Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TSA 'Warning' Media About Reporting On Body Scanner Failures?

Posted by samzenpus on from the if-you-don't-have-anything-good-to-say dept.

OverTheGeicoE writes "When anti-TSA activist Jonathan Corbett exposed a severe weakness in TSA's body scanners, one would expect the story to attract a lot of media attention. Apparently TSA is attempting to stop reporters from covering the story. According to Corbett, at least one reporter has been 'strongly cautioned' by TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz not to cover the story. If TSA is worried that this is new information they need to suppress to keep it away from terrorists, that horse may have left the barn years ago. Corbett's demonstration may just be confirmation of a 2010 paper in the Journal of Transportation Security that 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' to X-ray scanners."

19 of 465 comments (clear)

  1. Warned about what? by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What where the consequences they where threatened with?

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Warned about what? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Guantanimo? Enemy combatants? Declared enemies of the state by the Pres., shot in the head and buried in an unmarked grave?

      Unlikely, yes. But now "legal" under Bush/Obama.

      --
      This space available.
    2. Re:Warned about what? by forkfail · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When a three letter agency cautions you with unspecified malice, even if they can't (yet) drag you out of your house at night, you know they can make your life difficult...

      --
      Check your premises.
    3. Re:Warned about what? by mr100percent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "having you killed" suggestion is overblown, but I'm sure the TSA could realistically add you to No-Fly lists, just because.

    4. Re:Warned about what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Totally by coincidence your tax returns get audited. If you have kids, child protection services shows up at your door with complaints about child abuse. Every time you do a rolling stop a cop is right there to give you a ticket. As a journalist, every time you try to attend a press conference there seems to be no more space left, sorry. Your usual contacts at the police force run out of scoops to feed you. If you try to cover a protest you're one of the first to be arrested. The list goes on... None of which has any relation to the fact that you covered an "unpopular" story, of course.

    5. Re:Warned about what? by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, they cant. But they could recommend to Homeland Security that you be added, and odds are they would just rubber stamp it.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    6. Re:Warned about what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have a weird definition of "they can't".

  2. Easy fix? by casualsax3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aside from just scrapping them entirely, wouldn't this be a non-issue if they just had the traveler rotate 90 degrees and repeated the scan?

    1. Re:Easy fix? by Marillion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh sure. So you're advocating doubling the radiation dosage from a device that more than a few radiation experts are concerned about. Various pilot unions are very concerned about the amount of radiation their members are being exposed to.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    2. Re:Easy fix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if it was working as advertised, was free, didn't inconvenience you at all, wasn't an illegal search, and didn't have health risks... would it actually make you safer?

    3. Re:Easy fix? by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A double dose of cyanide will completely prevent any future terrorists from harming you.

  3. Re:Probably not suppressed for Terrorists. by zlives · · Score: 5, Insightful

    or that we the sheep might object to yet more tax dollars spent on perceived security...

  4. Stupid constitution. by zippo01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Conversation between TSA and reporter. TSA:You really don't want to run that story about the billions wasted on ineffective airport body scanners. On a side note I hear Guantanamo Bay is nice this time of year, me and the wife are thinking of taking a trip. Reporter: Don't I have constitutional rights of free speech and what not. TSA: Don't worry about that. I mean, we ignored them when we put the scanners in anyway, didn't we. Reporter: Oh yeah.

  5. Re:Probably not suppressed for Terrorists. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What terrorists?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  6. Re:the TSA is unconstitutional as heck! by FudRucker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    yes i do, thats why airline security should be privatized and run by the airlines themselves at the expense of the airlines/customers and not the tax payers, the TSA is just another expensive bloated ineffective bureaucracy we all have to pay for

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  7. Osama must be laughing in his grave. by Brad1138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could he have ever imagined the repercussions of his attack. On so many levels, from more government ie: the dept of Home land security, to the ridiculousness of what we have to go through to fly. The whole country (or at least government) running around worrying about terrorists and the incredible expense it incurs. Our image around the world.... It goes on and on. He single-handedly turned the the U.S. into a near bankrupt, joke.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    1. Re:Osama must be laughing in his grave. by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's actually pretty accurate.

      In the 90s of the last century, the US were the big winner of the cold war. The Soviet Union folded and Russia snuggled up with the US. Former East Bloc countries in Europe trampled over each other in the desperate attempt to be the first to get a foot into NATO, China was pretty happy to have a business partner, India was happy to be an outsourcing partner, the Middle East was ok with the US, after all the only country there the US smacked about was the one that didn't want to create an Islamic nation, in general, the only countries that weren't in love with the US were North Korea and Cuba. And, bluntly, who gives half a crap about them? And the rest was pretty swell too, the industry powerhorse of the world, the pinnacle of freedom and opportunity, everyone's darling. For real.

      Now, twenty years later, the US are in a crisis, nationally and internationally. Debt skyrockets because of military expenses, industry struggles and China is laughing their ass off while shipping cheap crap over, internationally the US are seen as the schoolyard bully that everyone only plays nice with because they fear to be the next to get smacked about... The US sure went a long way downhill.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Re:FoxNews is covering the story by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obama is president, which means government is bad. As soon as a Republican is in the White House, government will go back to being good.

    That is, according to Fox.

  9. Re:Probably not suppressed for Terrorists. by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You should watch Fox News from time to time. Been watching the real news shows again, right?

    Please, tune in to the propaganda, you're getting so out of the loop.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.