacy would be able to find a car that they can be reasonably sure doesn't store/transmit that kind of information. I can imagine two obstacles to this. One could be federal/state regulations saying that manufacturers must include such a feature (+ possibly operate some kind of database for centralized storage of the information to keep "safe" from destruction by the user). Sadly, it is easy to imagine that such a law could come into existence, in part because as FB has shown most people couldn't give two shits about their privacy, which brings me to the second, more realistic obstacle -- there would probably be some (perhaps tiny) benefit to users from tracking, and it wouldn't make economical sense for manufacturers to cater to those who care about privacy as they would probably basically represent a small niche. The point is, this is more of a general social issue, and as long as the vast majority of people remain ignorant of and apathetic towards the increasing intrusion of corporations and government in their personal lives, things are going to keep getting worse for those who don't like to be constantly tracked and kept tabs on... Self-driving cars or not.

      After all, if you have a smart phone you take with you (and don't physically remove the battery from) while you drive, you can probably already be tracked by any number of entities, and the cost to do so is probably only going to decrease for them in the future (as carriers and manufacturers give in to advertisers, "law enforcement" and god knows who else more and more).

    16. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or just get yourself one of these: Ceramic knife, 20cm (8" blade)

      Or "pianowire"
      Or pretend to be diabetic and fill a few seringes with poison
      Or just light up a few airplane seats and watch everyone inhale toxic air (the oxigen masks are ONLY used when depressurisation occurs, they last just long enough to allow for the plane to descend to safer altitudes anyway)
      Or hack into the airplane manufacturer network to plant a backdoor into the planes software => extra point for this one since you don't risk your arse and can floor all planes of a certain make in one fell swoop

    17. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      1) If self driving cars are proven to improve safety, all else being equal it's irresponsible to resist using them purely for the sake of personal enjoyment.

      The thing is, all else will not be equal. Whatever makes the car a "self-driving car" will increase the cost of production. THis is actually an overall problem we have in this country (and probably in all developed nations). There is to much, "but this makes it safer" without enough analysis of the costs involved. For example, I do not think we have done enough analysis as to whether or not airbags are worth the total cost. While people have considered the cost of initially installing airbags as part of manufacture, I do not believe that people have really considered the cost of airbags over the lifetime of a car. The fact of the matter is that airbags reduce the overall useful lifetime of a car. For most cars the factor that renders them no longer worth maintaining is when the airbags need to be replaced (whether through age or deployment). This may not happen the first time the airbags need to be replaced, if they deploy in an accident in a new enough car, but even there they drive up the cost of repair, and thus drive up the cost of everyone's insurance.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    18. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by martas · · Score: 1

      Yeah I agree totally, that's why I was careful to say "all else being equal", which I know is a false premise :). These are the kinds of problems that would be nice if the free market could solve, except that of course in many cases the true cost is either impossible to know, becomes apparent years or decades too late, or is paid by the wrong party... Turns out the world is complicated. Who knew?

    19. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Actually, with the airbag issue (and the seatbelt issue before it), the free market could have resolved it, but some people decided to short circuit that process and have the government mandate that they be installed. I was not aware of what was going on when the seat belts were mandated so I do not know how that would have played out. However, I remember when the government mandate for airbags was instituted. At that time, car manufacturers were starting to install airbags as a competitive option. That is some models came with them standard and the car manufacturers advertised this fact as a selling point. Additionally, many more models had airbags as an option that could be added on. The number of cars that offered airbags (either standard or as an option) was rising rapidly as public awareness rose and costs came down. The government mandate drove the costs down further, but still raised the price of the lowest price cars and reduced the mpg of the most fuel efficient cars (by increasing the weight of those cars).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    20. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      every year coconuts (mostly falling onto ppls heads) kill more people than the terrorists did on 9/11

    21. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and they could bury induction wires and run cars off of electricity but it wont happen as we are in debt collection now. Wait until after we bankrupt absolutely everyone out.

    22. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by Macman408 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's related to the fact that it seems like such an easy problem to solve, if we just put the resources into it. We can make fully-automated factory floors with sensors so that the robots don't trample each other or the humans - so just apply the same techniques to the highways. There's finally a few companies really working on this (probably in large part due to the DARPA Grand Challenge), though they're doing it the computationally hard way (assume the roads don't change - no extra guides, no communication between cars, no communication from traffic lights).

      So since nobody's invested the resources yet, we try to look for reasons to explain why. The legal one is by far the most plausible and understandable, as opposed to some insurmountable technical reason that would probably be difficult to explain. It also resonates the best, considering most of the American public is well aware of the frequency of frivolous lawsuits, and anxiously awaits the day when they get to benefit from one themselves.

    23. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main hole was fixed within minutes. Indeed, on 9/11 itself.

      And that was that passenger cooperation.

      The 3rd plane crashed because passengers learned that the other 2 were not part of a typical hijacking.

      If it was attempted again in the future, the plane's passengers would not be cooperative.

    24. Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at IRA and ETA, they were not defeated by expensive equipment or civil rights limitations, they were defeated by societies refusal to become terrified.

      So what you are saying is we are screwed!

  10. the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The workaround for this is to have people turn at 45 intervals in the scanner so that you can catch them at every angle. Of course this will increase the time it takes to scan each individual which means you will need to buy more backscatter x-ray machines and hire more TSA employees to keep people moving through at the same rate.

    1. Re:the solution by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      And it will double the exposure (at minimum), or to adequately cover the interior and exterior surfaces of both legs, probably triple or quadruple it.

      Next step: TSA body scanner twister. In the first shot, you have your arms and legs spread. Then one leg pulled up over your head with the opposite arm while the other arm sticks forwards. Then....

      --

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

    2. Re:the solution by rioki · · Score: 1

      Right leg on blue circle.

  11. cancer protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, we can now make cancer protection shirts that at least protect your sides. They could be dual use, too. You could sell them on /. as spook cloaking shirts so long as you point your one of your sides toward them.

  12. Them terrorist will slip through anyway ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    whenever the authorities want them to slip through.

    [conspiracy mode on]
    With Israeli security companies controlling American security, you just as well let everybody on board because
    when the Likud-Neocons decide to shock the average American again to justify their Iran war, terrorist will miraculously defy all security measures.
    [conspiracy mode off]

    1. Re:Them terrorist will slip through anyway ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Israelis were actually running American security, it would actually be WORKING. Ergo, you're nuts.

    2. Re:Them terrorist will slip through anyway ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Israelis ever need a terrorist attack on the USA, all they have to do is secretly give a few ideas on bypassing US security to Ahmed the terrorist.

    3. Re:Them terrorist will slip through anyway ... by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      If Israelis were actually running American security, it would actually be WORKING. Ergo, you're nuts.

      GP is saying it *is* working - for THEM.

  13. Metallic Body Paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone tried covering themselves in metallic body paint (or just a large finger sign on the chest). Just curious if you disappear complete. Ie. whether you become a dis-imbodied head.

    Interesting concept, may have to start selling it, think I'll call it "privacy shield".

    1. Re:Metallic Body Paint by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      "privacy shield", meet "no-fly list"...

  14. what the tsa will actually do by prehistoricman5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since obviously a metal detector will detect that sort of thing, the tsa will now buy new millimeter wave/backscatter x-ray scanners with a traditional metal detector integrated into the system. The only reason they're going to give up their toys is because they can get better ones.

    --
    Fuck Beta
    1. Re:what the tsa will actually do by JudasPreist · · Score: 1

      No, they'll simply implement a addendum to the law that requires each Victim turn completely around while in the scanner. Boom, work-around that simple. So next time you go plan for an extra half hour for each plane load of victims to turn in the right direction while in the scanner. Most capable TSA employee: "wait, do you turn TOWARDS your right arm, or AWAY from your right arm? Which is the right direction?"

    2. Re:what the tsa will actually do by bigtrike · · Score: 1

      I never understood why they didn't just stick a cheap metal detector in front of or behind the full body scanner.

    3. Re:what the tsa will actually do by Osgeld · · Score: 2

      cause they are retarded, going with the old "airbags are a total replacement for seatbelts" way of thinking

    4. Re:what the tsa will actually do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure some asshole has the patent for that.

    5. Re:what the tsa will actually do by martas · · Score: 1

      No problem. One more person will get rich off of scared taxpayers' cash. The best thieves are the ones who know how and when to play nice [e.g. see Wall Street].

    6. Re:what the tsa will actually do by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      "They" in this case are the manufacturers, and they didn't do that up front because now: boo-ya, upsell! Bigger yachts all round.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:what the tsa will actually do by WRX+SKy · · Score: 1

      Substitute plastic tin for metal tin... problem solved, scanners ineffective again.

  15. I don't care how effective they are. by GmExtremacy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They invade citizens' privacy, and because of that, I think they should be gone.

    "For the children," "to stop the terrorists," "ban technology X because of the actions of a few," they're all the same thing. All that's needed is increased cockpit security and citizen awareness. No privacy violations are necessary or even wanted.

    1. Re:I don't care how effective they are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter what you think or how you feel.

      What has been done is done, it isn't going away. As our generations exit and new ones arrive, these things that seem so invasive to us will be 'normal' to them. There will probably be those that complain when the envelope is pushed further still, but what will it matter? Soon their generation will pass and the next will arrive.

      People write letters to various politicians to complain, the politicians don't read them, and even if they did could any one politician stem the tide of the absurdity that abounds?

      Let us pretend for a moment that the next elected President of the United States was against TSA full body scanners. Do you really think that they would go away? They wouldn't, I promise you that.

    2. Re:I don't care how effective they are. by FairAndHateful · · Score: 2

      It doesn't matter what you think or how you feel.

      What has been done is done, it isn't going away.

      This attitude is part of the problem.

    3. Re:I don't care how effective they are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter what you think or how you feel.

      What has been done is done, it isn't going away.

      This attitude is part of the problem.

      What attitude, looking at reality with logic and reason, as opposed to relying on unicorn farts to judge what the future may bring? No, that attitude is not part of the problem. That attitude is part of the solution. The attitude of "Oh, this is just an isolated case, when things get better they will go away" is the real problem. Once people realize that no, this bullshit is only going to get worse before it gets better, then we can begin to have a real discussion regarding what can be done about it.

    4. Re:I don't care how effective they are. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      All that's needed is increased cockpit security

      Done. Reinforced and internally locked cockpit doors, secured prior to passenger boarding, are standard on all commercial aircraft.

      and and citizen awareness.

      Done. There are numerous instances of passengers intervening in the cabin, from notifying cabin crew of suspicious activity through to physically restraining people who claim to have explosives or attempting to open cabin doors.

      The World Trade Centre attack simply cannot happen again; It was a one-shot affair. What is needed is better screening of cargo (dogs / electronic detection systems for explosives) and better screening of air-side personnel. Passenger hijacking is a thing of the past.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    5. Re:I don't care how effective they are. by cjc25 · · Score: 1

      Securing cockpit doors before passenger boarding? When's the last time you were on a plane? I fly weekly around the US and occasionally internationally and can't remember an instance in the past year when the cockpit was locked before everyone was on the plane. Usually it's just before the boarding door is closed.

      At any rate, it doesn't affect security, as you can't really hijack a plane which does not have the engines on and is parked at the gate.... Most domestic flights have the crew on board maybe 10-15 minutes before passengers begin boarding and pilots do need to go through a checklist with flight attendants.

    6. Re:I don't care how effective they are. by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Done.

      I know. That was my exact point: this security theater isn't even necessary. But even if it was effective, I wouldn't want it anyway.

    7. Re:I don't care how effective they are. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      It was a failed edit. I should have proof-read.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:I don't care how effective they are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure my attitude is also part of the problem. Unless I run a multimillion dollar corporation or have close personal contacts to important political figures, my opinions mean less than nothing to those who make the rules.

      Prove to me that I'm wrong, in a way that doesn't either imprison me or otherwise ostracize me from basically all employment or my family, and I will willingly change my way of thinking.

      At this point, the only thing us proles can do is take up arms (which goes directly against my above sentence), which will never happen in a thousand years in North America.

    9. Re:I don't care how effective they are. by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      Opinion != fact -> your reasoning is a common PERCEPTION, but it is NOT static, and it still CAN be changed.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    10. Re:I don't care how effective they are. by FairAndHateful · · Score: 1

      The attitude of "Oh, this is just an isolated case, when things get better they will go away" is the real problem. Once people realize that no, this bullshit is only going to get worse before it gets better, then we can begin to have a real discussion regarding what can be done about it.

      Actually, this is quite close to how I was perceiving the comment. I perceived the comment I was responding to as a defeatist "the horse is out of the barn so why bother" statement. Perhaps I latched on to a small statement, and had a problem with reading comprehension.

      I think it's ok, and even a good idea to not wait until it gets worse before we try to correct things. Even advisable. Some people think that once it gets bad enough, people will finally notice, and stand up, but history is full of examples where it got so bad as to be unlivable and people still didn't fight. Fight it early, fight it hard.

  16. Disheartening by slasho81 · · Score: 3, Interesting
  17. FYI by hellop2 · · Score: 0

    The scanner at my airport spins around you in 360 degrees. Also, it doesn't show any image to the personnel watching the screen right there. Just a pass/fail I suppose.

    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    1. Re:FYI by KarolisP · · Score: 1

      so you naturally put all the "stuff" into your turban on your head right? we all know you are wearing it.... :)

    2. Re:FYI by Hatta · · Score: 1

      No silly, that's the revolving door!

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:FYI by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      That's a millimeter-wave scanner, not a backscatter scanner.

  18. Delete the last to words of the sub title by wbr1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It should simply read, "The Ineffectiveness of the TSA"

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  19. SSDD!? by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of SSDDs! ...

    ... oh, wait, that's SSDDs. My bad.

    But, well, I guess that still works -- that's essentially what we have now with the TSA in all our airports / bus stations / pants.

    Anyone else care to dance the Charlie Foxtrot? It's awfully popular these days...

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
    1. Re:SSDD!? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 0

      a Beowulf cluster of SSDD

      We herd you liek bullshit! So we put 365 days of bullshit into every single year of a millenium of bullshit. This way you can get bullshitted while you get bullshitted :P

  20. what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Okay.

    I don't believe this. This cannot be true. Its simply impossible for any culture that produces devices like this to exist. The culture would have to be too stupid to invent the screws holding the thing together! This is such a brain-blindingly hilariously awfully maniacally stupid thing that it can NOT exist. It can not! I tell you, it was the psychologists. They wanted to drive us mad to make money and steal all our Thetans. Our luscious, juicy thetans! And without the thetans, Xenu would buy all the pesticide in the world, destroying all the insects. No insects, no honey! No honey, no assembly system for anti-alien defences. They would then steal all our weather-control devices to dry up the loch ness lake and unleash it on the middle east, stealing all the oil in the process! It's all a coverup! ITS ALL A COVERUP!

  21. Re:Frost Piss by EdIII · · Score: 4, Funny

    I heard you can hide a gun in a Fleshlight and it'll get through.

    Yeah. Duh. Who wants to actually inspect the inside of one of those? Do you want the job?

  22. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All you have managed to point out is what the TSA and everyone else with a remedial education already knew. The body scanners aren't metal detectors. They are detectors to show what does and doesn't belong with a normal human form. So you pointed out a flaw in the current method the use for screening. Maybe they will thank you for that but I doubt it. What is going to be done now is that the TSA will require you to go through the metal detector and the body scanner.

  23. yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was part of a team bringing forward a competing technology to those scanners (standoff biometrics, no weird imaging, ~5 different measurements, easy to beat one, hard to beat them all). We thought we had won the tests. At least, we found all the people sneaking stuff in during our test and we knew they couldn't have detected certain things - like explosives, which they still can't see.

    Due to the nature of my sensor work, much of my clothing is covered in explosives residue. A good scanner should really pick me out every time, but I only ever get "caught" when I'm selected for random screening.

    We were pretty surprised when we found out they were selected. I guess we should have worked harder on our lobbying and less on our engineering.

    1. Re:yup by Sir_Sri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      do you have a proven track record of being able to produce 100 000 units? What's your typical cost/cost overun on a project that size?

      Business is business. Engineering is part of business, but if you're advertising the greatest thing ever for 100 dollars that is supposedly 10x than what everyone else is selling for 1000 people are rightfully skeptical that you can actually deliver the product on time, and on budget. That doesn't mean you can't, and yes in any business advertising (or in the case of the US government lobbying) matters tremendously, but there can be non obvious factors at play.

      As with anything you might really have been trumped by 'strategic concerns' (you weren't going to create enough jobs, in the right districts, or pay the right campaign kickbacks), but you might have just not seemed honest, being the only honest one in a room full of crooks.

    2. Re:yup by roothog · · Score: 1

      I guess we should have worked harder on our lobbying and less on our engineering.

      Yes. Your competitors hired Michael Chertoff. Of course your company wasn't going to win the contract.

    3. Re:yup by forkfail · · Score: 1

      Being able to ship 100,000 quasi-functional at best units: 10 points

      Having lots of buzzwords: 15 points

      Having a device that claims to work like a Total Recall Scanner: 25 points

      Coming in behind the competition in actual usability: -30 points

      Hiring Michael Chertoff: priceless.

      For some things, effort and merit will get you there. For everything else, there's bribery and corruption.

      --
      Check your premises.
  24. The Theater of the Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On display 24/7/365-6 @HomelandSecurity and @WhiteHouse.

    Clowns, dancing donkeys, side-show freaks abound.

    1. Re:The Theater of the Absurd by forkfail · · Score: 1

      No stars - horrible show. I want my money back.

      --
      Check your premises.
  25. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we're going to have to be scanned twice (scan, turn 90 degrees, scan)... Thanks a lot jerkwad!

  26. They're helpless against fat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My very large brother in law told me and my wife that he could sneak anything we wanted on an airplane that didn't have an odor (i.e. no weed). So we gave him a bottle of xanax that he then proceded to stick in the crevice of where his gut folded down to near his genitals and sure enough he went on through the body scanner and they said nothing.

    Moral of the story: If you're flying back home and have a layover in the US bring a fat friend to help smuggle your shit

    1. Re:They're helpless against fat by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want it back after it's spent 8 hours soaking up your brother in law's flap-sweat.

  27. TSA is an expense account scam by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The inquisition (yes, that one) was an expense account scam. Since the accused was required to pay for their own inquisition, the system simply padded the expenses to the limit of the available money.

    The TSA is the same thing. People wail and moan about how stupid/intrusive/incompetent/useless they are, and miss the larger picture.

    The TSA sends money to corporations, and the corporations grease the political wheels.

    There's no rocket science, no ulterior motive, nothing else to consider. Like the inquisition, the TSA doesn't need to justify expenditures with usefulness or effectiveness. The more they spend, the more they get to spend. Cause and effect.

    Why do you think they spend billions on technology, but pay only slightly above the minimum wage and spend so little on training?

    People keep grousing about the TSA as if that will make a difference. It won't. They have been generally incompetent from the start, and there's nothing that people can do to unseat them from their position.

    Voting hasn't helped. Contacting representatives hasn't helped. Complaining to the TSA or their employees hasn't helped. Legal action hasn't helped.

    There's one obvious remaining course of action we can take to rein in all the government waste and corruption. Can anyone think of things to try before we take that last drastic step? I'm out of ideas...

    1. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why TSA still treats everyone like Bin Ladin? The master mind who causes TSA to start the whole security screening system has died. Maybe it's time to rethink the process of airport/ airline security.

    2. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's one obvious remaining course of action we can take to rein in all the government waste and corruption. Can anyone think of things to try before we take that last drastic step? I'm out of ideas...

      Yes, but you're not going to like it. It involves people like you banding together to run for office, then passing laws banning all non-medical use of X-ray or millimeter wave imaging within the bounds of your community or state. If every state did this, the TSA and the companies it supports would eventually wither and die on the vine. Even if they started overturning the laws in the supreme court, after about the twentieth state passed such a law, they'd have their hands full in court for decades—a big enough money sink that it just might be enough to extricate their crania from their recta.

      Remember: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Soap hasn't worked. Jury hasn't worked. Yet we as a society seem to have skipped over the most important one on our way to the fourth. Never forget the second.

      --

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

    3. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Voting hasn't helped. Contacting representatives hasn't helped.

      Convince other people to agree with you. How many people do you know that voted based on TSA scanners? I know exactly zero. Most people probably don't even know about that corruption (and their eyes will probably glaze over if you start to tell them).

      If you want to change the world, you have to convince other people to help you; this is true even to win a violent revolution.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA, Halliburton and others have made a shitload of cash off the Bin Laden brand before they got rid of Bin Laden himself. The brand will live on as long as people are afraid. Unfortunately mainstream media is also making money off the brand and enough people accept mainstream media as gospel so the brand lives on in perpetuity. Where and how can you break that cycle is perhaps the question.

    5. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      OK, here's your challenge: changing public opinion. Let's look at some survey results from that link:

      "A Gallup poll given just after the 2009 Christmas Day bombing attempt suggested that 78% of American airline travelers approved of body scanners while 20% disapproved"
      "An ABC/Washington Post poll conducted by Langer Associates and released November 22, 2010 found that 64 percent of Americans favored the full-body x-ray scanners, but that 50 percent think the "enhanced" pat-downs go too far"
      "According to a CBS telephone poll of 1,137 people published on November 15, 81% (+/- 5%) percent of those polled approved TSA's use of full-body scans."

      Now, if you're a politician, are you going to make a big issue about these scanners? Politicians may be corrupt, but they are not idiots. They see numbers like, "81% approve" and say, "ok, I'm not going to oppose that, except maybe to make a special exemption for myself." On the other hand, if you can change that percentage to be, "81% disapprove," then you'll have politicians bending over backwards, telling the world how they were the first ones to oppose the new scanners.

      That is your goal. Convince the sheeple to oppose by 81%, and the rest will happen automatically. The kid in this article may have made a good first step towards that goal.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Outside of Podunk, New Hicksixo, political candidates are corporate representatives. They pick both puppets and don't really care which one wins.

      If you can think of a way that an independent candidate can get access to an electorate without corporate funding and free media promotion, I'd like to hear it.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by Jstlook · · Score: 1
      What bothers me most about those polls is that they query the average American. Does the average American fly on a regular basis? Sure, some 2 million people fly every day, but is that significant? Even if we assume 1) that the average person only takes two flights a year (there and back), and 2) that everyone who flies domestically is American, we get 356 million people flying in America each year. That's roughly the amount of people here, right?

      What happens when we assume that the average airline customer flies ten times a year (one way)? We get a fifth of Americans who have any reason to care, and four fifths of Americans who might see some benefit to stopping some "terrorist".

      Then again, what happens if we add the 1% of travelers who travel round trip weekly? We're down to maybe 7 million Americans who fly with any regularity and have reason to care. That's what, 2% of the population that travel regularly?

      Quick googling shows I could be pretty close on my calculation, but I don't see any direct comparison that illustrates what percentage of Americans use our airline travel services either yearly or in their lifetime. The closest information I found was this:

      You have to look carefully at your search keywords-airlines get paid per trip, and so brag about how many trips where you are looking for customer base, a very secret number : )
      Look at the question sideways. Who would like to know the number of people flying? Well, the government, esp. the FBI ("Homeland" Security) and, oddly enough, the CDC (Center of Disease Control).
      Eventually found this, but no guaranty on the attribution ; )
      From ABC news, "More than 85% of the American public flies infrequently if at all. More than seven in 10 can be described as infrequent fliers, flying once or twice a year or less; and 14 percent have never flown. Another 14 percent fly at least once every few months."

      So really, what I see is that an alarming amount of Americans (notably more than the client base of airlines) are against these scanners. I also don't see any current information about these statistics in the past two years, especially since the radiation issues have come to light.

      --
      ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
    8. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Can anyone think of things to try before we take that last drastic step? I'm out of ideas..."
      I can think of one. http://garyjohnson2012.com.

    9. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice ideal, but when's the last time a major public office was won by someone not from a purely political background with all the right "friends"? Please provide a citation.

      I think what the parent was getting at was the lamb's solution to the wolves rigging the vote.

    10. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's something missing from your prescription: Ensuring that the new laws that get passed actually get enforced.

      That is unfortunately not a minor issue. For instance, Massey Coal has routinely violated laws on mine safety for decades, and donated heavily to the campaigns of the state prosecutors and judges to prevent those laws from ever being enforced - it took the bad press of the Upper Big Branch deaths to put the CEO (who had specifically told his subordinates to break the law) on trial. Similarly, Goldman Sachs probably (although they've never admitted it in court, they're willing to settle the case) committed fraud worth billions, and is going to be let off with paying a fine that's a fraction of the revenue they received for the fraud. And Dick Cheney told the world he committed war crimes (specifically, he ordered torture of prisoners, using the definitions of torture the US used after WW II) on national television, and is still free.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    11. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Voting hasn't helped. Contacting representatives hasn't helped.

      You are an example of the problem. There have only been five Congressional elections and two Presidential elections since the TSA was established. In the first two Congressional elections and the first Presidential election, reining in/getting rid of the TSA was not even one of the issues on the table. Even in the last Congessional election and in the OWS protests, the TSA has not been a significant part of the issues people were concerned about. If you want to fix this, you need to make people aware of the problems with it and campaign to get it eliminated. It takes years to generate the sentiment and interest to make this kind of change. You need to get the airlines and the tourist industries on board by convincing them that the TSA is discouraging people from traveling. There may be other industries that have a vested interest in getting rid of the TSA, you need to indentify what they are and harness that to oppose those who have a vested interest in maintaining the TSA. But all of this takes time and more effort than posting on slashdot.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    12. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      You don't need to run an independent candidate. It is not that hard to take over the local political party machine...it just takes time, effort and committment.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    13. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tried the ballot box. Different asshole got elected and he supported the crap as well.

    14. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What bothers me most about those polls is that they query the average American. Does the average American fly on a regular basis?

      What matters to politicians is who votes, not who flies.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you're not going to like it. It involves people like you banding together to run for office, then passing laws banning all non-medical use of X-ray or millimeter wave imaging within the bounds of your community or state.

      You mean it's not sitting on the ground, in a public park, for days or weeks on end holding a sign, whining and complaining?

      I'm shocked... shocked I say!

    16. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They DID try the second. And the vote succeeded. Some new guy was parading about saying he'd bring about hope and change. Get rid of all the wars, the corruption, and have a transparent, 'for the people' government again. And it worked. He was voted in directly because of these promises.

      Yeah, how'd that work out again?

      Never forget that the second has been tried and has failed.

    17. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      The 'ammo box' option won't work, because it doesn't address the underlying problem. It will just replace one group of kleptocrats with another, more violent group which will almost immediately start abusing their power.

    18. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was voted in directly because of these promises.

      You knew he was a Harvard educated lawyer and a Chicago politician. He had two stikes against him and you believed him anyway?

    19. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I didn't believe most of Obama' rhetoric even during the election season. I voted for him because he seemed equivalent to or marginally better than the alternative, and his running mate was markedly better than the alternative. Both candidates were career politicians, though, so it was clear from the very beginning that neither candidate could realistically provide a significant change from the status quo.

      The same goes for all of the Republican challengers this round. The only one who is even remotely on the right side of this issue is Ron Paul, and he's so far off on everything else that I couldn't possibly vote for him. Chertoff is apparently one of Romney's campaign advisors, and Santorum advocates illegal racial and ethnic profiling.

      Like I said, the ballot box hasn't been tried because we haven't had any real alternatives. Be the alternative.

      --

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

    20. Re:TSA is an expense account scam by mprindle · · Score: 1

      The state of Texas tried to do something like this away back. They were going to pass a law that made it a crime to do patdowns that involved touching sensitive areas of people. The TSA threatened to shut down all air traffic in and out of Texas airports if the law was passed. The guy who introduced the bill backed down from the TSA.

      http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2011/05/patricks-intrusive-touching-bill-junked/

  28. If I were the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would get a better background.

  29. A simple scheme really, a couple quick steps.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Step 1-Wait for a 'disaster' of some kind that can instill fear enough in the people to stop paying attention to the public and private sector!
    Step 2-Media hype campaign to magnify the fear and grossly overestimate threat, create demand for new security solution.
    Step 3-No-bid contract on supposed solution, iterate if really necessary, but just keep milking it.
    Step 4-Profit!

  30. Re:Frost Piss by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm not sure flying solo counts.

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  31. Win-Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should've just used the good 'ol magenta background. Of course, they would sometime have to replace employee because of burnt-out eyes, but hey, that'll create a constant flow of new job!

    Win-Win!

  32. What's your control here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Interesting experiment, but how have you controlled for other problems with TSA.... maybe they just AREN'T LOOKING? It could be the technology is fine...

  33. Security theatre by quarkoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems obvious to me that the TSA knew the machines didn't work effectively, but that this didn't matter to them. Airport security isn't about making the skies safer, it's about scaring (some would even say terrorising) the public in order to give the government more power and control. In his video he even says that there was no threat with the old metal detectors...

    There are so many ways one could commit an act of terrorism at an airport without getting on a plane if one were so inclined (I'm not, by the way!) and every time I fly I see more. The full body scanners do nothing to increase a person's safety.

    Let's face it - the terrorists have won. The public are terrified. Sadly it's their own governments which have done the terrorising.

    1. Re:Security theatre by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are so many ways one could commit an act of terrorism at an airport without getting on a plane if one were so inclined (I'm not, by the way!) and every time I fly I see more.

      The fact that you and others here feel the need to add disclaimers like "(I'm not, by the way!)" says a lot about the oppressiveness of the current regime. People are constantly aware that their comments may be monitored and there may be implications to speaking the truth.

      I think I've heard this story before somewhere...

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  34. Re:brother printers support by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 1

    wrong thread ...

    this should be posted here, since Mr Torvalds is the one having printing problems ....

  35. Re:Frost Piss by Arancaytar · · Score: 1, Funny

    overpriced masturbatory aids

    Plus, I'm sure there are others that don't require a concealed carry permit.

  36. None of these machine "detectors" work by DSS11Q13 · · Score: 2

    I've snuck everything from pepper spray (accidentally), to a live deadly scorpion (on purpose) onto a plane, even with all this new security. All the scanners just make it inconvenient to conceal stuff, not impossible, or even that difficult really. Now what is effective are the interviews by personnel trained to detect unusual behavior, I'd feel much safer if we had more of those and fewer see you naked machines.

    1. Re:None of these machine "detectors" work by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I've snuck everything from pepper spray (accidentally), to a live deadly scorpion (on purpose) onto a plane, even with all this new security.

      I'm sure there was a film about that. Oh it was snakes. Carry on.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  37. Not only ineffective, but not proven safe by cbope · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm glad the EU has declared backscatter X-ray scanners to be illegal to use in European airports. I work in a radiation industry and know a considerable amount about X-ray physics and medical imaging, and these scanners should never have been taken into use for public screening.

    I love going through the US airports and requesting a manual search when they try to put me through the backscatter machines. They always make a big drama over it, but I explain that I work in a radiation industry and I will not subject myself to additional radiation given a choice. Backscatter machines fall into this category, and so far I have not been through a single one. If they try to force me to go through one or not pass the security checkpoint, I will take it all the way to the top if needed. I will not tolerate being scanned by a backscatter machine, nor should anyone else. It's not been proven safe for human use or effective at increasing security.

    And let's not even get started about the fact that the TSA have been caught multiple times storing images from the backscatter and millimeter wave machines, when they say publicly that the images are not saved. There is a reason why they earned the nickname, pr0n scanner. There is no valid reason to save the images after you pass screening, unless they are simply playing the CYA game. This should not be allowed.

    Note, the backscatter machines are far different than the millimeter wave scanners used in some airports. Millimeter wave is known to be safe. Backscatter is NOT and should never be used on the public.

    1. Re:Not only ineffective, but not proven safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you distinguish millimeter wave scanners from backscatter machines on the airports?

    2. Re:Not only ineffective, but not proven safe by Caradoc · · Score: 3, Informative

      A millimeter-wave scanner looks like an oversized phone booth with either windows or large open spaces, while a backscatter scanner looks like a pair of large boxes that one walks between, turns to face one wall and assumes the "surrender" position.

      --
      Specialization is for insects. - R.A.H.
    3. Re:Not only ineffective, but not proven safe by mzs · · Score: 1

      Maybe someone can answer this for me. The back scatter machines work based on compton scattering. I know little about physics, but what I intuitively understand is that the photon comes along, knocks an electron away, and a photon goes off at a different angle. The whole electron knocking off bugs me since that means it's ionizing radiation. Also the wavelength changes of that back scattered x-ray, gets longer the bigger the angle of deflection. So there I was in the airport the first time after these things got introduced and knowing that little bit I did. I'm waiting in line and hundreds of the scans happened right in front of me from a handful of machines. Maybe I was at the front row nearest to the machine when forty scans happened from them. So wouldn't the back scattered x-rays hit me? Would it be very little? Would the ones that did be at a sufficient deflection angle that it was no longer ioniozing? (That bit I doubt, in the line I was with the machines all about there were all sorts of angles from many.) Anyone know any info about that where my concern about exposure waiting in line is addressed? Everything I have read addresses it from the point of view that while you are being scanned once you get little exposure only.

    4. Re:Not only ineffective, but not proven safe by radtea · · Score: 1

      I work in a radiation industry and know a considerable amount about X-ray physics and medical imaging, and these scanners should never have been taken into use for public screening.

      I'm a physicist who has worked in radiation transport, and couldn't agree more.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    5. Re:Not only ineffective, but not proven safe by mzs · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could answer the question I posed here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2711231&cid=39276341

      Basically I am wondering about the change in angle of the x-rays that are not captured when others are waiting in line. Has the wavelength change made them non-ionizing? Are the angles such that they do not hit the people waiting in line at security? I have not seen this discussed anywhere, I wonder if there is some simple explanation to why it's not a concern.

  38. Not an issue with scanner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this really an issue with the scanner. Surely you just make 2 scans, one front-back and one on the side?
    Ok security checks will take longer and pat downs would probably be shorter technique, not to mention any health issues with 2 scans if there is any.

  39. Obviously didn't detect OPs cajones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You went intentionally through security with a metal object on you in this day and age? Are you in Guantanamo yet?

  40. Nothing new... by dsvilko · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90f9Qm60tU8

  41. TSA safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I needed a firearm on an airplane, I would probably use the 33 gram CO2 cartridges from the life vest conveniently located under my seat. Put it in a fitting pipe, and all you need is a crude firing device to pierce the seal - blunt force will do.

    The TSA lines are there for your illusion of safety. Your real safety lies in the fact that it is rather unusual for people to conspire to kill a plane full of people, themselves included.

    1. Re:TSA safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And then what McGyver? Shoot a BB at someone and maybe make a slight bruise?

  42. An alternative by shiftless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe the government could stop aiding the enemy by being stupid.

    1. Re:An alternative by udoschuermann · · Score: 0

      Being stupid is not a choice, at least not for the TSA; just look at their middle initial.

      --
      --Udo.
    2. Re:An alternative by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      +(over nine thousand)

      (it's not impossible)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:An alternative by daem0n1x · · Score: 0

      Too Stupid Authority?

    4. Re:An alternative by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Oh I dont know. Dumb luck seems to be all that's on their side.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    5. Re:An alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, more simply, maybe the government could stop being the enemy.

    6. Re:An alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They weren't stupid - It's mission success. Security Theatre in place ie oh noes the boggie man's still out there for the sheep and the wolves have pocketed a shed load of cash.

  43. Re:Lexmark Printers Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm really glad I read through this story til the end. Now I know where to get support for my Lexmark printer.

    NOT!

  44. Translation by shiftless · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's more understandable if you read it like it's a broken up radio transmission from Metro 2033. With a Russian accent of course.

    the "enemy" is much smarter than 10000 bureaucrats [GARBLED] being sold by a used car salesman ... [UNINTELLIGIBLE] ... after all this decades enemy has sustained life for thousands of years in an environment most of our citizens would die in, in a matter of hours...[CRACKLE] they do have some tricks "up their sleeve"

  45. Easy fix by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Great, now we'll get a bigger dose of "safe" radiation as they take side pictures as well.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  46. Now turn to the side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just scan the person from the sides as well as the front and back and that should show up any hidden side pockets.

    What do the TSA care about an extra few seconds per passenger?

  47. Hunter S. Thompson took his own life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read somewhere that he shared me own diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder. That's a bad diagnosis if You Are The NRA.

    I have an Idaho state gun safety card and my father was a Naval officer so I know how to handle a gun with complete safety. but I don't go near the things not because I would fail the background check but because I know very well that the day would be bound to come when I start shooting at my own hallucinations.

    I have a close friend who is licensed for concealed carry because her clients are suchnwarm fuzzy people. She takes all the same medicines I do yet is completely unaware that she is severely in the grip of paranoid schizophrenia.

    I hallucinate on a regular basis but for reason I have been struggling to figure out for decades I always can readily distinguish between what I really see and what my mind makes me experience as seeing. note that that does not make the hallucinations go away, it just enables me to sanitize my input.

    But rather frightening to me is that a whole bunch of times my friend gas pointed out her hallucinations to me then either gone chasing after them or fled from them.

    The federal gun background check is completely cool with batshit crazy people purchasing all manner of powerful firearms. bur perfectly sane people check into psychiatric inpatient units for reasons that are completely resolved upon their discharge. At that point they are not permitted to possess firearms for the next five years. Not only may they not purchase any they must surrender any guns already in their possession.

    I've been struggling desperately to clue my friend into the fact that she is paranoid and that she hallucinates. Even more frustrating than the drug addict's denial is that she readily agrees and in fact can discuss her madness quite insightfully, yet she remains unaware if what her medicines are prescribed for. Once we stop actively discussing her paranoia she becomes completely enmeshed in it again.

    1. Re:Hunter S. Thompson took his own life by udoschuermann · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you are sane (even if plagued by hallucinations), but your friend is not so lucky. My ex-wife has problems, too, recognizing when her objective and subjective realities are diverging, and then blames the entire world for turning on her. What's more, she refuses to accept that she has any problem whatsoever, and will therefore not address it. She takes no medication.

      That said, the question is whether your friend is essentially functional, or whether her paranoia interferes with her life and could cause harm to her or to others around her. It may be heart-breaking to see her struggling, and frustrating to see no result from your attempts to help, but if the extent of her issue is "crazy but harmless" then that is something to be thankful for, at least. If the results of her paranoia are more serious than that, then more help from professionals may be called for.

      As to the issue of "batshit crazy people" being able to purchase guns, that simply comes down to this: An undeniable record of some sort of psychiatric issue makes for a safe and simple reason to deny the purchase ("there's the record, and here's the check box, any questions?"), but a judgment call made by someone who is not professionally qualified to evaluate psychiatric fitness, that's opening a big can of worms.

      In any case, good luck to you and good luck to your friend, as well. I hope that reason will prevail for her.

      --
      --Udo.
    2. Re:Hunter S. Thompson took his own life by AaronLS · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you have considered what the risk of owning a gun is. I'm not implying no one should own a gun. I'm not advocating for gun restrictions here or anything like that. I just think many gun owners who claim to be very careful with guns and say they aren't dangerous at all if used properly, are really severely underestimating murphy's law. You have to acknowledge that no matter how careful you are, there is a level of accepted risk. Depending on the carelessness of the individual, that level of risk varies. I've personally known about half a dozen people who've accidentally shot themselves or someone else.

      There are cases where people who are gun safety instructors, accidentally shooting themselves during a class. The thing about guns is that people sometimes screw up, for a variety of reasons. Mistakes usually aren't a big deal, but when you make a mistake with a gun, it can be a huge deal.

      Things go wrong. When things go wrong and you have a loaded gun involved, they can go wrong in a big way.

    3. Re:Hunter S. Thompson took his own life by Vastad · · Score: 1

      I'm going to invalidate my mod points but screw it, this is too fascinating to reply to.

      What you just described is exactly what Philip K Dick was fascinated by and put into his writing with regards whether or not any of us really know, really know, when we are "sane" and when we are not.

    4. Re:Hunter S. Thompson took his own life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a similar experience; I readily hallucinate, the most typical two being "demon faces" on people (usually people very close to me) and a feeling that the empty space in the room I'm in is "too big" - like the eye slides off the actual objects and focuses on all the empty space in a room. I end up feeling like every room is a TARDIS lol

      When I was very young this would freak me out to no end. Now that I'm 34, its been going on long enough that I recognize when its happening and try to minimize its effect. I know, logically, that my wife isn't really a snarling beast, but it doesn't stop me from feeling that way, I just know to watch myself and if I start feeling defensive or withdrawing, to just go with it and remove myself from the situation for a few minutes to give my brain chemistry a chance to stabilize.

      For anyone who wants to know what it feels like... I once read a sci-fi novel where the occupants of a FTL craft don't register anything when in FTL flight when they look outside... maybe that was the known universe of Niven... anyways, I very much sympathised with the way he described the inhabitants feeling when they climbed into their "all windows" transparent ship... yeap, it was definitely Niven... maybe one of the RingWorld novels...

  48. I wish we could fix the TSA... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    But it has to die. I never liked it... I don't think anyone ever did but it would be nice if there were some magic solution that would fix all it's problems and make it actually useful. If there were such a solution... I'd go for it.

    But there isn't... it needs to be taken out back and shot. We can have a cry about that later if we want, bury it with some dignity, and move one with our lives. It's a rabid dog... it's too bad... but that's all there is to it.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  49. "We Have The Dual Weapon." -- Saddam Hussein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not long before the first Gulf War the US announced that it had developed a nerve agent that could be manufactured, handled and stored with complete safety because it would be mixed from two completely nontoxic chemicals in the delivery device on the way to the recipient.

    The above quote was thought to be Saddam claiming he had that nerve agent too but now we know he was all hat and no cattle.

    Note that the US still maintains large stockpiles of chemical warfare agents. We have not pledged to use them, only not to be the first to use them.

    However one requires a whole lot less than three ounces of liquid to kill everyone on on airplane.

    Three ounces of pure LSD would send the entire Island of Manhattan into orbit for a solid week, provided you had some way to evenly distribute it. That part is known as "Weaponization". I can think of lots of ways to weaponize LSD but maybe I'll leave that as an exercise for the gentle reader.

    I dontbrecall it's name butbduring the sixties the united states developed a completely nontoxic chemical that is hallucinogenic like LSD is, but whereas you can enjoy an acid trip this stuff causes the very worst kind if paranoia.

    Just spray a fine mist of it at the right height and location over an enemy emplacement and a little while later they will all open fire on each other.

    Worst of all is what kuro5hin's tdillo told me he was trained to survive with hazmat gear in the navy. it's just like nerve gas in that but a tiny droplet will kill you if it touches your skin, but it works just like Ebola in that you bleed to death from every orifice in your entire body.

    My guess is that some brave organic chemist isolated thebtoxin that enables Ebola to work it's special magic.

    Finally it is completely legal to purchase and possess small quantities of Plutonium. I used a fucking gram of the shit for the Neutron Activation of Silver experiment when I studied physics at Caltech.

    Again the problem is weaponization but fibs much as a microgram of Plutonium comes into contact with any part of your body you will eventually die of incredibly agonizing bone cancer, because Plutonium binds tightly to bone tissue with it's alpha particles being completely absorbed by very small thicknesses of any material, even a puce if paper. if you have Pu in your bones that means a small spit in your bones will be bathed for years on end by ionizing radiation.

    1. Re:"We Have The Dual Weapon." -- Saddam Hussein by khr · · Score: 1

      Three ounces of pure LSD would send the entire Island of Manhattan into orbit for a solid week

      I just moved to Manhattan last week. I hope they don't test this until after I get my stereo hooked up so I can play nice, psychedelic music and enjoy the trip...

  50. Stop Flying On Airplains! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is an Amtrack train that goes all the way from Vancouver, British Columbia to Los Angeles. I took it once from Seattle to Vancouver, Washington.

    My one way ticket was fifty bucks, my seat was wide and a lot more comfortable than airplane seats, I could stretch out my legs and had no particular limit on luggage.

    While a sign in the station said passengers warper subject to search I did not pass through any kind of security nor did I show anyone my ID. If I recall correctly I did not even show my ticket to the conductor until after the train was moving.

    At one time you could get anywhere in America on Greyhound but long haul busses were almostvwiped out by thevairlines. How aboutbriding Greyhound and leaving the driving to us?

    If you don't own a car but need to travel quite likely a rental care and gas is a lot cheaper than a plane ticket.

    Train tickets, bus tickets and car rentals are fixed in or ice and require no reservations.

    I need to travel one way from Vancouver to San Jose soon so I can get some stuff out if storage then bring it here in a U-Haul truck. Last time I checked two weeks advance notice to fly was over two hundred. I would rather chew my own foitboff than go through the incredibly overcrowded security at PDX. But Amtrak from Portland to Oakland is $140.00 and I can purchase my ticket right up until the train departs. From Oakland I take Bay Area Rapid Transit to Milbrae on the Pensula, the wonderful, comfortable nonbayshirparanoid CalTrain to Mountain View, then light rail to downtown San zjose. From there I can walk to this Tacqueria that rents U-Hauls on the side.

    If you don't want to drive a long ways advertise on craigslist for a travel partner to split the expenses, the driving and to meet a new friend who you will enjoy getting to know during your travels.

    Whenever a transportation infrastructure bond is on your ball it, vote for it. America once had wonderful public transportation but Detroit and the airlines have almost totally decimated it. Most important if all is to fund new bridges, as well as to fund the maintenance of ok'd ones.

    After the interstate highway bridge between Minneapolis and st paul collapsed, killing a dozen or so people in the most incredibly cruel way and causing lasting harm to the local economy, a call went out for the oublic to turn in any photos they had ever taken of that bridge.

    HiRez scans showed that many of the rivets heads on that bridge had been stretched so far our of place as long as five years before the tragedy that you could readily discern the impending failure in a casual snapshot.

    I discussed thisvwith my Professional Engineer friend who specializes in highway overpasses as well as earning lots ogpf money on the side as abpn expert witness when structures designed by his colleagues get someone killed. He also did a lot of work on the repair of the Oakland Bay Bridge after the 1989 Loma Prieta Quake.

    Tom told me those rivet heads in the photos could not possibly have been visibly stretched because every bridge in the land is inspected every two years. I don't doubt that but my counterarguments were trapped in their cars when they drowned in the river.

    Inspected, sure. but how thoroughly? We already know that America has ten thousand bridges in desperate need of repair. How many bridges need repair thatvwe don't know about?

    A debate has been raging for many years over the funding, placement and design of the proposed Columbia River Crossing that will replace the current Interstate 5 bridge. It is so narrow that a traffic jam ten solid miles long occurs every afternoon for three or four hours.

    The locals are damn near ready to start shooting at local politicians because they insist it mystery be funded by bridge tolls. None of the existing bridges have tolls.

    I readily agree that thosevwhonsuffer benefit from the bridge should pay for it but do not agree that those who would benefit most are those who would drive across it.

    1. Re:Stop Flying On Airplains! by vbraga · · Score: 1

      If you don't own a car but need to travel quite likely a rental care and gas is a lot cheaper than a plane ticket.

      Is that true in the US? Where I live rental+gas would be way more expensive than an airline ticket (even for regional flights).

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    2. Re:Stop Flying On Airplains! by butchersong · · Score: 1

      I would love a decent train system but Amtrack in my opinion doesn't really deliver. I know the Obama admin was looking at a high speed rail system for the US for the original stimulus.. I'm a republican and even I would have supported this but they were told that due to regulation nightmares it could never be completed in any kind of reasonable timeframe. Reportedly Obama was stunned that even as Pres he couldn't get around all the red tape. What confuses me is that rather than attacking that regulation nightmare that obviously is hindering innovation in this country he just said 'oh well' and shoveled a bunch of money around then pretended to be surprised that few of the tiny 'shovel ready' projects every materialized.

  51. Boom-Chucka by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Wasn't this maybe a plot of corrupt government people colluding with naked body scanners?

    Sounds kinda hot.

  52. Hmmmm.... by Dr_Terminus · · Score: 1

    So if citizens are depicted in light colors, what colors are non-citizens depicted in?

  53. My Question To Your Answer: ZERO Guns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Riddle Me This, Batman:

    Guns were forbidden on airplanes and security screening was instated in the early 1970s in response to a whole bunch of hijackings in which passengers were taken hostage, but I cannot recall anyone at all being killed. That includes that crazy skydiver who made odd with the loot over the heavily forested Oacufic Northwest because he was privy to the uncommon knowledge that the rear doorbof the 727 could be safely opened during flight, leading to speculation that he was an intelligence agent in Vietnam.. I don't think the US has publicly admitted to it but it is speculated that spies parachuted into the Vietnamese jungle from civilian 727s.

    I have many happy memories of walking freely through uncrwded airports nit only without passing through security but also with anyone presenting identification. St one time one was not expected to. What's more, airline tickets could be freely transferred to others.

    When guns wre banned on airplanes there was a great deal of soul-searching over our Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. In the end what was considredban acceptable compromise was to ban guns but to permit knives.

    One of my happiest memories is of my meeting of the girl I loved in Geneva coming to visit me in California. She presented me with the wonderful gift of a Swiss Army Knife the very instant I greeted her in the Lis Angeles Airport. She had carried it in her pocket all thevway from geneVa Airport. That would set off a metal detector so I expect she put it in one of those plastic bowls you use to run your keysband coins through the X-Ray.

    The 9/11 terrorists had no guns at all. Each was armed only with a box cutter, also known as a razor knife. Grocery store stock clerks use them to quickly sluice open cases of canned goods when restocjpking the store shelves each night.

    Those box cutters were perfectly legal to carry on an airplane right up until 9/11. They become dull quite quickly so the bluffs are designed to be quick and cheap to replace. ztheyre just as sharp as the razors we shavebwith but are of more robust construction. a pack of five will set you back about eight bits at any hardware store.

    I generally leave my belt on when I go through security as only my keys evervset off the metal detector. My belt buckle easily has twenty times as much steel as one of those box cutter razors, yet my belt buckle never ever sets off the alarm.

    1. Re:My Question To Your Answer: ZERO Guns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your modem connection sucks.

  54. Example Fail by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Korea? The only reason action was taken in Korea was that the Soviets boycotted the session in question, avoiding a Security Council veto. The UNC structure and DMZ are still there, 60 years on. All of the allied nations have fled except the US. There's a rousing success story.

    South Korea has about 49 million people living in it. Depending on how you count it, they have the 12th or 15th highest GDP in the world . I think 49 million people would argue that it is a rousing success story. Moron. However, I do agree with your general point that the UN is mostly a legacy of failure, but your cited example of South Korea is a big time fail.

    1. Re:Example Fail by rickett81 · · Score: 1
      I think the parent's point was not that it was a massive fail, but that Korea is the best "success." If the best successful story is one of 60 years with no signed peace treaty (only a ceasefire), a constant threat of war, and the most militarized border in the world . . .

      That sounds like a massive failure with one partial success.

    2. Re:Example Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was and it is not the UN that is protecting the 38th parallel. It is the South Korean in blue helmets, backed by US money and arms.

      The UN could leave any day and no one would notice.

      If the US ceased their support, we'd have the South drowning in a rain of shells two hours later.

  55. Hey, Transformers made the list by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    Perhaps more relevant, I'm not certain that there is any meaningful distinction between box cutters and pocket utility knives with blades under 4 inches.

    And I'm not certain of the reason for banning "numchucks" but allowing pool cues.

    1. Re:Hey, Transformers made the list by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      because "nunchucks" are illegal OUTSIDE airports as well unless you have a special license for them.

  56. Frequent Flyer by rullywowr · · Score: 1

    When you fly as much as I do, you see these things on a regular basis. I "opt out" of the scanner machines every time. There is very little credible evidence that these machines are NOT harmful, and even if they were - do you think the TSA and our Government would ever admit that? Its all a crock.

    I am continually surprised by how many people do not know that they can opt out.

  57. I did this for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was a traveling consultant, and I usually needed to bring my own tools (box cutter, screw drivers, pliers, tie wraps, etc.)

    I didn't need a lot of them, so I would pack them in my carry-on briefcase. I was never once stopped over a 2 year period, going to most of the major and a lot of minor airports around the US, and even some in Canada.

    I did notice that a lot of 'supervisors' were asked to take a second look at my carry-on, but they would look at me and say "He's OK".

    Guess they should just have a second line that bypasses security for white people that are dressed business or business casual.

  58. Try Out My Refreshing Sports Drink Recipe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was good friends with Red Hat CTO Michael Tiemann's brother Bruce in Caltech's Ricketts House. Bruce, Bob Mackey and John Fourkasvwere caught by the Institute replenishing their bodily electrolytes in Za Ricjpketts Hiusebdorm room one day. The Institute seized all their groceries, but they got all pissed off and so testily pointed out that as Culinary Arts Majors, they had a legitimate interest in homemade fruit punch.

    The Institute agreed and not only returned all their groceries but set them up with a faculty sponsor, a fume hood, an X-Ray crystallography machine and a research grant. As a result of their research, they determined the molecular strucures of their beverage's key nutrient. While not widely consumed in the Western world, it appeals to the Islamic palate and so is frequently served in crowded bazaars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and I expect played a key role in keeping the rebels hydrated during Arab Spring.

    I expect that it's not as popular as beer ir soda pop is in America because when I was overcome with nostalgia after transferring to UC Santa Cruz, The Porter College security guard, this hippy guy who looked just like John Lennon and had no problem at all with the entire college going completely out of their trees on Indole derivatives on a damn near continuous basis was always intrigued to see what I was up to and always stopped bybfor a friendly chat whenever he was on duty.

    But woe was me I had used up my entire supply of table salt so I left this clelessly naive high school kid by the name of Wayne stirring my cup of fruit punch with a tablespoon while I stepped out to the dining hall for another shaker of salt.

    "What are you doing?" asked my hippy dippy friend.

    "Im making a glass of refreshing sports drink!", wayne.

    Upon my return with the saltshaker I was pleased to discover that Lennon's evil twin readily agreed that Bruce, Boband John's peer-reviewed and published recipe that I turned up in the YCSC Science Library in but ten minutes that fan near every emergency responder on the UCSC Campus had popped by for a sip as well, whereupon I was informed that I had a right to remain silent, that everything I said would and could be used against me in a court of law, that I had a right to an attorney, and that if I could not afford one an attorney would be appointed at no expense to me.

    Later that evening a copy of some legal text was left open to the two pages that concerned the possession of ingredients from which sports drnks may be pre pated, the actual preparation ofbsuch drinks, their preparation as well as their actual consumption. All told my newfound friends were so grateful that if served consecutively, I would be Welkom-provided for by the California taxpayer for a mandatory minimum of twelve years, or if concurrently, but three.

    The Assistant District Attorney made it plainly apparent that my enthusiasm for mixing drinks on my dorm room desk and requested the judge sentence me to but sixty hours device. While the judge was down with this, he required that I be charged with a lesser offense. After some discussion, all agreed that my possession of a fucking gallon of highly concentrated topical antiseptic meant that I could be charged with a misdemeanor thatvwas intended to outlaw the discharge if tearvgas in movie theaters. Oh how I wish I could have lived in Berkeley back I'm the sixties!

    In the end I served my sentence by constructing two large quite visually striking geometric sculptures from dowels, hot glue and acrylic paint then donating them completely free of charge to the county of santa Cruz.

    If you'd like to recharge after heavy exercise yourself, be advised that while Bruce, Bob and John's fruit punch is quite cheap and so easy to fix that any schoolchild could mix it up in a heartbeat, as a result of that unfortunate incident in Manhattan back in the day, the penalties for being caught with a bottle of this mounted on your racing bike are quite likely far more severe than the four California State Felonie

  59. Why don't they take side shots? by JordanArendt · · Score: 1

    Forgive my ignorance, I am not a frequent flier. Why don't they take side shots? Why only front and back? Wouldn't taking side shots rectify the issue?

  60. Re:Frost Piss by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Overpriced? Perhaps.

    Significant fucking figures cheaper than "playing the game" though.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  61. When will short people learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When will short people learn that puffing up their hair doesn't make them taller?

  62. Why not do this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Change the background to.... white?

    Solves two major issues:
    1) metal black objects will immediately be visible
    2) white body on white background and you cannot see the details, less of a privacy issue

  63. You are looking at the wrong images. by pavon · · Score: 1

    Yes, that particular image (whipped up by a rag paper) has been shown to be a fake. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that the images released by the TSA or the manufacturers of the devices are fake. These pictures also have a black background in both the millimeter wave and the x-ray backscatter machines.

  64. More anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not long ago, I flew across the country, departing from one of the busiest airports in the US and arriving without issue. A few days into my trip, I found that while packing I had overlooked a locking, folding pocket knife that was sitting in the side pocket of my carry-on bag. How it was not caught by the x-ray scanners boggles me. The blade is 3.4" long for god's sake - it's not a small knife.

    There's always room for human error on the part of the TSA drones and no method is 100% reliable. However, the simple fact that travelers padding around in their socks are subjected to ionizing radiation, ball-cupping pat-downs, absurd liquids policies and the rest of the bogus obstacle course, while a full size pocket knife skates through the x-rays is infuriating. I'm preaching to the choir here on Slashdot.
    Everybody has their own anecdotes about TSA's misgivings or incompetence and I'm not optimistic that anything is going to change anytime soon.

  65. In Amsterdam by otterpop81 · · Score: 2

    In Amsterdam, where they use the L3 scanner, and have the image shown to the security guy right on the back side of the scanner (where I could see it as well), the metal I had on me (coins I forgot in my pocket), and the papers I had in my shirt pocket showed up as bright yellow, over a white image of the person being scanned, and a black background.

    I opt out everywhere I'm selected for the scanner in the US. This was not possible in Amsterdam. In fact, they weren't even familiar with the concept of opting out. The security woman there said to me, when I asked to opt out, "whataya got a big d*** or something?" (Yes, she seriously said that).

    Last time I opted out in San Francisco (2 weeks ago), I whistled "My Country 'Tis of Thee" during the pat down. No reaction from the patter-downer. My brother did the same in Tennessee and heard one of the TSA guys say to another, "this is turning into a religion...."

    In Salt Lake City, they had one line for the scanner (the others went to metal detectors, and a second body scanner was not in use at all), and I heard the guy say "if you don't want to go through the scanner, go into one of the other lines." I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. Maybe someone can confirm or correct me.

  66. At least I can count on a hot day.. by TheyTookOurJobs · · Score: 1

    Being sweaty standing in the intentionally long line at the Airport(because they only open 1 or 2 xray lines when they have 8 and its Monday morning), I can always count on an additional pat-down because of some sweat on my back or in my hair. But if I carry a knife clipped in my pants I don't even get looked at funny. Now I know why...

  67. why does that scare you? by Chirs · · Score: 1

    Statistically the chances of being killed/injured while flying are extremely low--much safer than driving a car.

    Really, it should make you pissed off at all the wasted money and lost freedom.

    1. Re:why does that scare you? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. Scares probably wasn't the right word. Horrifies is probably the right word. Horrifies me that we have to put up with all the bullshit and get nothing out of it. And scares me that they aren't even looking for the things that they say that they're looking for, which suggests that our air security is probably substantially worse than it was before 9/11.

      As I've said elsewhere, I always assumed that the baggage scanners and the metal detectors were at least moderately useful. I'm forced to conclude that even that assumption might have been naïve, which is a bit scary.

      --

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

  68. Why not take orthogonal scans? by JoeRobe · · Score: 1

    If having the metal object on the "side" of your body results in it not being seen in the standard "front-side" image, then it will show up very clearly if they take a side-on image. All they'd have to do is take the standard front-side image of you (typically only a couple of seconds), then ask you to turn 90 degrees, and take another image (another couple of seconds). This way they could never miss a metal object being "hidden" on your side.

    --
    The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
  69. Stop splitting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the content of your post between the title box and the comment box. It looks like this:

    Stop aiding (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 07, @12:23AM (#39271465)

    the enemy by pointing out stupidity!

    Makes you look like an idiot.

  70. What data does the automated threat detection use? by shippers · · Score: 1

    What is to say the automated threat detection is working with the same image data that is presented to the operator? Perhaps it works with some raw data before the image is generated. Say each pixel is labelled as representing either a non-metal object, a metal object, or background. The last two are both rendered on screen as black, which is a bit silly, but the automated detection could be working with the raw enumerated values. Ok, I'm sure the full system is a lot more complicated, but it does cast doubt over statements suggesting threats would be invisible to the automated detection.

  71. RE: the UN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how many wars of the magnitude of WW1 or WW2 have occurred since? Do you have a concrete proposal, other than starting wars, to do better than the UN? Yes, I agree the UN's failure to act more decisively or quickly is often shameful. I do not accept that it is therefore a failure.

    This is particularly interesting considering that the US goes to some lengthts to ensure that the UN and its instruments are toothless.

  72. I don't get it... by joshd · · Score: 1

    I don't get why they choose to implement this technology at the larger airports, and tell us this will make us "safer".
    If you had any contraband that only these new scanners could detect, why wouldn't you just get a connecting flight from one of the hundreds of smaller airports around the country that do not use these scanners? Doesn't it really have to be all-or-none to actually be "safer"???

  73. Con Job Supreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes this whole "War Of Terror" is as phony as it gets. Hani Hanjour (600 hours in small recreational planes) flying an 80 ton 757 through a maneuver that even pilots like Commander Kolstad (23,000 hours as a pilot & 6,000 of those in 757/767) says he personally would have a hard time doing. Not to mention that Hani was refused a rental of a Cessna 172 (1 prop, 2 seats) a month before 9/11 because "he could not control the aircraft" and "he had trouble keeping the aircraft level".

    LIES, LIES, LIES (I hear a Stones song for some reason).

    It is all phony. The scanners are simple money scams that those making the decisions profit off of.

    The only terrorist organization that we need to fear is the government.

  74. good work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You got your sewing kit through TSA... nice? Drop me a line when you get your hunting knife through, or if you can minimize an explosive/incendiary to proportions that I should care about. In the meantime. Lets toss this story right in to the trash along with all the unnecessarily aggressive verbiage coming out of our media.

  75. Stop covering it in the media?!?! by Apothem · · Score: 1

    Oh god you know what that means! *shares on social media* Problem solved.