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."

62 of 494 comments (clear)

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

    the enemy by pointing out stupidity!

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

      I really want to understand this joke.

    2. 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'

    3. 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
    4. 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!
    5. 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.
  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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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

    5. 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.

    6. 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!!
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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
    11. Re:SSDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And Vonnegut.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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).

    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    17. 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
    18. 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)
    19. 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.

    20. 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.

  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 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??

    4. 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.
    5. 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?

    6. 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
    7. 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.

  4. 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 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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*
  5. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      we all look lumpy *and* bald going through the scanner.

      I achieve /that/ look without any expensive technology...

  6. 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
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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?

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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 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.

    2. 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/
  13. 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.
  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. An alternative by shiftless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe the government could stop aiding the enemy by being stupid.

  18. 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"

  19. 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.
  20. 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.

  21. 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.